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 § 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 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal 2008/0119596 in view of Murray 2007/0049703.
Agarwal exemplifies (#E6,E9) blends of 34% polycarbonates (ie applicant’s “a”), 25% PCT or PCTG (ie applicant’s “b”), 40% ITR-PC (ie applicant’s “d”) and additives. (See Table 5) This example lacks applicant’s dissipative polymer “c”. Agarwal (paragraph 52) does suggest antistatic agents in amounts typical for polyester-polycarbonate blends.
Murray (experiment 2,3 of table 1) employs 10 and 15% Pelestat NC7530 antistatic resin in polyester-polycarbonate blends. Pelestat NC7530 is applicant’s preferred “c” (see applicant’s table 3A).
It would have been obvious to utilize 10-15% Pelestat NC7530 in Agarwal’s cited example for the expected antistatic benefit.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Agarwal’s polycarbonate can be based on PPPBP (paragraph 33) – meeting applicant’s claim 2.
Agarwal’s polycarbonate can be a polycarbonate-siloxane (paragraph 34) – meeting applicant’s claim 3.
The siloxane content in the polycarbonate-siloxane may be 1-20% (paragraph 75) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
Pelestat NC7530 (paragraph 73) is a polyetheresteramide – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
Given the proposed combination results in applicant’s preferred materials in applicant’s preferred amounts, the properties of applicant’s claims 8-13 would be assumed to result.
Agarwal’s composition is for various articles (paragraph 84) – meeting applicant’s claim 14.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal 2008/0119596 in view of Murray 2007/0049703 in further view of Honigfort 6465102.
Agarwal and Murray apply as explained above.
Agarwal’s transparent PC/polyester composition is for various articles (paragraph 84), but lighting fixtures aren’t specifically named.
Honigfort (eg claim 4) discloses similar transparent PC/polyester compositions. Honigfort lists lighting covers (col 18 line 60) as one many uses for transparent PC/polyester compositions.
It would have been obvious to use Agarwal’s antistatic transparent PC/polyester composition for any common article known to utilize transparent compositions.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 2015/0240074 in view of JP2006117803.
Chen exemplifies (#1) a blend of 35% polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “a”), 20% PBT (ie applicant’s “b”), 25% PC-Si, 10% ITR-PC (ie applicant’s “d”) and 10% additives.
This example lacks applicant’s dissipative polymer “c”. Chen (paragraph 52) does suggest antistatic agents in general.
JP2006117803 (abstract) employs 10% IrgastatP16 antistatic resin in polyester-polycarbonate blends. IrgastatP16 is one of applicant’s preferred “c” (see applicant’s paragraph 40 of spec) and presumably has the required refractive index.
It would have been obvious to utilize 10% IrgastatP16 in Chen’s cited example for the expected antistatic benefit. While it is noted that Chen states in general additives are present at <5%, the “in general” permits some leeway in terms of amounts. Given JP’803 demonstrates 10% as the preferred amount of IrgastatP16, 10% would the obvious amount to be added.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Agarwal’s polycarbonate can be based on PPPBP (paragraph 9) – meeting applicant’s claim 2.
The siloxane content in the PC-Si is 20% (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
IrgastatP16 is a polyetheamide – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
Given the proposed combination results in applicant’s preferred materials in applicant’s preferred amounts, the properties of applicant’s claims 8-13 would be assumed to result.
Chen’s composition is for various articles (paragraph 58) – meeting applicant’s claim 14.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Murray requires that the polyester to polycarbonate ratio must be 1-2 in order for the Pelestat NC7530 to match the refractive index of the polycarbonate/polyester blend.
This is not convincing because this teaching is only for PCCD type polyesters. Other polyesters have different RI values. Secondly, this teaching is not necessarily applicable to compositions that include additional polymer such as Argawal’s ITR-PC. This ITR-PC will change the RI of the ternary matrix to some extent. The key point one of ordinary skill would take away from Murray’s disclosure is that the matrix composition (whether PC + polyester or PC + polyester + 3rd polymer) must have an RI close to that of the antistatic resin’s RI in order to maintain transparency. Applicant’s claims (eg #6) encompass a multitude of polyesters and a wide range of amounts of each component (#1). Apparently it is applicant’s position that all these species of polyester in the wide amounts of applicant’s claim 1 will result in a “a” + “b” + “d” composition that matches Pelestat in terms of RI. If this is not the case, then applicant’s claims are defective.
Arguments that RI matching only applies to binary systems instead of three part systems are unconvincing. Murray’s composition is in fact (at least) a three part system in that polycarbonate, polyester and antistatic resin are all present. Furthermore, Murray (paragraph 59) teaches fourth component (ie impact modifier) can be included and will result in a transparent composition if the impact modifier’s refractive index matches the RI of the antistatic resin (which itself matches the RI of the PC/polyester matrix).
In any case, applicant’s claims do not call for any RI matching. Only claim 11 requires transparency.
The claims have been broadened to no longer require “miscibility” between the polyester and polycarbonate. Therefore, the newly applied rejection (even if opaque) meets most of applicant’s claims.
Note that inserting claim 11’s transparency requirements into claim 1 would raise 112 issues with claim 6 as least some of these polyesters would not be expected to form transparent blends with applicant’s “a”, “c” and “d”.
Applicant's amendment deleting the “miscible” requirement necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 6/12/26
Prosecution Insights