DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/16/2026.
Claim(s) 6 were cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claim(s) 7-9 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9, are now pending in the application.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections of claim(s) 1-6 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment and remarks.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109651725 to Bao et al. in view of CN108641265 to Yingchun et al. (as found on the IDS dated 7/19/2023). For the purposes of examination, citations for Bao and Yingchun are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in April, 2026.
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 3-6, Bao teaches a composition wherein example 3 [0035] comprises 65 parts polystyrene, 8 parts polypropylene, 0.3 parts styrene (reading on 0.1-0.3 co-catalyst of claims 1 and 5), and 0.3 parts dried aluminum chloride (reading on 0.1-0.4 alkylation reaction catalyst of claims 1 and 4).
Bao does not particularly teach the polystyrene is a waste high impact polystyrene.
However, Yingchun teaches a HIPS/PP composition [Yingchun, abstract] comprising recycled HIPS (i.e., waste high impact polystyrene). Bao and Yingchun are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely styrene and polypropylene based polymer alloys.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Bao’s polystyrene with waste high impact polystyrene.
The motivation would have been that HIPS has advantages such as high modulus, hardness and low shrinkage [0005].
Bao does not particularly teach the amount of new polypropylene to be 30-45 parts of the composition.
However, Yingchun teaches 20-40 parts of waste PP [0005] wherein waste PP has disadvantages such as large dimensional shrinkage, low hardness, and poor aging resistance [0005].
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Bao’s polypropylene with 20-40 parts of new polypropylene. The motivation would have been that Yingchun teaches that new polypropylene as an alternative to waste polypropylene has low shrinkage, high hardness, and improved aging resistance [0005].
Bao does not particularly teach 2-8 parts of a HIPS based macromolecular chain extender.
However, Yingchun teaches 5-20 parts of elastomer graft copolymer [Yingchun, 0013] that is preferably SEPS-g-GMA [0016] thereby reading on 2-8 parts of HIPS based macromolecular chain extender of claims 1 and 6.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Yingchun’s 5-20 parts of HIPS based macromolecular chain extender to Bao’s composition.
The motivation would have been the addition of the elastomer graft copolymer can repair the molecular chain of waste materials and enhance the reaction compatibilization of waste HIPS/PP composite materials [0006].
Regarding Claim 2, Bao in view of Yingchun teaches the regenerated polymer alloy material of claim 1, wherein the HIPS is granulated [Bao, 0016]
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/16/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No US 12,371,560 and any patent granted on Application # 18274467 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Bao discloses a composition from virgin materials such as PS, PP and EPDM, not waste materials. Since the virgin materials are the raw materials of the alloy materials, there will be no substantial performance improvement on these matrices with the addition of any macromolecular chain extenders and therefore the composition disclosed by Bao is different from the regenerated polymer alloy material.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Attention is drawn to the rejection of claim 1 wherein Yingchun teaches the waste high impact polystyrene [Yingchun, abstract] and further teaches macromolecular chain extenders [Yingchun,0016] that can repair the molecular chain of waste materials and enhance the reaction compatibilization of waste HIPS/PP composite materials [Yingchun, 0006]. This aligns with the teachings of Bao as Bao teaches the effective improvement of the brittleness of polystyrene and improves the physical properties of polystyrene composite material [abstract].
Applicant states Yingchun does not teach the macromolecular chain extender.
In response, attention is drawn to the rejection of claim 1 wherein Yingchun teaches SEPS-g-GMA [Yingchun, 0016] which is a high impact polystyrene grafted glycidyl methacrylate and therefore a HIPS-based macromolecular chain extender as defined by instant claim 1.
Applicant states the addition of co-catalyst, the reaction alkylation catalyst, and the HIPS-based macromolecular chain extender, the performance of the regenerated polymer alloy material is comprehensively improved, resulting in excellent comprehensive performance.
In response, the rejection of Bao in view of Yingchun teaches the co-catalyst, the reaction alkylation catalyst, and the HIPS-based macromolecular chain extender and would therefore the excellent comprehensive performance would naturally flow from Bao in view of Yingchun’s composition.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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 DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights