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 Objections Claim s 1, 18-24, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 7, “the graft copolymer (A)”, should read “ the at least one graft copolymer (A) ”. Claim 1, line 11, “at least one agglomerated butadiene rubber latex (A1)” , should read “the agglomerated butadiene rubber latex (A1)” . Claim 1, line 21, “the copolymer (B)”, should read “the at least one copolymer (B).” In each of Claim 18, line 1, claim 19, line 1, claim 20, line 1, and claim 21, line 1, “the vinylidene fluoride” should read “the at least one vinylidene fluoride”. Claim 22 , line 1 , “the graft copolymer (A)”, should read “the at least one graft copolymer (A)”. Claim 22 , line 3 , “the at least one agglomerated butadiene rubber latex (A1)”, should read “the agglomerated butadiene rubber latex (A1)” . Claim 23 , line 1, “the copolymer (B)”, should read “the at least one copolymer (B).” Claim 24 , line 1, “the component (D )”, should read “the at least one further additive/processing aid (D)”. Claim 29, line 1, “the surface” should read “a” surface”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 16- 17, 22-26, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niessner et al. (WO 2020/064594) in view of Ju n g et al. (US 2018/0187003). Regarding claims 16- 17, 22-23 and 32 , Niessner et al. discloses ABS thermoplastic molding composition comprising: (A) 15 to 44.2 wt.% of at least one graft copolymer (A) consisting of 15 to 60 wt.% of a graft sheath (A2) and 40 to 85 wt.% of a graft substrate - an agglomerated butadiene rubber latex - (A1 ), where (A1 ) and (A2) sum up to 100 wt.%, obtained by emulsion polymerization of styrene and acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 65:35 to obtain a graft sheath (A2), it being possible for styrene and/or acrylonitrile to be replaced partially (less than 50 wt.%) by alpha-methylstyrene, methyl methacrylate or maleic anhydride or mixtures thereof, in the presence of at least one agglomerated butadiene rubber latex (A1) with a median weight particle diameter D 50 of 150 to 800 nm, where the agglomerated rubber latex (A1) is obtained by agglomeration of at least one starting butadiene rubber latex (S-A1) having a median weight particle diameter D 50 of equal to or less than 120 nm (corresponding to claimed (A)); (B) 55 to 84.2 wt% of at least one copolymer (B) of styrene and acrylonitrile or α -methylstyrene and acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of from 95:5 to 50:50, it being possible for styrene, α -methylstyrene and/or acrylonitrile to be partially (less than 50 wt.%) replaced by methyl methacrylate, maleic anhydride and/or 4-phenylstyrene; wherein copolymer (B) has a weight average molar mass M w of 95,000 to 250,000 g/mol (corresponding to claimed (B)); (C1) 0.65 to 1.20 wt.% of at least one fatty acid amide or fatty acid amide derivative ; (C2) 0 to 0.40 wt.% of at least one fatty acid metal salt; (C3) 0.05 to 0.30 wt% of at least one metal oxide ; (C4) 0.05 to 0.80 wt.% of at least one antioxidant; (C5) 0.05 to 0.30 wt.% silicon oil (where (C1)-(C5) each correspond to claimed (D) with a cumulative total of 0.8 to 3 wt.%) (D) 0 to 5 wt.% of at least one further additive/processing aid (D) different from (C1) to (C5), where components A, B, C1, C3, C4, C5 and, if present, C2 and/or D, sum to 100 wt.% (see Abstract and page 3, li n e 19 – page 4, line 22) . Nie s sner et al. do no t disclose at last one vinylidene fluoride copolymer (C) as presently claimed. Jung et al. disclose a resin composition for molding (see paragraphs 0136-0137) comprising rubber modified vinyl-based graft copolymer (see paragraphs 0064-0065) that includes butadiene rubber grafted with styrene-acrylonitrile (see paragraphs 0065, 0070, 007 3 ) and 0.01-2 wt.% fluorinated polyolefin including vinylidene fluoride copolymer s (see paragraphs 0107-010 9 ). The vinylidene fluoride copolymer produces a resin composition with improved flame retardancy and/or impact resistance (see paragraph 0110). In light of the motivation for using 0.01-2 wt .% vinylidene fluoride copolymer disclosed by Jung et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vinylidene fluoride copolymer , in amounts including that presently claimed, as the further additive (D) in Niessner et al. in order to produce an ABS thermoplastic molding composition with improved flame retardancy and/or impact resistance. Regarding claim 24 , Niessner et al. disclose that component (D) also includes a UV absorbing additive, i. e . stabilizer (page 15, line 10) . Regarding claim 25 , Niessner et al. disclose that the composition is produced by melt mixing at 160C to 320C (see page 16, lines 29-34). Regarding claim 26 , Niessner et al. disclose use of the thermoplastic molding composition to produce shaped articles (page 18, lines 12-13 ). Regarding claim 31 , Niessner et al. disclose use of the thermoplastic molding composition in the automotive sector (page 18, lines 21-22). Claim 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niessner et al. (WO 2020/064594) in view of Jung et al. (US 2018/0187003) as applied to claim 1 6 above, and further in view of Lo (US 3,178,399). Regarding claims 18-21 , Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. disclose ABS thermoplastic molding composition as described above. While Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. disclose vinylidene fluoride copolymer, there is no disclosure in Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. of specific vinylidene fluoride copolymer as claimed. Lo discloses fluorine-containing polymer , i.e. vinylidene fluoride copolymer, comprising 87-99 mol% vinylidene fluoride and 1-13 mol% hexafluoropropene (i.e. hexafluoropropylene) (see col.1, lines 10-11, col.2, lines 55-60, and claim 1). Given the molecular weight of vinylidene fluoride (64.035g/mol) and hexafluoropropylene (150.02 g/mol), it is calculated when the vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprises 87 mol% vinylidene fluoride and 13 mol% hexafluoropropylene, there is present 55.71 g vinylidene fluoride (0.87*64.035) and 19.5 g hexafluoropropylene (0.13*150.02) and therefore 74 wt.% vinylidene fluoride (55.71/(55.71+19.50)) and 26 wt.% hexafluoropropylene (19.5/(55.71+19.50)). Similarly, when the vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprises 99 mol% vinylidene fluoride and 1 mol% hexafluoropropylene, there is present 63.39 g vinylidene fluoride (0.99*64.035) and 1.50 g hexafluoropropylene (0.01*150.02) and therefore 98 wt.% vinylidene fluoride (63.39/(63.39+1.50)) and 2 wt.% hexafluoropropylene (1.50/(63.39+1.50)). Thus, Lo discloses vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprising 74-98 wt.% vinylidene fluoride and 2-26 wt.% hexafluoropropylene. The vinylidene fluoride copolymer can be molded into a variety of end products and have improved properties including corrosion resistance, relatively high hardness and flexibility over a wide range of temperat ures as well as outstanding high tensile and reversible elongation properties (see col.1, line 60-col.2, line 5, col.2, lines 42-55, and col.3, lines 1-13). In light of the motivation for using vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprising 74-98 wt.% vinylidene fluoride and 2-26 wt.% hexafluoropropylene disclosed by Lo as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vinylidene fluoride copolymer as the vinylidene fluoride copolymer in Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. in order to produce an ABS thermoplastic molding composition with improved properties including corrosion resistance, relatively high hardness and flexibility over a wide range of temperatures , outstanding high tensile , and reversible elongation properties. Claim 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niessner et - al. (WO 2020/064594) in view of Jung et al. (US 2018/0187003) as applied to claim s 16 and 26 above, and further in view of Eisentraeger et al. (U.S. 2017/0044355) . Regarding claims 27-30 , Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. disclose ABS thermoplastic molding composition as described above. While Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. disclose shaped article made from the molding composition including those for use in the automotive sector , there is no disclosure in Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. of plating applications comprising the composition or shaped article. Eisentraeger et al. disclose molding composition comprising graft rubber copolymer obtained by emulsion polymerization of styrene and acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 50:50, styrene and/or acrylonitrile being able to be partially or completely replaced by α- methylstyrene, methyl methacrylate or mixtures thereof, in the presence of at least one polymer latex (a) of a conjugated diene and at least one rubber free vinyl copolymer of 50 to 99 percent styrene a nd 1 to 50 percent acrylonitrile (see paragraphs 0012-0013). Eisentraeger et al. further discloses forming the composition into a shaped article (see paragraph 0134) which is then plated with chromium (see paragraphs 0135-0136 and 0150) for use in automotive applications (see paragraph 0151) where plating results in excellent surface appearance , good scratch , and scuff resistance (see paragraph 0001). In light of the motivation for plating shaped articles made from thermoplastic molding compositions disclosed by Eisentraeger et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to chrome p l ate the shaped articles of Niessner et al. in view of Jung et al. in order to produce an article with excellent surface appearance , good scratch , and scuff resistance. Claims 16-26 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niessner et al. (WO 2020/064594) in view of Lo (US 3,178,399). Regarding claims 16-23 and 32 , Niessner et al. discloses ABS thermoplastic molding composition comprising: (A) 15 to 44.2 wt.% of at least one graft copolymer (A) consisting of 15 to 60 wt.% of a graft sheath (A2) and 40 to 85 wt.% of a graft substrate - an agglomerated butadiene rubber latex - (A1 ), where (A1 ) and (A2) sum up to 100 wt.%, obtained by emulsion polymerization of styrene and acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 65:35 to obtain a graft sheath (A2), it being possible for styrene and/or acrylonitrile to be replaced partially (less than 50 wt.%) by alpha-methylstyrene, methyl methacrylate or maleic anhydride or mixtures thereof, in the presence of at least one agglomerated butadiene rubber latex (A1) with a median weight particle diameter D50 of 150 to 800 nm, where the agglomerated rubber latex (A1) is obtained by agglomeration of at least one starting butadiene rubber latex (S-A1) having a median weight particle diameter D50 of equal to or less than 120 nm (corresponding to claimed (A)); (B) 55 to 84.2 wt% of at least one copolymer (B) of styrene and acrylonitrile or α-methylstyrene and acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of from 95:5 to 50:50, it being possible for styrene, α -methylstyrene and/or acrylonitrile to be partially (less than 50 wt.%) replaced by methyl methacrylate, maleic anhydride and/or 4-phenylstyrene; wherein copolymer (B) has a weight average molar mass Mw of 95,000 to 250,000 g/mol (corresponding to claimed (B)); (C1) 0.65 to 1.20 wt.% of at least one fatty acid amide or fatty acid amide derivative; (C2) 0 to 0.40 wt.% of at least one fatty acid metal salt; (C3) 0.05 to 0.30 wt% of at least one metal oxide; (C4) 0.05 to 0.80 wt.% of at least one antioxidant; (C5) 0.05 to 0.30 wt.% silicon oil (where (C1)-(C5) each correspond to claimed (D) with a cumulative total of 0.8 to 3 wt.%) (D) 0 to 5 wt.% of at least one further additive/processing aid (D) different from (C1) to (C5), where components A, B, C1, C3, C4, C5 and, if present, C2 and/or D, sum to 100 wt.% (see Abstract and page 3, line 19 – page 4, line 22). Niessner et al. do not disclose at last one vinylidene fluoride copolymer (C) as presently claimed. Lo discloses fluorine-containing polymer, i.e. vinylidene fluoride copolymer, comprising 87-99 mol% vinylidene fluoride and 1-13 mol% hexafluoropropene (i.e. hexafluoropropylene) (see col.1, lines 10-11, col.2, lines 55-60, and claim 1). Given the molecular weight of vinylidene fluoride (64.035g/mol) and hexafluoropropylene (150.02 g/mol), it is calculated when the vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprises 87 mol% vinylidene fluoride and 13 mol% hexafluoropropylene, there is present 55.71 g vinylidene fluoride (0.87*64.035) and 19.5 g hexafluoropropylene (0.13*150.02) and therefore 74 wt.% vinylidene fluoride (55.71/(55.71+19.50)) and 26 wt.% hexafluoropropylene (19.5/(55.71+19.50)). Similarly, when the vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprises 99 mol% vinylidene fluoride and 1 mol% hexafluoropropylene, there is present 63.39 g vinylidene fluoride (0.99*64.035) and 1.50 g hexafluoropropylene (0.01*150.02) and therefore 98 wt.% vinylidene fluoride (63.39/(63.39+1.50)) and 2 wt.% hexafluoropropylene (1.50/(63.39+1.50)). Thus, Lo discloses vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprising 74-98 wt.% vinylidene fluoride and 2-26 wt.% hexafluoropropylene. The vinylidene fluoride copolymer can be molded into a variety of end products and have improved properties including corrosion resistance, relatively high hardness and flexibility over a wide range of temperatures as well as outstanding high tensile and reversible elongation properties (see col.1, line 60-col.2, line 5, col.2, lines 42-55, and col.3, lines 1-13). In light of the motivation for using vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprising 74-98 wt.% vinylidene fluoride and 2-26 wt.% hexafluoropropylene disclosed by Lo as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use vinylidene fluoride copolymer as the further additive (D) in Niessner et al. in order to produce an ABS thermoplastic molding composition with improved properties including corrosion resistance, relatively high hardness and flexibility over a wide range of temperatures, outstanding high tensile, and reversible elongation properties. Regarding claim 24 , Niessner et al. disclose that component (D) also includes a UV absorbing additive, i.e. stabilizer (page 15, line 10). Regarding claim 25 , Niessner et al. disclose that the composition is produced by melt mixing at 160C to 320C (see page 16, lines 29-34). Regarding claim 26 , Niessner et al. disclose use of the thermoplastic molding composition to produce shaped articles (page 18, lines 12-13). Regarding claim 31 , Niessner et al. disclose use of the thermoplastic molding composition in the automotive sector (page 18, lines 21-22). Claim 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niessner et al. (WO 2020/064594) in view of Lo (US 3,178,399) as applied to claims 16 and 26 above, and further in view of Eisentraeger et al. (U.S. 2017/0044355) . Regarding claims 27-30 , Niessner et al. in view of Lo disclose ABS thermoplastic molding composition as described above. While Niessner et al. in view of Lo disclose shaped article made from the molding composition including for use in the automotive sector, there is no disclosure in Niessner et al. in view of Lo of plating applications comprising the composition or shaped article. Eisentraeger et al. disclose molding composition comprising graft rubber copolymer obtained by emulsion polymerization of styrene and acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 50:50, styrene and/or acrylonitrile being able to be partially or completely replaced by α- methylstyrene, methyl methacrylate or mixtures thereof, in the presence of at least one polymer latex (a) of a conjugated diene and at least one rubber free vinyl copolymer of 50 to 99 percent styrene a nd 1 to 50 percent acrylonitrile (see paragraphs 0012-0013). Eisentraeger et al. further discloses forming the composition into a shaped article (see paragraph 0134) which is then plated with chromium (see paragraphs 0135-0136 and 0150) for use in automotive applications (see paragraph 0151) where plating results in excellent surface appearance , good scratch , and scuff resistance (see paragraph 0001). In light of the motivation for plating shaped articles made from thermoplastic molding compositions disclosed by Eisentraeger et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to chrome p l ate the shaped articles of Niessner et al. in view of Lo in order to produce an article with excellent surface appearance, good scratch, and scuff resistance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Callie Shosho whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1123 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 6:00 am - 5:00 pm . 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 Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7769 . 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. /CALLIE E SHOSHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787