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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 19, 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 24, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office. 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 . Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pupovac et al. (US 20190225796 , hereinafter referred to as “ Pupovac ”) in view of Kim ( US20200304694 , hereinafter referred to as “Kim”). As to Claim 1: Pupovac teaches a composition comprising: 50 to 90 wt % of at least one polymer selected from a group comprising aromatic polycarbonate, which meets the claimed component A) ; 1 to 20 wt % ([0017]) of fused silica flour ([0122]) having a pH measured according to ISO 10390 of 5.0 to 8.0 ([0131]) , an average particle size d 50 of preferably 3.0 to 5.0 µm, and a content of metal oxides of less than or equal to 2% by weight ([0017]). Pupovac further teaches exemplary compositions with an amount of said fused silica that is within the claimed range, see, e.g., Table 1, Example 2, C-1 in an amount of 4.74 wt %; 8 to 30 wt % of at least one rubber-modified graft polymer ( [0016]), which may be a graft polymer of: B 2.1.1 ) 65 to 85 wt % of at least one monomer selected from the group of vinyl aromatics including styrene, α- methylstyrene , and alkyl methacrylates ([00 98 ]) grafted onto B 2.2 ) 5 to 95 wt % of at least one elastomeric graft substrate (i.e., elastomeric graft base) selected from at least diene rubbers, diene-vinyl block copolymer rubbers based on acrylate rubbers, and silicone acrylate composite rubbers ([0 108 ]) which may have a glass transition temperature of < -20 ˚C ([0103]); A rubber-free vinyl copolymer ([0067], [0115]) present in a portion of a mixture of a graft polymer totaling 5 to 40 wt % ([0142]), wherein Pupovac teaches exemplary composition comprising rubber-free vinyl copolymers (e.g., component B-3 ([0199]-[0200]) which is present in an amount of 17.76 wt %, Table 1, Example 2) in an amount within the claimed range. Pupovac teaches that the composition may comprise a component D in an amount of 0 to 10 wt % ([0018]) which may be, inter alia , a polymer lubricant additive ([0134]), however, Pupovac is silent towards the structure and molecular weight of said polymer lubricant additive. Kim teaches a polymer composition (Abstract) based on an aromatic polymer which be, inter alia , an aromatic polycarbonate ([0024]). Kim further teaches that the composition may comprise a tribological formulation ([0058]) which may be a siloxane polymer intended to improve internal lubrication ([0059]) (i.e., a siloxane lubricant). Kim does not teach wherein the siloxane is copolymerized with the aromatic polycarbonate. Kim teaches that the tribological formulation may be present in an amount of 1 to 30 wt % ([0058]) and further teaches exemplary amounts of siloxane polymer within the claimed range (e.g., Table 7, Siloxane Polymer present in an amount of 2 wt %). Kim teaches that the siloxane polymer may have a molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol or more ([0064]). Pupovac and Kim are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, aromatic polymer compositions and molded articles formed thereof. Pupovac and Kim are also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, namely, improving surface/wear properties of aromatic polymer compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a siloxane lubricant having a molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol that is not polymerized with the base aromatic polymer, such as that taught by Kim, for the lubricant taught by Pupovac and the motivation would have been that siloxane lubricants having such a structure are known within the art to improve internal lubrication of aromatic polymer composition and also help to bolster wear and friction properties of the same ([0059]). As to Claim 2: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac does not teach or motivate wherein the least one polymer selected from a group comprising aromatic polycarbonate is copolymerized with a polysiloxane. As to Claim 3: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac further teaches wherein the component which is fused silica flour has a content of aluminum oxide of less than or equal to 0.3 wt % ([0150]) and a content of Fe 2 O 3 less than or equal to 0.03 wt % ([0153]) based on the weight of said component. As to Claim 4: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac further teaches wherein the component which is fused silica flour has an average particle size d 50 of preferably 3.0 to 5.0 µm ([0017]). As to Claim 5: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac further teaches wherein the component which is the fused silica flour has a pH measured according to ISO 10390 of 5.0 to 6.5 ([0163]). As to Claim 6: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac further teaches wherein the component which is fused silica flour has a nitrogen adsorption according to ISO 9277 of 2.0 to 8.0 m 2 /g ([0165]). As to Claim 7: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac teaches that the composition may comprise a component D in an amount of 0 to 10 wt % ([0018]) which may be, inter alia , a polymer lubricant additive ([0134]), however, Pupovac is silent towards the structure and molecular weight of said polymer lubricant additive. Kim teaches a polymer composition (Abstract) based on an aromatic polymer which be, inter alia , an aromatic polycarbonate ([0024]). Kim further teaches that the composition may comprise a tribological formulation ([0058]) which may be a siloxane polymer intended to improve internal lubrication ([0059]) (i.e., a siloxane lubricant). Kim does not teach wherein the siloxane is copolymerized with the aromatic polycarbonate. Kim teaches that the tribological formulation may be present in an amount of 1 to 30 wt % ([0058]) and further teaches exemplary amounts of siloxane polymer within the claimed range (e.g., Table 7, Siloxane Polymer present in an amount of 2 wt %). Kim teaches that the siloxane polymer may have a molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol or more ([0064]). Kim further teaches that the tribological formulation may comprise components other than siloxane such as silica particles up to 100 parts by weight relative to siloxane and a fluorinated additive in an amount of 0.5 to 12 parts by weight relative to siloxane ([0066]), thus overlapping with the claimed range for an amount of siloxane within a tribological formulation ([0058]) which may be a siloxane polymer intended to improve internal lubrication ([0059]) (i.e., a siloxane lubricant). In the case where 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). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Kim suggests, that siloxane lubricants with an overlapping amount of siloxane are recognized within the art as suitable for tribological formulations ([0058]) which may be a siloxane polymer (i.e., a siloxane lubricant) known to improve wear and friction properties of compositions ([0059]) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a siloxane lubricant having the claimed siloxane percentage, such as that taught by Kim, for the lubricant taught by Pupovac and the motivation would have been that siloxane lubricants having such a structure are known within the art to improve internal lubrication of the polymer composition and also help to bolster wear and friction properties of compositions ([0059]). As to Claim 8: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Neither Pupovac or Kim appear to suggest that the lubricant or tribological formulation comprising a siloxane are employed as a coating of another component, rather they are a component blended with an aromatic copolymer. As to Claim 9: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac teaches that the composition may comprise a component D which may be one or more of a lubricant, demolding agent, nucleating agent, or antistat additives ([0132]). As to Claim 10: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac is silent towards and does not motivate the addition of a glass fiber additive. As to Claim 11: Pupovac and Kim teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Pupovac and Kim both teach wherein the lubricant or tribological formulation comprising a siloxane is a blended component rather than copolymerized with other components in the composition. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1073 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30-6:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1197 . 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. /C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767 /MARK EASHOO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767