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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of A + B + C + E in the reply filed on 4/24/26 is acknowledged. Claim 6 (requiring F) and claims 8,9 (forbidding E) are considered nonelected.
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.
Claims 1-5,7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017088698.
The reference exemplifies (#17) a blend of 80 parts branched polycarbonate A5, 20 parts linear polycarbonate A4, 0.1 parts B1 flame retardant, 0.1 parts PTFE “C” (ie applicant’s E), 0.02 parts “D”, 0.2 parts phenol antioxidant X3, 0.2 parts UV absorber “E” (ie applicant’s G) and 0.003 parts whitening agent “F”. The B1 flame retardant (table 1) is potassium perfluorobutanesulfonate which qualifies as applicant’s C
“D” (table 1) is DOVERPHOS S-9228 which is applicant’s preferred diphosphate B (see paragraph 112 of spec).
The 0.3% (table 1) appears to be mol% branching of the polycarbonate A5. The total branching of the combined linear and branched polycarbonates would be :
0.8 x 0.3 + 0.2 x 0
------------------------- = 0.24%
1
While the small amounts of phenol antioxidant and whitening agent are excluded by applicant’s “consisting of”, these are not required to be present by the reference. Paragraph 87 indicates the phenolic antioxidant is merely a preferable inclusion. Similarly, the whitening agent is only a “preferable” addition (paragraph 100).
It would have been obvious to produce a similar composition as shown by example 17 lacking these two additives if the whitening and heat resistance were not deemed necessary. Also see MPEP2144.04 II regarding the obviousness of removing an element as well as its function.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The branched polycarbonate has a Mv of 26,000 (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
The viscosity of the branched polycarbonate is not reported. However, if the molecular weight and branching level correspond to applicant’s molecular weight and branching level, the same viscosity as in claim 3 should result.
The PTFE may of the aqueous dispersion type (paragraph 78) – meeting applicant’s claim 5.
The composition has a VO rating (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
The YI is said to be -8.6, but it is not clear if applicant’s testing procedure is used. Given the example contains the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same YI is expected as required by claims 10 and 11.
The composition is injection molded into test pieces (paragraph 137) – meeting applicant’s claim 12.
The 0.24mol% branching of the cited example is below applicant’s 0.5-3mol% requirement.
However, the reference (paragraph 54) suggests the amount of branching agent in the branched polycarbonate may be 0.1-3mol%. At the exemplified 80 branched PC/20 linear PC ratio, anywhere from 0.65-3mol% branching in the branched PC meets applicant’s overall branching content. The overlapping ranges render obvious the branching content of claim 13.
Claims 1-5,7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017088699.
The reference exemplifies (#21) a blend of 80 parts branched polycarbonate A5, 20 parts linear polycarbonate A4, 0.1 parts B1 flame retardant, 0.1 parts PTFE “C” (ie applicant’s E), 0.6 parts “D1”, 0.02 parts E, 0.02 phenol antioxidant X3 an 0.2 parts F.
“E” (table 1) is DOVERPHOS S-9228 which is applicant’s preferred diphosphate B (see paragraph 112 of spec).
The B1 flame retardant (table 1) is potassium perfluorobutanesulfonate which qualifies as applicant’s C.
D1 (table 1) is a polysilsequioxane diffusing agent which qualifies as applicant’s H.
“F” (table 1) is a UV absorber which qualifies as applicant’s G.
The 0.3% (table 1) appears to be mol% branching of the polycarbonate A5. The total branching of the combined linear and branched polycarbonates would be :
0.8 x 0.3 + 0.2 x 0
------------------------- = 0.24%
1
While the small amount of X3 phenol antioxidant is excluded by applicant’s “consisting of”, this is not required to be present by the reference.
Paragraph 95 indicates the phenolic antioxidant is merely a preferable inclusion.
It would have been obvious to produce a similar composition as shown by example 21 lacking the phenolic antioxidant if the additional heat resistance was not deemed necessary. Also see MPEP2144.04 II regarding the obviousness of removing an element as well as its function.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The branched polycarbonate has a Mv of 26,000 (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
The viscosity of the branched polycarbonate is not reported. However, if the molecular weight and branching level correspond to applicant’s molecular weight and branching level, the same viscosity as in claim 3 should result.
The PTFE may of the aqueous dispersion type (paragraph 78) – meeting applicant’s claim 5.
The composition has a VO rating (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
The YI is said to be -8.8, but it is not clear if applicant’s testing procedure is used. Given the example contains the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same YI is expected as required by claims 10 and 11.
The composition is injection molded into test pieces (paragraph 146) – meeting applicant’s claim 12.
The 0.24mol% branching of the cited example is below applicant’s 0.5-3mol% requirement.
However, the reference (paragraph 54) suggests the amount of branching agent in the branched polycarbonate may be 0.1-3mol%. At the exemplified 80 branched PC/20 linear PC ratio, anywhere from 0.65-3mol% branching in the branched PC meets applicant’s overall branching content. The overlapping ranges render obvious the branching content of claim 13.
Claims 1-4,7,12 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003119369.
The reference exemplifies (#3) a blend of 100 parts branched polycarbonate, 0.02 parts DOVERPHOS S-9228, 0.1 parts phenolic stabilizer Irganox1076 and 0.2 parts UV stabilizer. DOVERPHOS S-9228 is applicant’s preferred diphosphate (see paragraph 112 of spec). The branching units (1), (2),(3) and (4) are present in amounts of 5400ppm, 200ppm, 320ppm and 1040ppm respectively. These total 6960ppm of branching units or about 0.7wt% branching units. In consideration of the molecular weights of these branching units, the percentage is easily within applicant’s claimed 0.01-3mol%.
While the small amount of phenolic stabilizer is excluded by applicant’s “consisting of”, this is not required to be present by the reference.
Paragraph 48’s “phenolic and/or phosphorous compound” indicates the phenolic antioxidant can be excluded.
It would have been obvious to produce a similar composition as shown by example 3 lacking the phenolic antioxidant if the additional heat resistance was not deemed necessary. Also see MPEP2144.04 II regarding the obviousness of removing an element as well as its function.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The branched polycarbonate has a Mv of 24,500 (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
The viscosity of the branched polycarbonate is not reported. However, if the molecular weight and branching level correspond to applicant’s molecular weight and branching level, the same viscosity of applicant’s claim 3 should result.
The flame retardancy of the composition is not reported. However, if the same materials in the same amounts are used as called for by applicant, the same flame retardancy as applicant’s claim 7 must be achieved.
The YI of the examples is 1.8, but it is not clear if the same testing procedure is used. Given the example contains the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same YI of applicant’s claim 10 is expected.
The composition is for molding (paragraph 67) – meeting applicant’s claim 12.
The amount of the formula (1) branching agent is 5400ppm in the cited example. This branching agent (paragraph 29) has the same molecular weight as the bisphenol A carbonate repeating units that make up the vast majority of the polycarbonate. Therefore, the amount of branching from this particular unit is 0.54mol%. The other two branching units only makeup a small amount of branching. Claim 13’s 0.5-3mol% branching is easily met.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 5/11/26
Prosecution Insights