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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when these claim recites “1 to 9.5 parts by weight of carbon black master batch”, because the recitation does not set forth the content of carbon black in the carbon black master batch, thus it is not clear how much carbon black is included in the resin composition as claimed, thus render the scope of the claim is not clearly defined. Claims 2-8 are also rejected for depending from claim 1, thus inclusion of its indefinite features.
Claim 4 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when these claim recites “wherein the carbon black master batch has a particle size of 10 nm to 40 nm and a nitrogen adsorption specific surface area (NSA) of 150 to 250 m2/g.”. It is well-known in the art that a master batch of a colorant is generally in a form of pellet which is prepared by melt-extrusion of a mixture of resins and colorants, thus it is impossible to have pellet size in a nanometer range and extremely high surface area as claimed. In this office action, it is taken that the carbon black particle in the master batch has particle size and surface area as claimed.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami (JP 2019167498, of record, ‘498 hereafter) in view of Monden (US 2011/0207846, ‘846 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-5, ‘498 discloses a resin composition for 3D printing ([0008]) comprising 100 parts by weight of polycarbonate (PC) resin having a viscosity average molecular weight of 14,000 to 30,000 ([0008]-[0027]); a polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.5 to 1.2 dl/g, which inherently has a melting temperature falling within in the range of 215 to 235°C (PBT resin having melting temperature of 220 to 230 °C is well-known in the art, [0048], [0052]-[0055], [0064]); and preferably 15-45 parts by weight of carbon fiber (CF) having diameter 3 to 15 microns ([0039]-[0040]); wherein the content of PBT is preferably 1 to 10 parts per 100 part of PC ([0064]), and carbon fiber is preferably 15 to 45 parts per 100 parts of PC ([0008]), thus render the contents of PC, PBT and carbon fiber satisfying presently claimed ranges (such as Example 4, PC%=100/(100+25+8) =100/133=75.2 wt%, PBT%=8/133=6.0 wt%, CF%=25/133=18.8 wt%, estimated based on total resin composition). ‘498 discloses that the resin composition also contains a carbon black master batch ([0134]), but does not set forth the content of carbon black master batch in a range of 1 to 9.5. However, in the same filed of endeavor, ‘846 discloses a PC resin composition, wherein a master batch of carbon black is used to render the composition having needed black color with a content of carbon black master batch falling within the presently claimed range ([0029]-[0030], [0152]-[0158]), Table 3, G1 and G2, Table 8, Examples 17 and 18). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a carbon black master batch as taught by ‘846, to modify the resin composition of ‘498, in order to render a resin composition having desired black color. ‘846 also discloses that the particle size of the carbon black is 18 nm ([0154[, Table 3, G1 and G20) and a nitrogen adsorption specific surface area (NSA) can be of 50 to 400 m2/g, overlaps presently claimed range as in claim 4.
Regarding claims 6-8, modified ‘498 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘498 discloses the composition also includes other additives such as a lubricant [0097]), an ultraviolet absorber or light stabilizer ([0065]-0090]), an impact modifier ([0109]-[0115]), a matting agent ([0104]), a flame retardant ([0065]) or a mixture thereof; and a filament or pellet for 3D printing ([0123], strands reads upon filaments, [0131]) comprising the composition of any one of claims 1 to 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782