DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 05/11/2026. Claims 8-12 were cancelled. Claims 13-20 were added. Claims 1-4, 7 and 13-20 are pending in the application.
The rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 112 set forth in the Office Action dated February 11, 2026 are WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 7 set forth in the Office Action dated are MAINTAINED for the reasons set forth below. To ensure Applicant’s amendments are fully addressed, the rejections are set forth in full.
New claims 15-17 and 20 are REJECTED for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 13-14 and 18-19 are OBJECTED TO as depending from a rejected claim, but otherwise contains allowable subject matter.
This action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delahaut et al. (EP 2354168 A) as evidenced by de Anda et al.
Regarding claim 1, Delahaut et al. teach a vinyl aromatic polymer based composition, wherein the vinyl aromatic polymer is made of polystyrene, elastomer-modified polystyrene, copolymers of styrene and acrylonitrile (SAN), elastomer modified SAN, copolymers with styrene blocks and blocks made of butadiene, styrene butadiene rubber ([0031]-[0034]), thereby reading on the styrene-based composition; wherein the composition comprises 1 to 50 wt.% of a metal free styrene-based recycled material and from 50-99 wt.% of a styrene-based virgin material, relative to 100% by mass of the metal free-styrene-based recycled material and the styrene-based virgin material in total (claims 1-3), which overlaps with the claimed range (40-90 wt.% of styrene based recycled material and 10-60 wt.% of styrene virgin material). Delahaut et al. further teach the styrene-based composition comprises a rubber modified polystyrene, wherein polybutadiene rubber is present in the styrene-based composition in an amount of 3-10 wt.% [0037], which overlaps with the claimed amount (5-7 wt.% of rubber-like polymer). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Delahaut et al. Furthermore,
Delahaut et al. are silent on the content of toluene insoluble matter and a bending strength of the regenerated-styrene based resin.
Nevertheless, Delahaut et al. as applied above results in a styrene-based composition that is substantially identical to the claimed regenerated- styrene-based composition, which comprises all of the same components in amounts that overlap with the claimed invention. In view of the substantially identical composition of Delahaut et al., the styrene-based composition of Delahaut et al. is expected to possess the claimed content of toluene insoluble matter and the claimed blending strength. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 2, Delahaut et al. teach the styrene-based composition comprises metal free post-consumer recycled styrene polymer from electronics and electrical devices (page 1), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 7, Delahaut et al. teach the metal free-recycled vinyl aromatic polymer, contains less than 1000 ppm of Bromine metals. Given that Delahaut et al. teach an amount of 50 wt.% of the metal free recycled vinyl aromatic polymer in the composition, therefore the styrene-based composition is expected to have less than 500 ppm of bromine, as required by the instant claim.
Delahaut et al. are silent on the contents of chlorine, iron, and copper as recited in the instant claims.
However, since Delahaut et al. are silent on the content of chlorine, iron and copper in the styrene-based composition, the styrene-based composition of Delahaut et al. is considered to be free of chlorine, iron and copper, as required by the instant claims.
Regarding claim 15-17, Delahaut et al. teach the styrene based composition comprises a rubber modified polystyrene, wherein the rubber used in the composition can be polybutadiene, polyisoprene, butadiene/isoprene copolymers, ethylene-propylene rubber, ethylene-propylene diene rubber([0031], [0034]), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Delahaut et al. teach the styrene-based composition of instant claims 1-4, 7 and 15-17 (see rejection of claims above) is used in injection molding application to manufacture TV cabinets, computer monitors, printer housings and the like [0049], thereby reading on the molded object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Delahaut et al. fails to teach or suggest a styrene-based resin composition comprising chlorine and bromine in the specific amounts as recited in the instant claim. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to include the specific amounts of the claimed chlorine and bromine in the composition without relying on the present disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Delahaut et al., Applicant states that the content of toluene insoluble matter of the styrene based composition of Delahunt et al. is more than 21% . Applicant further states that the examples of Delahaut comprises 3.5 of antimony pentoxide and 4% of 1,2-bis (pentabromophenyl)ethane, which are insoluble in toluene, therefore 7.5% toluene insoluble component is added to the content of toluene insoluble of the styrenic based resin used in the examples of the cited reference, which are considered by Applicant to be about 12.7-17.9 % (see Applicant arguments, page 7).
In response, Examiner states that based on the Applicant’s characterization of the specific flame retardant and specific flame retardant aid used in the examples of Delahaut being insoluble in toluene, the content of the toluene insoluble of the styrenic based composition of Delahaut would be 20.2 % to 25.4 % (12.7% of toluene insoluble of the resin examples + 7.5 % toluene insoluble of flame retardant and flame retardant aid) and (17.9% + 7.5%), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5-21%. Further, it is noted that example 2 of Table 2 of Delahaut is a preferred embodiment. Delahaut teaches 1-30 parts (approximately 1-20 wt.%) of flame retardants selected from bromine based flame retardants, phosphorous based compounds and epoxy compounds (claim 6 and [0042]) and 0.5-15 parts of flame retardant aid (approximately 0.33-15% ) selected from metal oxides such as antimony peroxide, zinc borate, antimony silicates ([0047] claim 6). It would be obvious to use an alternative flame retardant and flame retardant aid at a lower concentration compared to that used in Example 2 of Delahaut, thereby arriving at a content of toluene insoluble that overlaps with the claimed range of 5- 21 %. It is for these reasons that Applicant's arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Further, Applicant states “ the physical properties of the composition are usually reduced by the addition of flame retardants and flame retardant aids. The bending strength of a styrene-based resin composition (not the present invention) manufactured by the applicant with a lower amount of such additive than the invention of Delahaut EP '168 is about 45 MPa, so in the case of a composition with high flame retardancy such as the invention of Delahaut EP '168, the bending strength is considered to be less than 45 MPa.
Examiner: Applicant’s arguments do not provide evidence, the statement “ usually reduced by the addition of flame retardants and flame retardant aid” is not evidence that demonstrates the bending strength would necessarily be reduced in the styrene based composition of Delahaut. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). MPEP 2145.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights