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 .
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein (US 2020/0123373 A1) in view of Roy (CN 101370873 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hein teaches a thermoplastic composition (Abstract), comprising a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), a first poly(carbonate-siloxane), and a second poly(carbonate siloxane). Hein specifically indicates that any stated compositional value includes +/- 10% of said value if the term “about” is used to describe said value ([0016]). Therefore, based on the stated compositional amounts disclosed in the Abstract, Hein teaches that the PMMA may be included in amounts ranging from 0 to 80 wt%, the first poly(carbonate-siloxane) may be included in amounts ranging from 5 to 60 wt%, and the second poly(carbonate-siloxane) may be included in amounts ranging from 0 to 55 wt%. Furthermore, Hein states that the first poly(carbonate-siloxane) has a siloxane content ranging from 35 to 45 wt% (Abstract), which overlaps the claimed range of “30 to 70 weight percent,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The compositional amounts of the PMMA and first poly(carbonate-siloxane) overlap/encompass the respectively claimed ranges of “poly(methyl methacrylate) and “a poly(carbonate-siloxane),” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness. Hein additionally teaches the incorporation of low-density polyethylene as an additional polymer component ([0050]).
Hein differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the claimed compositional amount of low-density polyethylene.
In the same field of endeavor, Roy teaches extruded articles which may be formed from, inter alia, blends of polycarbonate and PMMA ([0334]), and which may include low-density polyethylene as a means to increase the impact resistance of the composition ([0346]). Roy teaches that impact modifiers can be added in amounts up to about 7% by weight ([0345]), which overlaps the claimed range of “1 to less than 5 weight percent,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06), and Hein is specifically directed towards compositions which have good impact properties (e.g., [0006] of Hein). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include up to 7 wt% of LPDE within the formulation of Hein, as Roy teaches this amount as suitable for impact modification of compositions which may be formed from PC/PMMA blends.
Regarding claim 2, Hein as modified by Roy is silent with regard to the claimed properties. Nevertheless, Hein as modified by Roy and as applied above results in a composition which is structurally identical to the claimed composition, which contains all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed properties will therefore necessarily be present in Hein as modified by Roy and as applied above.
Regarding claim 4, Hein teaches that the poly(carbonate siloxane) contains carbonate units derived from bisphenol A and polysiloxane units ([0046]) wherein said polysiloxane units are shown as including poly(dimethyl siloxane) units (e.g., [0039] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Hein teaches that the poly(carbonate-siloxane) may have a weight average molecular weight ranging from 26,000 to 45,000 Da ([0047]), which falls within the claimed range of “21,000 to 50,000,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, as described within the rejection of claim 1, above, Hein teaches that the second poly(carbonate-siloxane), which has a siloxane content ranging from about 15 wt% to about 25 wt%, may be included at 0 wt%. This is due to the combined disclosures that (i) the compositional amounts of this component range from about 10 to about 45 wt% and (ii) amounts which are indicated as “about” specifically include 10% less than the stated value.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is recognized as a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the claimed process steps, but only to the structure implied by said steps (see MPEP 2113.I.). In this case, the structure implied by the process steps of claim 7 include that the polymers within the composition include poly(methyl methacrylate) and Poly(carbonate-siloxane). As described above, Hein teaches both of these components. Therefore, the teachings of Hein read on the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, said polymers are compositionally identical to their claimed counterparts, meeting all of the claimed structural limitations thereof. Therefore, the polymers of Hein read on the claimed limitation requiring that said polymers “can be produced form at least one monomer derived from bio-based or plastic waste feedstock.”
Regarding claim 8, as described above, Hein as modified by Roy includes up to 7 wt% of LDPE, which encompasses the claimed range of “1 to 4 weight percent,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Hein teaches the incorporation of additives including processing aids ([0075]), but is silent regarding the particularly claimed amount of additives. However, Roy teaches the incorporation of between 0.05 and 0.5 wt % of a release agent additive ([0343]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended purpose, and it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06 and 2144.07). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include between 0.05 and 0.5 wt% of a release agent additive within the formulation of Hein as taught by Roy, as Roy recognizes said additive as useful for compositions which may be formed from PC/PMMA blends. The range taught by Roy overlaps the claimed range of “0.1 to 10 weight percent,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, as described above, Hein as modified by Roy teaches that the PMMA may be included in amounts ranging from 0 to 80 wt%, the first poly(carbonate-siloxane) may be included in amounts ranging from 5 to 60 wt%, and the LDPE may be included in amounts up to 7 wt%. In each case, these amounts overlap/encompass the respectively claimed amounts, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness. Hein as modified by Roy does not include the claimed impact modifier in the claimed amounts, however this component is indicated as optional in line 5 of claim 10, and thus Hein as modified by Roy reads on all of the requirements of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Hein teaches that the poly(carbonate siloxane) contains carbonate units derived from bisphenol A and polysiloxane units ([0046]) wherein said polysiloxane units are shown as including poly(dimethyl siloxane) units (e.g., [0039] and [0043]). Hein also teaches that the poly(carbonate-siloxane) may have a weight average molecular weight ranging from 26,000 to 45,000 Da ([0047]), which falls within the claimed range of “25,000 to 45,000,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Hein additionally teaches that the first poly(carbonate-siloxane) has a siloxane content ranging from 35 to 45 wt% (Abstract), which falls within the claimed range of “35 to 65 weight percent,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Hein as modified by Roy is silent with regard to the claimed properties. Nevertheless, Hein as modified by Roy and as applied above results in a composition which is structurally identical to the claimed composition, which contains all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed properties will therefore necessarily be present in Hein as modified by Roy and as applied above.
Regarding claim 12, Hein teaches the formation of extruded samples from the inventive composition ([0090]), which reads on the claimed process.
Regarding claim 13, Hein teaches an article of the inventive composition (p. 15, claim 14).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Hein teaches the use of the inventive composition in molded articles and particularly in consumer electronics devices ([0060]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein (US 2020/0123373 A1) in view of Roy (CN 101370873 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation), and further in view of Dong (CN 110437581 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation).
Regarding claim 3, Hein as modified by Roy teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Hein differs from claim 3 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of a material indicated as an impact modifier within the claimed compositional range.
In the same field of endeavor, Dong teaches a multilayer core-shell particle reinforced polymer composite material and its preparation ([0002]), wherein the composite material may include polycarbonate and polymethyl methacrylate ([0016]), and wherein the multilayer core-shell particles are included in amounts ranging from 1 to 100 parts by weight per 100 parts of polymer ([0012]-[0013]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for its art-recognized suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07), and Hein is specifically directed towards compositions which have good impact properties (e.g., [0006] of Hein). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include between 1 and 100 parts by weight of the impact modifier of Dong within the formulation of Hein as modified by Roy, as Dong teaches said modifier as suitable for use in compositions which may contain PMMA and PC. The amount of 1 to 100 parts per 100 parts of resin corresponds to a range of up to about 46.5 wt% within the formulation of Hein as modified by Roy (corresponding to a maximum amount of 100 parts of impact modifier per 100 parts of resin, within the composition of Hein as modified by Roy which includes up to 7 wt% of LDPE and up to 93 wt% of resin components), which encompasses the claimed range of “10 to 30 weight percent,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762