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(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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The meaning of “miscible” in claim 1’s “b” is not understood. Some of the polyester “b” listed in claim 6 are not miscible with polycarbonate. See for instance the Hopson article’s abstract stating PC/PBT blends are immiscible. It is not clear what the term “miscible” is intended to encompass.
Claim 2’s “copolymer comprising polycarbonate and PPPBP or polycarbonate and BPI” is not grammatically and/or technically correct. “Polycarbonate” is a polymer. PPPBP and BPI are monomers. A blend of a polymer with a monomer does not qualify as a “copolymer”.
Claim 6’s PEO is not a polyester.
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) a blend of 34% polycarbonates (ie applicant’s “a”), 25% PCT (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.
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 1/29/26