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. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan (WO2019123029) in view of Li (U.S. 20090304762) and Vernon (U.S. 20160235072). Li is the US equivalent of WO2009148573 on the submitted IDS. Shan teaches polycarbonate compositions comprising : homopolymers of linear bisphenol A polycarbonate (exemplified; combinations of 21,000-23,000 Da and 29,000 to 31,000 Da (PC 1) and (PC-2)) reading over the homopolymer polycarbonate limitations of Clam 1 , Claim 9 , and Claim 13 . polycarbonate siloxane (SiPC40-1 and SiPC40-2, PDMS bisphenol A copolycarbonate , 40 wt % PDMS; the effective language recited is taught in ¶[0008] and ¶[00 29 ] and ¶[0032] 0.5 to 10 wt % total siloxane content in the compositions ) . This reads over the polycarbonate-siloxane limitations of Claim 1 , Claim 6 (40 wt % siloxane), Claim 8 , Claim 10 (exemplified bisphenol A, PDMS) and Claim 13 . Claim 11 ’s exclusion is specifically taught in ¶[0031]. A nd optional, additives including 0.1 to 5 wt % of additives (excluding impact modifiers, filler or reinforcing agents) such as pigments (¶[0039,0040]). Titanium Dioxide in amounts of generally 3 wt % are exemplified reading over Claim 1 , Claim 12 and Claim 13 . Examples 11a and 12a, use ~88 wt % of the above PC-1 and PC-2 along with 10 wt % of SiPC40-2 and SiPC40- 1 which reads over the amount of homopolymer polycarbonate of Claim 3 . Example 11 uses ~ 72 PC-1 and PC-2 and 10 wt % of SiPC40-2. The total amount of additives in these examples is ~4-5 wt % further reading over Claim 12 . Shan teaches healthcare product applications ¶[0072] reading over Claim 14 and Claim 16 and also casting to make the articles along with shaped articles by extrusion reading over the method of Claim 15 . ¶[0071] Shan teaches healthcare related end use articles but does not reasonably suggest any antimicrobial agents in the compositions. Healthcare related end uses reasonably suggests the need for anti-microbial agents in the compositions to prevent bacteria or microbes as discussed by Vernon below in the list of articles such as a syringe, a blood filter housing, a blood bag, a solution bag, an intravenous connector, a dialyzer, a catheter, a medical storage tray, a medical appliance, a medical tubing, a cardiac pacemaker and defibrillator, a cannula, and an implantable prosthesis . ¶[0072] Vernon, working in the field of antimicrobial agents embedded into plastics similar to Applicant, teaches in ¶[0005] antimicrobial properties have been desirable in plastics used for many applications including….healthcare products. These agents are blended into thermoplastic resin to allow the plastic article to kill or inhibit the growth of specified types of bacteria that may come into contact with the article. ¶[0006] Li, working in the field of antimicrobial polycarbonate compositions similar to Applicant , teaches polycarbonate compositions with anti-microbial properties (¶[0001]) wherein the anti- microbial agent comprises a silver zinc zeolite, metal oxide ( ZnO exemplified) and hydrotalcite. ¶[0003]. The amount used is effective to provide antimicrobial efficiency. (¶[0003]). In ¶[0054], Li teaches the inventive antimicrobial against imparts a higher impact strength and lighter color than other antimicrobial agents compared against. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Shan, in particular that of Example 11, 11a and Example 12a, by adding the antimicrobial agents of Li for the advantage of imparting antimicrobial properties to kill or inhibit bacterial growth in the above taught healthcare article end - uses as suggested by Vernon and using an antimicrobial agent which imparts higher Izod impact strength at low temperature and lighter color to the polycarbonate compositions over other kinds of antimicrobial agents as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose the exemplified silver zinc zeolite, ZnO and hydrotalcite antimicrobial agent of Li because it is exemplified in the amounts exemplified (1.07 pphr antimicrobial agent which has 0.44 wt % silver). 1.07 parts per hundred * 0.0044 = 0.0047. 0.0047/100=x/1,000,000, solve for x = 47 ppm silver which reads over the ppm limitations of Claim 1 , Claim 4 , Claim 5 , and Claim 13 . Li teaches the zeolite particles preferably have a largest dimension of less than 5 microns in ¶[0039] which reads over the average dimension of less than 5 microns as the largest is 5 microns and, therefore, the average has to be less than 5 microns. Li is silent on how this particle dimension is measured, however, there is no evidence of record to reasonably suggest the measurement technique will measure particles over 5 microns since Li specifically teaches the particles have less than 5 microns. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested that when measured according to the claimed technique the above teaching of less than 5 microns must meet the recited particle size. This reads over Claim 7 . With respect to Claim 2, Shan teaches SANI-CLOTH AF3 for 7 days (168 hours) ¶[0089], but does not teach either 72 hours SANI-CLOTH AF3 nor the recited anti-microbial rate of Claim 2. Applicant present example 7 which has AMA-MB-1 which is the only silver zinc zeolite antimicrobial component used in an inventive capacity. All other AMA-MB are different non-silver zinc zeolites. (See Table 1 of the as-filed specification along with Table 6. The Sani-Cloth 3 day limitation is chemical resistance in the Table. T he combined compositions of Sun and Li have two polycarbonates as recited by the narrower compositions, the silver zinc zeolite in the recited range of the narrower ppm of Claim 5 and the recited polycarbonate-siloxane in amounts of total siloxane as recited . Every one of Applicant’s inventive examples (See Table 6 Example 7) using these components have the recited Santi-Cloth and antimicrobial activity of Claim 2. Therefore, when tested appropriately, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the above Example 11, 11a and Example 12a of Sun when modified by Li as discussed above must have the recited Santi-Cloth and antimicrobial activity recited by Claim 2 . Note the data for Comparative Example 12 in the as-filed specification has 49 ppm silver loading but the antimicrobial agent used in this example is not the recited silver zinc zeolite but a silver phosphate glass in polycarbonate. There is no evidence of record showing the effect of variation on the recited properties with amount of silver in the resulting composition. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1299 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1302 . 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. /Christopher M Rodd/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766