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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (JP 04080249, newly cited) and further in view of Mawatari (US 5,614,568, of record).
Aoki is directed to a resin composition comprising, as the main components, (a) 5-60 parts by mass of at least one of polycarbonate, polyamide, polyester, polyphenylene ether, and polyarylate, (b) 10-94 parts by mass of a styrene resin (corresponds with claimed B), and (c) 1-50 parts by weight of a non-fibrous, inorganic filler, such as talc, calcium carbonate, and graphite. In terms of (a) above, there is a specific disclosure to use multiple components or materials from a relatively narrow list and as such, it reasons that one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a combination of polycarbonate and polyphenylene ether for component (a). Similarly, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a combination of polyester (PBT or butylene terephthalate is listed in an exemplary resin composition of Aoki) and polyphenylene ether for component (a). In such an instance, polycarbonate or polyester (PBT) would correspond with claimed C and polyphenylene ether would correspond with claimed A. Thus, a composition of Aoki would include a combination of polycarbonate or polyester (PBT), polyphenylene ether, and styrene.
In terms of loadings, the claims generally require that (a) a styrene resin loading is smaller than a polyphenylene ether loading and (b) a polycarbonate resin loading is smaller than, equal to, or larger than a styrene resin loading. As detailed above, Aoki encompasses resin compositions satisfying each of these quantitative relationships and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad ranges of the claimed invention (experimental data provided by Applicant is illegible).
With further respect to the resin composition, the resin composition of Aoki can include an antistatic agent (Abstract). While Aoki is silent with respect to a loading of the antistatic agent, the claims (claims 1 and 8) define a broad range of loadings that are consistent with loadings for resin composition additives. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an antistatic agent at loadings in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Additionally, the resin composition is “free from carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, metal powders, and metal fibers”. It is emphasized that component C in Aoki can be talc, calcium carbonate, white carbon, graphite, glass, etc..
Also, regarding claim 1 (and claims 13-16), given that Aoki encompasses resin compositions that are substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention (in terms of materials and loadings), it reasons that the resin composition of Aoki would demonstrate an HDT (heat resistance property), a surface electrical resistance, a water absorption rate, and a specific gravity in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that as best can be determined by the examiner, the claimed parameters are a function of using resins A-C, an antistatic agent, and including carbon black at small loadings (or 0 phr) that define a composition that is “substantially” free of carbon black- this is substantially the same as the resin composition taught by Aoki and thus, it is expected that said resin composition would demonstrate properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
Lastly, with respect to claim 1 (and claim 7), while Aoki is silent with respect to a specific type of agent, the claimed agents and properties are consistent with those that are conventionally used in similar molded articles formed from resin compositions, as shown for example by Mawatari (Column 8, Lines 29+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of commonly used antistatic agents in the resin composition of Aoki absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (reasonable expectation that the use of polyether, for example, would provide the desired antistatic properties).
Regarding claim 2, Aoki suggests the use of a wide variety of claimed styrene materials and specifically discloses the use of styrene-acrylonitrile-butadiene in exemplary resin compositions.
With respect to claim 4, among the materials that can be included in (a) is polyester and an exemplary resin composition of Aoki includes butylene terephthalate or PBT. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form (a) as a combination of polyphenylene ether and polyester (PBT) given the general disclosure of Aoki and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of materials.
As to claim 5, among the materials that can be included in (a) is polycarbonate (exemplary resin composition in Aoki includes polycarbonate).
Regarding claim 12, Aoki encompasses resin compositions that are “substantially” free of a surface active agent (Abstract).
With respect to claim 18, Aoki describes an article formed by injection molding and such constitutes a “molded body”.
5. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki and Mawatari as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Lee (US 3,835,200, of record).
As detailed above, Aoki is directed to a resin composition (and associated molded article) including polyphenylene ether. Aoki, however, fails to indicate the structure of such a polyphenylene ether and thus not indicate the number of repeating units. In any event, the claimed structure and number of repeating units are consistent with those that are commonly used in similar resin compositions including polyphenylene ether and designed to form molded articles, as shown for example by Lee (Column 1, Lines 1-25 and Column 5, Lines 3-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional polyphenylene ethers in the resin composition of Aoki absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
6. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki and Mawatari as applied in claim 18 above and further in view of Terada (JP 2011-57903, of record).
As detailed above, Aoki is directed to a resin composition comprising a plurality of polymeric materials. Aoki further states that such compositions demonstrate high physical properties, such as impact strength, and high processability. In such an instance, though, Aoki is silent with respect to specific applications where such a resin composition has applicability. In any event, it is extremely well known that similar resin compositions formed with a plurality of polymeric materials and designed to provide high impact strength and high processability have a wide variety of applications, including in the manufacture of IC trays, as shown for example by Terada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form any number of articles with the resin composition of Aoki, including an IC tray, given that the disclosed materials and benefits in Aoki are well recognized as having applicability in the manufacture of IC trays.
7. Claim(s) 1-5, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughner (US 5,094,806, newly cited) and further in view of Mawatari.
Laughner is directed to a resin composition comprising at least one of polymeric component, including polyester, polymethyl methacrylate, polyphenylene ether, and polystyrene (Column 17, Lines 15-32). The specific use of polyester and/or polymethyl methacrylate with polyphenylene ether and polystyrene would have been obvious in view of the general disclosure of Laughner detailed above.
In terms of loadings, the claims generally require that (a) a styrene resin loading is smaller than a polyphenylene ether loading and (b) a polycarbonate resin loading is smaller than, equal to, or larger than a styrene resin loading. As detailed above, Laughner encompasses resin compositions satisfying each of these quantitative relationships (given the general disclosure of polymers) and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad ranges of the claimed invention (experimental data provided by Applicant is illegible).
With further respect to the resin composition, the resin composition of Laughner can include conventional additives, such as an antistatic agent (Column 13, Lines 5+). Laughner further states that such additives are included at loadings not exceeding 25% by weight of the total composition and such is consistent with the claimed requirement.
Additionally, the resin composition is “free from carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, metal powders, and metal fibers”. It is emphasized that component C in Aoki can be talc, calcium carbonate, white carbon, graphite, glass, etc..
With further respect to claim 1 (and claims 13-16), given that Laughner encompasses resin compositions that are substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention (in terms of materials and loadings), it reasons that the resin composition of Laughner would demonstrate an HDT (heat resistance property), a surface electrical resistance, a water absorption rate, and a specific gravity in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that as best can be determined by the examiner, the claimed parameters are a function of using resins A-C, an antistatic agent, and including carbon black at small loadings (or 0 phr) that define a composition that is “substantially” free of carbon black- this is substantially the same as the resin composition taught by Laughner and thus, it is expected that said resin composition would demonstrate properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, while Laughner is silent with respect to a specific type of agent, the claimed agents and properties are consistent with those that are conventionally used in similar molded articles formed from resin compositions, as shown for example by Mawatari (Column 8, Lines 29+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of commonly used antistatic agents in the resin composition of Aoki absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (reasonable expectation that the use of polyether, for example, would provide the desired antistatic properties).
As to claim 2, Laughner suggests the use of a wide variety of claimed styrene material, including styrene-acrylonitrile-butadiene (Column 5, Lines 1-10).
With respect to claim 3, among the materials that can be included in the resin composition of Laughner is polymethyl methacrylate (Column 17, Lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 4, the general disclosure of polyesters and copolymers thereof (Column 4, Lines 15-17) would have been recognized as including butylene terephthalate and ethylene terephthalate. It is emphasized that each of these polymers is well recognized as being a conventional type of polyester that is extensively used in similar resin compositions designed for molded articles. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed type of polyester materials.
As to claim 5, among the materials that can be included in the resin composition of Laughner is polycarbonate (Column 4, Lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 12, Laughner encompasses resin compositions that are “substantially” free of a surface active agent (a wide variety of additives are disclosed as being optional- Column 13, Lines 5+).
With respect to claim 18, Laughner describes an article formed by blow molding and such constitutes a “molded body” (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
8. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughner and Mawatari as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Lee.
As detailed above, Laughner is directed to a resin composition (and associated molded article) including polyphenylene ether. Laughner, however, fails to indicate the structure of such a polyphenylene ether and thus not indicate the number of repeating units. In any event, the claimed structure and number of repeating units are consistent with those that are commonly used in similar resin compositions including polyphenylene ether and designed to form molded articles, as shown for example by Lee (Column 1, Lines 1-25 and Column 5, Lines 3-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional polyphenylene ethers in the resin composition of Laughner absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
9. Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughner and Mawatari as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Terada.
As detailed above, Laughner is directed to a resin composition designed for molding and comprising polymer materials, such as polyphenylene ether, styrene resin, polyamide, polyester, polycarbonate, and polymethylmethacrylate. Laughner further states that conventional additives can be included, such as compatibilizers (Column 13, Lines 5-13). While Laughner is silent with respect to the specific type of compatibilizer, the claimed type of compatibilizer is consistent with well known and conventionally used compatibilizers in extremely similar resin composition having a plurality of polymeric materials, as shown for example by Terada. Terada teaches the inclusion of 0.01-8 parts by mass of a compatibilizing agent, such as maleic acid, maleic acid anhydride, fumaric acid, and citric acid (constitutes reactive compatibilizer). It is emphasized that Laughner directs one having ordinary skill in the art to include a compatibilizer- the specific selection of the claimed compatibilizers would have been obvious given the extensive use of the claimed compatibilizers in extremely similar resin compositions.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights