DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication responds to the application and amended claim set filed July 7, 2023. Claims 1-4 and 7-12 are currently pending.
Priority
This application is the national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/001625, filed January 18,2022, which claims priority to JP2021-006871, filed January 20,2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-12 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.
Claims 1 recites “rubber- like polymer”. The recitation of “rubber- like polymer” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Terms such as "-like" are similar to terms such as "or the like" or "and the like" which have been held to be indefinite in a claim since they extend the otherwise definite scope of terms to an indefinite scope. See Ex parte Caldwell, 1906 CD 58 (Commr. Pats. 1906). It is noted that “rubber-like polymer” is defined only by its examples and it is not clear whether the “rubber-like polymer” is intended to mean the examples of the specification or if there is a broader, undefined meaning for this that needs to be clarified. For the purposes of examination, the recitation “rubber-like polymer” is interpreted as “polybutadiene and a styrene-butadiene random, block or graft copolymer” ([0018] of instant specification). Claims 2-4 and 7-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “ and a content of rubber like polymer is 5.0% by mass or more and 7.0% by mass or less, a content of toluene insoluble matter is 21% by mass or less, and a bending strength, ….is 47 MPa or more.”. In view of the instant specification [0022], Examiner is interpreting the content of rubber, the content of toluene insoluble matter and the bending strength correspond to the composition after mixing the styrene-based recycled material (A) and the styrene-based virgin material (B).
Claim 3 recites “the content of Chlorine… is 900 ppm or less”; Claim 4 recites “ a sum of a content of iron (Fe) and a content of copper (Cu)…. Is 150 ppm or less. For purposes of examination, examiner is interpreting the claimed regenerated -styrene based resin composition can be free of chlorine, iron and copper.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delahaut et al. (EP 2354168 A, as listed on the IDS dated 12/30/2024).
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.
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 7-10, 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 11, Delahaut et al. teach the styrene-based composition is used in injection molding application to manufacture TV cabinets, computer monitors, printer housings and the like [0049], thereby reading on the molded object.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delahaut et al. (EP 2354168 A1) in view of Fujita et al. (JP2001100503 (A); full English Machine translation incorporated herewith).
Regarding claim 12, Delahaut et al. teach the composition according to claim 11 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Delahaut et al. are silent on the container for toner cartridges as the molded object.
However, Fujita et al. teach a toner cartridge container molded from a rubber-modified styrene based flame retardant resin composition comprising a rubber-modified styrene based resin, a polyphenylene ether and a phosphate ester compound (claim 1). Fujita et al. further teach the rubber modified-styrene-based resin are excellent in impact resistance and moldability and are therefore used in a wide range of office equipment and in particular for toner cartridge containers because of their light weight and ease molding [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a toner cartridge container with the styrene-based composition of Delahaut et al. as taught by Fujita et al. with the predictable result of molded object with excellent impact resistance.
Conclusion
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
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763