Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim ranges are broader than permitted by claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP08134299.
The reference exemplifies (#3 table 7) a blend of 50 parts polycarbonate (A) (ie applicant’s “A”) with 50 parts B3. B3 itself (table 6) is 37 parts Ba-1, 37 parts Ba-2 and 26 parts Bb-1. Ba-1 (see table of paragraph 28) is a 75/25 styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer (ie applicant’s preferred “i” see applicant’s claim 4) while Ba-2 is a 75/25 α-methylstyrene/acrylonitrile copolymer (ie applicant’s preferred “ii” see applicant’s claim 4).
Bb-1 (table 5) is a graft of 22.6 parts styrene and 7.4 parts acrylonitrile upon 70 parts polybutadiene which qualifies as applicant’s “B”. The cited example’s composition is therefore:
50 polycarbonate applicant’s “A”
13 ABS applicant’s “B”
18.5 SAN applicant’s “C(i)”
18.5 methylSt/AN applicant’s “C(ii)”
This example contains 37% (ie 18.5 +18.5) of applicant’s (C) rather than the 35% maximum of applicant’s claims.
However, the reference teaches the amount of copolymer(s) (ie applicant’s “(C)”) can vary widely. The abstract indicates the amount of copolymers can be 20-95% of the total copolymer(s) + graft. In other words, the cited example’s 74/26 copolymers/ABS blend can be 20-95/80-5.
It would have been obvious to vary the cited example’s 18.5 SAN, 18.5 methylSt/AN, 13 ABS combination to anywhere within the reference’s broader teachings such as a 17.5 SAN, 17.5 methylSt/AN, 15 ABS combination.
In regards to applicant’ dependent claims:
The polycarbonate (paragraph 39) is Toughlon FN2200A which is inherently a BPA polycarbonate (see paragraph 90 of Tsuneishi 2008/0125527) – meeting applicant’s claim 8.
Claims 9’s properties are assumed to be inherently met as the reference utilizes applicant’s preferred ingredients and suggests all of applicant’s amount limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP08134299 does not anticipate the claims as the amount of copolymers corresponding to applicant’s “(C)” is higher than permitted by applicant’s claim 1.
While this argument is convincing to overcome the anticipatory rejection, the reference suggests much broader amounts of these copolymers. Utilizing 35% of these copolymers instead of the cited example’s amounts of 37% would have been obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 4/27/26
Prosecution Insights