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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 contains a period right before [Equation 4]. Equation 4 is referenced earlier in the claim, making it clear that it is part of the claim. It is suggested that the period “.” be replaced with a comma or semicolon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 12-13 are 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 4 recites the Mw of copolymer (D) is greater than 1,000,000 but depends from claim 1 which recites the Mw of copolymer (D) is 1,000,000 to 10,000,000. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the range is intended to be limited by the range in claim 1. It is suggested that an upper endpoint be added to the Mw range of claim 4.
Claim 12 includes the tradename of the injection molding machine. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and thus contains the same issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 2019/0382574) in view of Hwang (WO 2020/067681). As the WO document is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
An teaches a thermoplastic resin composition comprising (A) 5-35 wt% first graft acrylate copolymer having an average particle diameter of 50-150nm, (B) 10-40 wt% of a second graft acrylate copolymer having a particle size of 150-800 nm, (C) 5-15 wt% aromatic vinyl/vinyl cyanide copolymer with a Mw of 70,000-130,000, (D) 20-50 wt% aromatic vinyl/(meth)acrylate copolymer with a Mw of 65,000-100,000, and (E) 0.1-7 wt% polystyrene resin (abstract). An teaches forming molds from the composition (¶ 2, 131).
Component (A) of An corresponds to claimed component A-2. Component (B) of An corresponds to claimed component A-1. The total amount of (A) and (B) is 15-75 wt% which overlaps the range of claim 6.
An teaches examples where the component (C) is an α-methylstyrene/styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer with a Mw of 100,000 (¶ 131) which is a heat resistant copolymer because it contains α-methylstyrene. This corresponds to claimed component (B). Component (C) of An corresponds to claimed component C. An teaches the component (C) has 50-90 wt% aromatic vinyl compound and 10-50 wt% vinyl cyanide compound (¶ 99) which meets claim 10.
An does not explicitly recite an aromatic vinyl/vinyl cyanide copolymer having a Mw of 1,000,000-10,000,000 (claimed copolymer (D)).
However, Hwang teaches thermoplastic compositions (¶ 1-4) of graft copolymers (¶ 7) which include 3-6 wt% of a high molecular weight styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer having a Mw of 1,000,000 or more (¶7) or 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 (¶ 16, 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a high Mw styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer as taught by Hwang because it improves the low gloss properties and improves the sheet extrusion properties (¶ 85).
Hwang does not explicitly recite the IV or bulk density. However, Hwang teaches an example of the high molecular weight copolymer is ZB-869 (¶123) which is the same copolymer used in the examples of the instant specification and has 75wt% styrene and 25 wt% acrylonitrile. See instant specification, pg. 53, ¶ 247. Therefore, it is reasonable that the high molecular weight copolymer used in the examples (ZB-869) has the claimed properties.
An teaches an example of a graft copolymer with 500 nm particle diameter has 30 wt% styrene, 20 wt% acrylonitrile graft polymerized onto 50 wt% butyl acrylate core (¶ 131) which meets claim 8.
An teaches an example of a graft copolymer with 130 nm particle diameter has 30 wt% styrene, 20 wt% acrylonitrile graft polymerized onto 50 wt% butyl acrylate core (¶ 131) which meets claim 9.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 2019/0382574) in view of Hwang (WO 2020/067681) as evidenced by Kang (KR 2007-0096463). As the KR document is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
The discussion above is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claims 7, An does not explicitly recite the amount of α-methylstyrene. However, An teaches using 98UHM resin (¶131) which has 75 wt% α-methylstyrene as evidenced by pg. 18 of Kang.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 2019/0382574) in view of Park (WO 2019/190298). As the WO document is not in English, citations are made to the corresponding US document, US 2021/0024735.
An teaches a thermoplastic resin composition comprising (A) 5-35 wt% first graft acrylate copolymer having an average particle diameter of 50-150nm, (B) 10-40 wt% of a second graft acrylate copolymer having a particle size of 150-800 nm, (C) 5-15 wt% aromatic vinyl/vinyl cyanide copolymer with a Mw of 70,000-130,000, (D) 20-50 wt% aromatic vinyl/(meth)acrylate copolymer with a Mw of 65,000-100,000, and (E) 0.1-7 wt% polystyrene resin (abstract). An teaches forming molds from the composition (¶ 2, 131).
Component (A) of An corresponds to claimed component A-2. Component (B) of An corresponds to claimed component A-1. The total amount of (A) and (B) is 15-75 wt% which overlaps the range of claim 6.
An teaches examples where the component (C) is an α-methylstyrene/styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer with a Mw of 100,000 (¶ 131) which is a heat resistant copolymer because it contains α-methylstyrene. This corresponds to claimed component (B). Component (C) of An corresponds to claimed component C. An teaches the component (C) has 50-90 wt% aromatic vinyl compound and 10-50 wt% vinyl cyanide compound (¶ 99) which meets claim 10.
An does not explicitly recite an aromatic vinyl/vinyl cyanide copolymer having a Mw of 1,000,000-10,000,000 (claimed copolymer (D)).
However, Park teaches a thermoplastic resin composition and a molded product, wherein the thermoplastic resin composition includes a base resin including (A-1) 10 wt % to 30 wt % of a first acrylate-based graft copolymer having an acrylate-based rubbery polymer with an average particle diameter of 300 nm to 400 nm; (A-2) 10 wt % to 35 wt % of a second acrylate-based graft copolymer having an acrylate-based rubbery polymer with an average particle diameter of 100 nm to 200 nm; (B) 10 wt % to 15 wt % of an aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyanide compound copolymer; and (C) 35 wt % to 55 wt % of α-methylstyrene-based copolymer, and (D) 1 to 5 parts by weight of an ultrahigh molecular weight styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer having a weight average molecular weight of greater than or equal to 5,000,000 g/mol, based on 100 parts by weight of the base resin (abstract). The (C) α-methylstyrene-based copolymer of Park corresponds to the claimed heat resistant resin (B). The (B) aromatic vinyl compound-vinyl cyanide compound copolymer of Park corresponds to the claimed (C) copolymer. Park teaches the (A-2) graft copolymer is an acrylonitrile styrene acrylate graft copolymer (¶10, 28). Park teaches the Mw of the ultrahigh molecular weight styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer is 5,000,000-10,000,000 (¶ 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ultrahigh molecular weight styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer because it improves the appearance of the composition (¶ 58, 61).
An does not teach the ratio of amounts taught in claims 2, 3, 11, 14. However, Park teaches examples where the amounts of (A-1), (A-2), (B), and (C) are 13, 31, 13, and 43 (Table 1). This meets the limitations of claims 2 and 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amounts of Park because they provide improved impact strength and impvoed flow marks (Table 2, ¶57, 50, 44, 41).
An does not teach the amount of α-methylstyrene. However, Park teaches 50-80 wt% α-methylstyrene and 10-50 wt% vinyl cyanide (¶52). It would have been obvious to use the amounts of Park because it improves heat resistance, impact resistance and appearance (¶57).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 2019/0382574) in view of Park (WO 2019/190298) as evidenced by Kang (KR 2007-0096463).
The discussion above is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claims 7, An does not explicitly recite the amount of α-methylstyrene. However, An teaches using 98UHM resin (¶131) which has 75 wt% α-methylstyrene as evidenced by pg. 18 of Kang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to correct any objections or indefinite issues described above.
Claim 12 recites the composition satisfies equation 3: 380≤melt flow index×die swell ratio×spiral×content of processing aid≤1,400. The instant specification provides evidence that this property is not necessarily present. See instant specification, pg. 58-59. Therefore, a position of inherency would not be proper. The prior art of record, An, Park, and Hwang, fail to teach the claimed equation 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights