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 .
The amendment dated 08/03/2026 has been considered and entered. The response was considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
The amendment overcomes the rejections based on indefiniteness which are hereby withdrawn.
The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejections.
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 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Niessner et al. (DE 4242974A1)
In regards to claims 16 – 23, Niessner teaches thermoplastic moulding composition comprising 10 to 80% of C1 to C20 alkyl (meth) acrylate ester monomeric components A), 10 to 50% of a component B) comprising 73 to 90% of vinyl aromatic monomer b1) and 27 to 10% of a monomer such as acrylonitrile b2), 5 to 50% of a component C) and comprising 20 to 45% of vinyl aromatic monomers c1), 55 to 80% of C1 to C20 alkyl acrylate c2), and comprising 5 to 50% of component D, comprising 20 to 60% of vinyl aromatic monomers and 40 to 80% of C1 to C20 crosslinked alkyl acrylate monomer, which provides a graft copolymer (abstract).
Component A comprises a1) at 80 to 100% and comprising C1 to C20 alkyl meth acrylate, or C1 to C8 alkyl methacrylate (page 2 lines 55 – 50; page 3 lines 25 – 32). Crosslinking monomers are present at from 0.1 to 10% and comprises diallyl maleate, diallyl fumarate and diallyl phthalate (page 3 lines 54 – 62). Thus, the claimed limitations are provided and/or overlapped. For instance, the C1-C8 methacrylates provide the limitation of b11 of the claim. The, up to C20 alkyl acrylates of C or D overlaps the limitation of b12 of the claims. The crosslinking monomers provide b13, the vinyl aromatic provides b21 and the acrylonitrile provides b22 of the claims.
In regard to claim 24, Niessner teaches blending the components and polymerizing in an emulsion polymerization as claimed (page 3 lines 63 – 66; page 4 lines 1 – 11).
In regard to claims 25 – 31, Niessner teaches the composition having the claimed ingredients and amounts and which are useful as moulding composition as previously stated. Thus, shaped articles (i.e., molded articles) are thus provided. The process of molding the article does not carry patentable weight as it does not further the shaped article itself, or is provided for so long as the shaped article is provided. However, it is noted that Niessner teaches injection molded shaped articles (page 7 lines 41 – 44). The articles are useful for children’s toys, etc. (page 5 lines 60 – 66).
Claims 16 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wittenberg et al. (WO 2019/092237)
In regards to claim 16, Wittenberg teaches thermoplastic molding composition comprising A at 5 to 95% and comprising vinylaromatic monomer A1 (analogous to b21 of the claim) and optionally monomer A2, and B as graft copolymer at 5 to 95% and comprising at least one 5 to 95% of B1 which comprising 70 to 100% of B11 selected from C1 to C8 alky(meth)acrylate (analogous to b11 of the claim) and diene monomers, 0 to 10% of polyfunctional cross-linking monomer B12 (analogous to b13 of the claim), 0 to 30% of B13, 0 to 5% B14, 5 to 95% of B2 which is a graft shell and comprising 50 to 100% vinyl aromatic such as styrene (analogous to b21 of the claim) as B21, and 0 to 50% of acrylonitrile (i.e., vinyl cyan analogous to b22 of the claim) as B22 (pages 6 and 7). The monomers B14 can comprise 80 to 99.9% of C1 to C12 alkyl (meth)acrylate (analogous to b12 of the claim) with remaining monomers such as acrylamides etc. (page 15). The claimed ingredients and amounts are overlapped.
In regard to claims 17, 18, Wittenberg teaches the polymeric composition having the claimed ingredients as previously stated.
In regard to claim 19, Wittenberg teaches the polymer wherein the crosslinking monomers comprises divinylbenzene, diallylmaleate etc. (page 23).
In regard to claims 20 – 23, Wittenberg teach the polymeric composition having the claimed limitations as previously discussed.
In regard to claim 24, Wittenberg teaches the polymeric composition which is prepared by emulsion polymerization of graft base B1 at the polymerization temperatures and conditions, free-radical initiators, etc., of the claims (pages 11, 42 – 44).
In regards to claims 25 – 31, Wittenberg teaches the thermoplastic molding composition having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejections based on anticipation are not supported by Niessner et al. (DE 4242974A1) for failing to particularly recite component b12 and it’s claimed amount. The argument is moot as the current rejections are based on obviousness alone.
Applicant argues that Niessner teaches C1 to C20 alkyl acrylate which is preferably C1 to C8 alkyl acrylate in combination with the crosslinking monomer which only provides b11 and b13 but not b12 (i.e., a two-component mixture rather than the three-component mixture of the claims). The argument is not persuasive.
Since the C1 to C20 acrylate encompasses both b11 and b12 and are present in amounts overlapping the amounts of b11 and b12 and thus makes combinations of the lower and upper alkyl ranges of the C1 to C20 alkyl acrylates at amounts overlapping the claimed ranges, obvious.
Applicant argues that the examples in the specification demonstrate superior and unexpected properties of the claimed composition to overcome the rejections based on obviousness. The argument was not persuasive.
The inventive examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
The inventive examples each require the presence of a polystyrene acrylonitrile copolymer (component A) in a major amount which provides vinyl cyan b22 of the claim, and which does not support the breadth of the claims that allows for variety of compounds, and which also requires that the vinyl cyan is present at a low amount in the composition.
Thus, applicant fails to provide inventive examples that are commensurate in scope with the claims for demonstrating unexpectedly improved results sufficient to rebut the case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
