DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claim 1 is supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: a proper Markush format is “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JP 2015/168810).
In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of JP 2015/168810 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation.
Claim 1: Tajima discloses a polycarbonate resin composition consisting of 100 parts by mass (pbm) of polycarbonate resin (A), 10 to 100 pbm of carbon fiber (B), and 10 to 50 pbm of glass fiber (C) (i.e. a reinforcing material), carbon black (i.e. a colorant) and release agent (i.e. a slip agent) [0009, examples]. Aromatic polycarbonates are preferred as polycarbonate (A) because it provides advantageous heat resistance, mechanical properties, and electrical characteristics [0014]. The polycarbonate resin (A) suitably contains 80 mass percent or less of a recycled polycarbonate [0062]. Thus, the corresponding amount of non-recycled polycarbonate is about 20 mass percent or more relative to total polycarbonate (A). The carbon fiber (B) is surface-treated with a polyamide-based sizing agent and present in the narrower amount of 20 to 65 pbm [0064-0065]. The composition contains a combination of flame retardants 0.03 to 5 pbm of polytetrafluoroethylene and 1 and 30 pbm or less of condensed phosphate ester flame retardant per 100 pbm of polycarbonate resin (A) [0090], [0091]. In the case where the 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 2-3, Tajima teaches that recycled polycarbonate can be recovered from a water bottle, building materials, an automobile headlamp lens, and vehicle light guide plate [0062].
Claim 4, Tajima discloses a molded article obtained by molding the composition therein [0009].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, the data have been fully considered, however, they are insufficient to establish unexpected results given that 1) the result differences between examples 1-16 and comparative examples 2,7 and 11 are expected. Comparative example 2 has less amount of flame retardant. Comparative examples 7 and 11 have more carbon fibers which degrades the flame retardant performance because carbon fiber inherently pulls oxygen inward thus leads to a decrease in the limiting oxygen index and accelerates the fire spread, which means the material requires less oxygen to keep burning. Carbon fibers must be paired with flame-retardant additives such as ammonium polyphosphate or carbon black to coat the fibers, blocking the wicking effect and forcing the formulation to pass stringent UL-94 V-0. 2) the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims. The inventive data only contains 28-35 parts of a phosphate compound as compared to the claimed 22-37 parts, the inventive data only contains 0.4-0.7 parts of PTFE as compared to the claimed 0.05-0.8, and the inventive data only contains a specific compound for each ingredient as compared to the claimed genus.
Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Case law holds that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (i.e., scope). In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980), MPEP 716.02(d). Case law holds that evidence of superior properties in one species insufficient to establish the nonobviousness of a subgenus containing hundreds of compounds. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978).
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 extension fee 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 WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights