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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/567963 in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0327639). It is noted that a Notice of Allowability has been issued in copending application 18/567963. However, as of 9/8/2026, no Patent No. has yet been assigned to 18/567963. Should a Patent No. be assigned to 18/567963, any potential Terminal Disclaimers filed should be over the assigned Patent No.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application No. 18/567963 recites a polycarbonate-based resin comprising a polycarbonate-based resin (S) containing a polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer (A) having a polyorganosiloxane block (A-1) including a structural unit represented by the formula (1) and a polycarbonate block (A2) including a structural unit represented by formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
229
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 to R4 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, an alkoxy group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, an aryl group having 6 to 12 carbon atoms, or an alkylaryl group having 7 to 22 carbon atoms, R6 represents an arylene group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, or an alkylarylene group having 7 to 22 carbon atoms, and these groups may each contain, in at least one of a main chain or a side chain thereof, at least one group selected from the group consisting of:-O-; -COO-; -CO-; -S-; -NH-; and -NR111-, a plurality of R8s may be identical to or different from each other, and each represent an arylene group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, or an alkylarylene group having 7 to 22 carbon atoms, and these groups may each contain, in at least one of a main chain or a side chain thereof, at least one group selected from the group consisting of:-O-; -COO-; -CO; -S-; -NH-; and -NR111 -, R111 represents an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, or an aryl group having 6 to 10 carbon atoms, "z" and "u" each represent 0 or 1, "a" represents an integer of from 2 to 500, "b" represents an integer of from 5 to 200, R10 represents a divalent aliphatic hydrocarbon group having 2 to 40 carbon atoms, a divalent alicyclic hydrocarbon group having 3 to 40 carbon atoms, or a divalent aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and these groups may each be substituted with a substituent, and may each contain at least one atom selected from the group consisting of: an oxygen atom; a nitrogen atom; a sulfur atom; and a halogen atom, and "y" represents an integer of from 10 to 500 (claim 1).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the polycarbonate block (A-2) includes at least one of a structural unit represented by the formula (111) or a structural unit represented by the formula (112):
PNG
media_image2.png
228
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R⁵⁵ and R⁵⁶ each independently represent a halogen atom, an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, or an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, X represents a single bond, an alkylene group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms, an alkylidene group having 2 to 8 carbon atoms, a cycloalkylene group having 5 to 15 carbon atoms, an arylene group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, a cycloalkylidene group having 5 to 15 carbon atoms, a fluorenediyl group, an arylalkylene group having 7 to 15 carbon atoms, an arylalkylidene group having 7 to 15 carbon atoms, -S-, - SO-, -SO2-, -0-, or -CO-, R¹⁰⁰ represents a divalent aliphatic hydrocarbon group having 2 to 40 carbon atoms, and the divalent aliphatic hydrocarbon group may include at least one selected from the group consisting of: a branched structure; and a cyclic structure, and may contain at least one atom selected from the group consisting of: an oxygen atom; a nitrogen atom; a sulfur atom; and a halogen atom, "y" represents an integer of from 10 to 500, and "s" and "t" each independently represent an integer of from 0 to 4 (claim 2).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the polycarbonate block (A-2) includes a structural unit derived from at least one compound selected from the group consisting of: 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane; 2,2-bis(4- hydroxy-3-methylphenyl)propane; 1,1-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)cyclohexane; 1,1-bis(4- hydroxyphenyl)-3-methylcyclohexane; 1,1-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)-3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexane;, 1,1-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)cyclododecene, isosorbide; cyclohexane-1,4-dimethanol; tricyclodecanedimethanol; 3,9-bis(1,1-dimethyl-2-hydroxyethyl)-2,4,8,10- tetraoxaspiro[5.5]undecane; 1,3-propanediol; and 1,4-butanediol (claim 3).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the polycarbonate block (A-2) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of structural units represented by the formulae (a-i) to (a-v) (claim 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
525
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the "a" represents an integer of 2 or more and 300 or less (claim 5).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the "b" represents an integer from 10 to 200 (claim 6).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the polyorganosiloxane block (A-1) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of structural units represented by the formulae (1-1) to (1-3):
PNG
media_image4.png
249
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R¹ to R⁴, R⁶, R⁸, "z", "a", and "b" each represent the same meaning as that described above, R⁵ represents an arylene group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, or an alkylarylene group having 7 to 22 carbon atoms, and these groups may each contain, in at least one of a main chain or a side chain thereof, at least one group selected from the group consisting of: -O-; -COO-; -CO-; -S-; -NH-; and -NR¹¹ -, R⁷ represents an arylene group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, or an alkylarylene group having 7 to 22 carbon atoms, and these groups may each contain, in at least one of a main chain or a side chain thereof, at least one group selected from the group consisting of: -0-; -COO-; -CO-; -S-; -NH-; and -NR¹¹¹-, R¹¹¹ represents an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, or an aryl group having 6 to 10 carbon atoms, z¹ represents 0 or 1, b¹ represents an integer of from 2 to 200, and ß represents a divalent group derived from a diisocyanate compound, or a divalent group derived from a dicarboxylic acid or a dicarboxylic acid halide (claim 7).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein all of the R¹ to the R⁴ represent methyl groups (claim 8).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the R⁶ represents a trimethylene group (claim 9).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the R⁸ represents a dimethylene group, a methyl-substituted dimethylene group (-CH₂CHMe-), or a trimethylene group, and the "z" represents 1 (claim 10).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein a content of the polyorganosiloxane block (A-1) in the polycarbonate- polyorganosiloxane copolymer (A) is 0.1 mass% or more and 60 mass% or less (claim 11).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer (A) has a viscosity-average molecular weight (Mv) of 5,000 or more and 50,000 or less (claim 12).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein a molded piece having a total length of 75 mm, a parallel-portion length of 30 mm, an end-portion width of 10 mm, a central parallel-portion width of 5 mm, and a thickness of 2 mm of a JIS K 7139:2009 dumbbell-shaped tensile test piece type A22, which is obtained by molding the polycarbonate-based resin composition, has a tensile yield stress of 45 MPa or more, which is measured under conditions of a tensile rate of 25 mm/min, a measurement temperature of 23°C, and a chuck-to-chuck distance of 57 mm (claim 13). This overlaps instant claim 14.
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer (A) is a copolymer obtained by a melt polymerization method (claim 19).
Copending application ‘963 recites the polycarbonate-based resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer (A) is a copolymer obtained by using a diol monomer (a1) (claim 20).
Copending application ‘963 recites a molded body, comprising the polycarbonate-based resin composition of claim 1 (claim 21).
Copending application ‘963 does not recite that the composition comprises a flame retardant.
However, Sasaki teaches a polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer (abstract) which can be used to form a composition that includes an additive. An expressly named example of additive is a flame retardant (¶106).
Both copending application ‘963 and Sasaki relate to the field of polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a flame retardant as disclosed in Sasaki in the invention of copending application ‘963 in order to increase/enhance the flame retardancy of the compositions of copending application ‘963.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites b is 10 or more but depends from claim 1 which states that b is 2-200. Since claim 6 recites a range that is open ended, claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether it is meant to be limited by the range of claim 1. It is suggested that the range of claim 6 be amended to recite a range of 10-200.
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, 7-8, 11-12, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2017/0327639).
Sasaki teaches a polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer (abstract) which can be used to form a composition that includes an additive. An expressly named example of additive is a flame retardant (¶106).
Sasaki teaches the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer can be derived from a polysiloxane such as
PNG
media_image5.png
74
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(¶ 62), where R3-R6 can be a C1-C6 alkyl group (¶ 47) and where Sasaki teaches polydimethylsiloxane (¶ 115) which has R3-R6 as methyl groups. These meet the R1-R4 of formula (1) of the instant claims and instant claim 8. Sasaki teaches n is 20-500, preferably 25-55 (¶47) which meets the “a” of formula (1) in claim 1 and claim 5. The ethylene group -(CH2)2- adjacent to the silicon atom meets the claimed R6 of Formula (1) of claim 1. The structure in Sasaki meets claimed formula (1) when u is 1, z is 0, R8 is a methyl group (CH2), and b is 2. The structure of Sasaki also meets formula (1-1) of claim 7 when z1 is 0, R7 is a methylene group, b1 is 2, and R5 is an ethylene group.
Sasaki teaches the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane has a viscosity molecular weight of 10,000-30,000 (¶102), which meets instant claim 12. Sasaki teaches that the amount of polyorganosilane in the copolymer is 1-50 mass% (¶101), which meets instant claim 11. This gives an amount of polycarbonate of 50-99 mass% and corresponds to a molecular weight of 5,000-29,700. When the monomeric unit is derived from bisphenol A (¶ 111), the corresponding monomeric unit of the polycarbonate has a molecular weight of about 254, giving about 20-117 repeat units. This range meets ‘y’ of formula (1) in instant claim 1.
Sasaki teaches the polycarbonate can be derived from bisphenol A (¶ 23, 43) which meets R10 of instant claim 1 and which meets structure (111) of instant claim 2 when X is a C3 alkylene group, claim 3, and formula (a-v) of claim 4.
Sasaki does not provide an explicit example using the above polyorganosiloxane in a copolymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the above polyorganosiloxane because Sasaki teaches it is a suitable polyorganosiloxane (¶62) and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Sasaki does not explicitly recite the polysiloxane/polycarbonate is formed in a melt polymerization method. However, claims 18-19 are recited in the product-by-process format by use of the language, “obtained by a melt polymerization method…” and “obtained by using”. Case law holds that:
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims, regardless of the method by which the polysiloxane/polycarbonate is produced.
Sasaki teaches forming molded bodies (¶106-107) which meets instant claim 20.
Claims are 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2018/0230305).
Okamoto teaches a polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer (abstract) which can be used to form a composition that includes a flame retardant (D) (¶26), wherein the flame retardant is a phosphorus-based flame retardant (¶27) or a metal salt-based flame retardant (¶155), which is present in an amount of from 10 to 40 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by weight of the polycarbonate resin (¶29). This meets instant claims 15-16.
Okamoto teaches the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer can be derived from a polysiloxane such as
PNG
media_image5.png
74
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(¶77), where R3-R6 can be a C1-C6 alkyl group (¶ 63) and where Okamoto teaches polydimethylsiloxane (¶ 79, 211, 222) which has R3-R6 as methyl groups. These meet R1-R4 of formula (1) of the instant claims and instant claim 8. Okamoto teaches n is the average chain length and which Okamoto teaches is 20-500, preferably 30-150 (¶19, 55, 63) which meets the claimed “a” of formula (1) in instant claims 1 and 5. The ethylene group -(CH2)2- adjacent to the silicon atom meets the claimed R6 of Formula (1) of instant claim 1. The structure in Okamoto meets claimed formula (1) when u is 1, z is 0, R8 is a methyl group (CH2), and b is 2. The structure of Sasaki also meets formula (1-1) of claim 7 when z1 is 0, R7 is a methylene group, b1 is 2, and R5 is an ethylene group.
Okamoto teaches the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane has a viscosity molecular weight of 10,000-25,000 (¶102), which meets instant claim 12. Okamoto et al. teaches that the amount of polyorganosilane in the copolymer is 2-15 mass% (¶101). This meets instant claim 11 and gives an amount of polycarbonate of 85-98 mass%, which corresponds to a molecular weight of 8,500-24,500. When the monomeric unit is derived from bisphenol A (¶ 96, 100), the corresponding monomeric unit of the polycarbonate has a molecular weight of about 254, giving about 33-96 repeat units. This range meets ‘y’ of formula (1) in instant claim 1.
Okamoto teaches the polycarbonate can be derived from bisphenol A (¶ 96, 100) which meets structure (111) of claim 2 when X is a C3 alkylene group, claim 3, and formula (a-v) of claim 4.
Okamoto does not provide an explicit example using the above polyorganosiloxane in a copolymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the above polyorganosiloxane because Sasaki teaches it is a suitable polyorganosiloxane (¶62) and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Okamoto teaches examples having a bending modulus of elasticity of 2620, 2600, and 2670 MPa (Table 2) which meet instant claim 13.
Okamoto does not explicitly recite the polysiloxane/polycarbonate is formed in a melt polymerization method. However, claims 18-19 are recited in the product-by-process format by use of the language, “obtained by a melt polymerization method…” and “obtained by using”. Case law holds that:
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims, regardless of the method by which the polysiloxane/polycarbonate is produced.
Okamoto teaches forming molded bodies (¶ 32, 130) which meets instant claim 20.
Okamoto teaches the polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer can be derived from a polysiloxane such as
PNG
media_image6.png
80
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(¶ 77) where R3-R6 can be a C1-C6 alkyl group (¶ 63) and where Okamoto teaches polydimethylsiloxane (¶ 79, 211, 222) which has R3-R6 as methyl groups. These meet R1-R4 of formula (1) of the instant claims. Okamoto teaches n is the average chain length, which is 20-500, preferably 30-150 (¶19, 55, 63) which meets the claimed “a” of formula (1) in instant claims 1 and 5. The methylethylene group -(CHMeCH2)- adjacent to the silicon atom meets the claimed R6 of Formula (1) of instant claims 1 and 10. The structure in Okamoto meets formula (1) of the instant claims when u is 1, z is 0, R8 is a -CMe2Ph- group and a Ph-OH group and b is 2. The structure of Okamoto also meets formula (1-1) of instant claim 7. Okamoto teaches examples of linking groups to the siloxane groups include (CH2)c where c is 1-6 (¶68), which meets the ‘trimethylene’ of instant claim 9.
Okamoto does not explicitly recite the claimed tensile yield stress of the disclosed blends. However, Okamoto teaches polysiloxanes and polysiloxane/polycarbonate copolymers falling in the scope of the instant claims, which have the bending modulus of elasticity as the instantly claimed invention (see the discussion with regards instant claim 13 above). As Okamoto teaches the same blends of polyester and polysiloxane/polycarbonate as recited in the instant claims, which have the same bending modulus of elasticity as the instantly claimed invention (see the discussion with regards to instant claim 13 above), evidence is provided that the blends of Okamoto are the same as that of the instant claims meaning the blends of Okamoto will necessarily have the same properties as the instantly claimed polycarbonate-resin, including the tensile yield stress of instant claim 14. MPEP 2112 states “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The burden is shifted to Applicants to provide factually supported objective evidence demonstrating that the blends of Okamoto do not necessarily have the instantly claimed tensile yield stress.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2018/0230305) and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2018/0355177).
Okamoto teach the polycarbonate-based resin composition discussed in this rejection above, the rejection of which is incorporated herein by reference. While Okamoto et al. teaches that a metal-based salt can be included as a flame retardant (¶155), Okamoto et al. does not expressly teach that the amount of the metal-based salt is from 0.01 to 1 part by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of polycarbonate-based resin.
However, Yamada et al. teach a polycarbonate-based resin composition comprising a polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer and a flame retardant (abstract). Expressly named examples of flame retardant include phosphorus-based flame retardants and metal salt based flame retardants (¶166). When the flame retardant is an metal salt-based flame retardant, the amount used is preferably 0.01 to 0.1 part by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polycarbonate-based resin. (See ¶166 of Yamada et al), more preferably 0.02 to 0.08 parts by mass of the metal salt-based flame retardant (¶174 of Yamada et al.).
Both Okamoto and Yamada relate to the field of compositions comprising polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymers and flame retardants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include 0.01 to 0.1 part by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polycarbonate-based resin of a metal salt-based flame retardant as disclosed in Yamada in the invention of Okamoto et al. because when the blending amount is less than the disclosed range, sufficient flame retardancy is not obtained, and when the blending amount is within the upper end of the disclosed range, contamination of the processing equipment (die) can be suppressed. See the last sentence of ¶174 of Yamada et al.
Instant claim 6 recites the value of b is 10 or more. The prior art fails to teach the structural features recited in claim 6, so there are no prior art rejections over this claim. However, this claim is indefinite and rejected under ODP as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. B BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7338. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/K. BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights