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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2021-0043307). Note: A machine translation is being used for KR 2021-0043307.
Considering Claim 1: Lee et al. teaches a thermoplastic resin composition comprising 5-70 weight percent of a first graft copolymer having an acrylate rubber core of 50-200 nm (Abstract), with 130 nm in the example (Example 1) and being a copolymer of an aromatic vinyl compound-a vinyl cyan compound and an acrylate core (pg. 3); 10 to 70 weight percent of a second graft copolymer having an acrylate rubber core of 200 to 900 nm (Abstract), with 500 nm being used in the example (Example One) and being a copolymer of an aromatic vinyl compound-a vinyl cyan compound and an acrylate core (pg. 5); 20 to 80 weight percent of an aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyan compound copolymer (Abstract) and 0.5 to 4 parts of a compound of Formula I (Abstract), which improves the flow index of the composition (Abstract) and thus meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a lubricant. Lee et al. teaches the amount of rubber in the composition as being 15 to 20 percent by weight (pg 5). Lee et al. teaches an example comprising 12 weight percent of the first graft copolymer, 26 weight percent of the second polymer, 62 weight percent of the aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyan copolymer, and 1 part of the compound of formula I/lubricant (Table 1).
Considering Claim 2: Lee et al. teaches the first copolymer as comprising 30 to 60 weight percent of the alkyl acrylate rubber, 20 to 50 weight percent of the vinyl aromatic monomer, and 15 to 25 weight percent of vinyl cyan monomer (pg. 4).
Considering Claim 3: Lee et al. teaches the second copolymer as comprising 40 to 60 weight percent of the alkyl acrylate rubber, 20 to 40 weight percent of the vinyl aromatic monomer, and 15 to 25 weight percent of vinyl cyan monomer (pg. 4).
Considering Claim 4: Lee et al. teaches the weight ratio of the first and second graft copolymer as being 12:26 or 1:2.16 (Table 1).
Considering Claim 5: Lee et al. teaches the molecular weight of the aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyan compound copolymer as being 50,000 to 200,000 g/mol (pg. 5).
Considering Claim 8: Lee et al. teaches the composition as comprising an antioxidant or UV stabilizer (pg. 7).
Considering Claim 9 and 11: The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the surface hardness and elongation, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Considering Claim 10: Lee et al. teaches the composition as having a tensile strength of 400 to 500 kgf/cm2 (pg. 8), with an example having a tensile strength of 454 (Table 1).
Considering Claim 13: Lee et al. teaches a molded article made from the composition (pg. 8).
Considering Claim 14: Lee et al. does not teach the article as being calendar processed. However, the instant claims are product by process claims. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2021-0043307). Note: A machine translation is being used for KR 2021-0043307.
Considering Claim 12: Lee et al. teaches a process for producing a thermoplastic resin composition comprising kneading and extruding a composition (pg. 9) comprising 5-70 weight percent of a first graft copolymer having an acrylate rubber core of 50-200 nm (Abstract), with 130 nm in the example (Example 1) and being a copolymer of an aromatic vinyl compound-a vinyl cyan compound and an acrylate core (pg. 3); 10 to 70 weight percent of a second graft copolymer having an acrylate rubber core of 200 to 900 nm (Abstract), with 500 nm being used in the example (Example One) and being a copolymer of an aromatic vinyl compound-a vinyl cyan compound and an acrylate core (pg. 5); 20 to 80 weight percent of an aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyan compound copolymer (Abstract) and 0.5 to 4 parts of a compound of Formula I (Abstract), which improves the flow index of the composition (Abstract) and thus meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a lubricant. Lee et al. teaches the amount of rubber in the composition as being 15 to 20 percent by weight (pg 5) at a temperature of 200 to 300 ºC and speed of 100 to 300 rpm (pg. 9). Lee et al. teaches an example comprising 12 weight percent of the first graft copolymer, 26 weight percent of the second polymer, 62 weight percent of the aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyan copolymer, and 1 part of the compound of formula I/lubricant (Table 1).
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2021-0043307) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (WO 2021/054679). Note: A machine translation is being used for WO 2021/054679.
Considering Claim 6: Lee et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above.
Lee et al. teaches an aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyan copolymer, but is silent towards the monomer content. However, Jang et al. teaches a composition comprising an aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyan copolymer having 65 to 80 weight percent of the aromatic vinyl compound and 20 to 35 weight percent of the vinyl cyan compound (pg. 6), in combination with a vinyl aromatic-vinyl cyan-alkyl acrylate rubber graft copolymer. Lee et al. and Jang et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely thermoplastic resins comprising an aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyan copolymer and a vinyl aromatic-vinyl cyan-alkyl acrylate rubber graft copolymer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the copolymer of Jang et al. as the vinyl aromatic-vinyl cyan copolymer of Lee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Jang et al. suggests, to provide high chemical resistance and impact strength (pg. 6).
Considering Claim 7: Lee et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above.
Lee et al. does not teach one of the claimed lubricants. However, Jang et al. teaches adding ethylene bis stearamide to a composition comprising a vinyl aromatic-vinyl cyan-alkyl acrylate rubber graft copolymer and aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyan copolymer (pg. 11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the ethylene bis(stearamide) of Jang et al. to the composition of Lee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Jang et al. suggests, it functions as a lubricant in the thermoplastic resin (pg. 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ah et al. (WO 2021054679) teaches a thermoplastic resin composition that comprises 100 pts. wt. base resin consisting of (A)(a) acrylate-aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyan compound graft copolymer having an acrylate rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.05-0.15 μ m as a core and (b) acrylate-aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyan compound graft copolymer having an acrylate rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.3-0.6 μ m as a core, (B) (c) an aromatic vinyl polymer and (d) heat-resistant aromatic vinyl polymer.
Jung et al. (KR 20200089101) teaches a thermoplastic resin composition that includes: (A) 20-45 wt% of an acrylate rubber-aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyanide compound graft copolymer having an average particle diameter of 50-200 nm; (B) 1-15 wt% of an acrylate rubber-aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyanide compound graft copolymer having an average particle diameter of 300-600 nm; and (C) 50-70 wt% of a vinyl cyanide compound-aromatic vinyl compound-(meth)acrylate compound copolymer including 20-40 wt% of a vinyl cyanide compound, 35-60 wt% of an aromatic vinyl compound, and 10-30 wt% of a (meth)acrylate compound
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights