DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 5/29/2026. Claims 1-4 are pending in the application.
The rejections of claims 1- 4 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the Office Action dated March 09, 2026 are MAINTAINED for the reasons set forth below. To ensure Applicant’s amendments are fully addressed, the rejections are set forth in full.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida (WO 2014/148641 as listed on the IDS dated 7/31/2023 and/or US PG Pub 2016/0024301 A1, wherein US PG Pub 2016/0024301 A1 is being used as English Translation herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashida teaches a polycarbonate resin composition comprising, relative to 100 parts by weight of a resin component consisting of a polycarbonate- polydiorganosiloxane copolymer (PC-PDMS copolymer, which correspond to component A) and an aromatic polycarbonate resin (PC resin, which correspond to component B), 5 to 45 parts by weight of phosphorus-based flame retardant including a phosphazene compound (claim 5, [0218]) and 0.01 to 3 parts by weight of a fluorine-containing anti-dripping agent (claim 1), wherein the examples disclose a content of 10-70 parts by weight of the PC-PDMS and 30-90 parts by weight of the PC (Table 1); wherein the viscosity average molecular weight (Mv) of the PC-PDMS copolymer (component A) is 11,000 to 30,000 [0119] and the viscosity average molecular weight (Mv) of the PC resin (component B) is 11,000 to 30,000 [0173], which implies a ratio of the Mv of component A to the Mv of component B of 0.36 to 2.7.
Hayashida further teaches a PC-PDMS copolymer resin composed of a polycarbonate block derived from a dihydric phenol represented by the formula (1) and a polydiorganosiloxane block derived from a dihydric phenol represented by formula (3) (claim 4). It is noted that interfacial polymerization of the dihydric phenol of formula (1) and the hydroxyaryl-terminated polydioorganosiloxane of formula (3) with a carbonate ester results in the formation of carbonate linkages (-O-CO-O), which form a copolymer comprising carbonate-containing repeating units that are derived from formulas (1) and (3), that are represented by the claimed formulas [1] and [3], as recited in the instant claim. Furthermore, Hayashida teaches the diorganosiloxane polymerization degree (p+q) is more preferably 30-60 [0087], as required by the instant claim.
Hayashida and the claims differ in that Hayashida does not teach the claimed ranges for the phosphazene compound, fluorine-containing anti-dripping agent, Mv of component A and the ratio Mv component A/Mv component B as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Hayashida overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP
PNG
media_image1.png
322
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2144.05.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
198
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
498
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hayashida teaches the polycarbonate-polydiorganosiloxane copolymer has an aggregate structure with polydiorganosiloxane domains dispersed in a polycarbonate matrix ([0101]-[0102], [0123]) wherein the average size of polyodiorganosiloxane domains is preferably 5 to 25 nm [0120] and a normalized dispersity of no more than 30% [0120]. Hayashida further teaches the total light transmittance is 88% or more [0127], as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Hayashida teaches that any phosphazene compound is acceptable if it is a compound containing no halogen atom and having a phosphazene structure in the molecule represented by the formula —P(R2)=N—, wherein R2 is an organic group. The phosphazene compound is represented by the following formulas (7) (which correspond to a cyclic phosphazene), wherein n is an integer of 3-10, thereby reading on X1, X2, X3 and X4 are each a hydrogen atom, hydroxyl group, amino group or organic group containing no halogen atom, n is an integer of 3 (which correspond to the phosphazene cyclic structure of 100 mol%) and examples of the organic group are include alkoxy group, phenyl group, amino group and allyl group.
PNG
media_image5.png
220
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hayashida teaches a molded articles obtained by molding the resin composition ([0013], (claim 13)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that by satisfying the features (a) to (c), the ratio of Mv (component A)/Mv (component B)= 1 to 1.3; (b)the Mvs for the components A and B, in addition to the other features of claim 1, a polycarbonate resin composition having excellent low-temperature impact resistance, durability and flame retardancy can be obtained (Remarks, p.7).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. While the features (a) to (c) appear to have unexpected results in view of the example 1-8 and 10-12, and comparative examples 1-4 as pointed out by the Applicant. However, Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the lower range for the amount of phosphazene compound (component C). The lowest amount of component C is 1 parts by weight of example 12 (which is well above of the claimed lower limit) and 0.1 pbw of comparative example 7, which is well below the claimed lower limit of 0.5 pbw). Further, the Applicant has not provided sufficient data showing that the upper limit of the fluorine containing anti-dripping agent (component D) is critical. The highest amount of component D is 0.4 pbw of examples 3-12 (which does not show that 0.5 pbw is critical) and 2 pbw of comparative example 11, which is well above of the claimed upper limit of 0.5 pbw.
Similarly, Applicant has provided insufficient date supporting its position that the upper limit is of Mv of component A of 27,000 is critical. The closest Mv of component B is 35,000, which is well above of the upper limit.
In addition, it is unclear for comparative example 10, wherein the features (a) to (c) and the amounts of component A to Component D are within the claimed ranges, a flame retardancy after water exposure of “ not V” is obtained. It appears that the amount of component D of 0.1 parts by weigh would lead to the “ not V’ result. However, the claimed range of component D is between 0.1 – 0.5 parts by weight.
Furthermore, Applicant examples provide cyclic phenoxyphosphazene having a content of trimer of 68% (C1), a cyclic phenoxyphosphazene having a content of trimer of 100% (C2), therefore is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 that recites “a phosphazene compound”. There is not evidence that all the cyclic phosphazenes, linear phosphazenes, polyphosphazenes would behave in the same manner. Therefore the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims
Applicant examples are also not commensurate in scope with the fluorine containing anti-dripping agents. The examples of the instant specification use PTFE (D-1) and coated PTFE (D-2). However, claim 1 recites “ a fluorine-containing anti-dipping agent (component D)”. There is no evidence that all the fluorine containing anti-dripping agents (i.e. PVDF, FEP) perform in the same manner. Therefore the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
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