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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office has not set for the grounds for demonstrating distinctness of the claimed inventions and likewise not demonstrated a search burden. This is not found persuasive because set forth in the restriction requirement mailed on 11/19/2025, the claimed product can be made by a process wherein the additives are provided as a separate coating process rather than being fed into an extruder and melt-kneaded. Furthermore, a search burden exists due at least separate classification of the inventive groups. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurasawa et al. (JP 2011-063812) in view of Okaya et al. (JP 2020041253) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/21/2024)
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kurasawa et al. discloses a polycarbonate resin blend including: 100 parts polycarbonate, 7 parts polycarbonate oligomer, 10 parts glass fiber and 20 parts carbon fiber. (Example #3, Table 2. [0096]). Kurasawa et al. discloses that the polycarbonate resin has a terminal OH group of 500 ppm. (See production Examples 1-2). Kurasawa et al. further teaches forming pellets with the resin blend. (page 6, 2nd full paragraph). Kurasawa et al. teaches the inclusion of a flame retardant in the polycarbonate material. (page 11, 2nd full paragraph).
Kurasawa et al. does not teach that the flame retardant is a nonmetal salt flame retardant in an amount of 0.05 to 25 parts by mass. Kurasawa et al. further does not explicitly teach that the carbon fibers are recycled carbon fibers.
Okaya et al. teaches a composition including 23.5-80 parts by mass recycled carbon fibers and 5-30 parts by mass of a phosphate ester flame retardant (i.e. a non-metal salt flame retardant), overlapping with the presently claimed ranges (par. [0016]-[0019] [0054], [0057] and [0062]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use phosphate ester flame retardants and recycled carbon fibers in the composition of Kurasawa et al. in view of the teachings of Okaya et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use phosphate ester flame retardants and recycled carbon fibers in the composition of Kurasawa et al. in view of the known use of these materials for providing improved properties to polycarbonate resin materials. he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using phosphate ester flame retardants and recycled carbon fibers in the composition of Kurasawa et al. to yield a resin composition having improved flame retardancy and suitable improved mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 2, given that the composition of the polycarbonate resin in Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. is substantially identical as that presently claimed, it would be expected to have substantially the same properties. In particular, the present specification indicates that a terminal hydroxyl values of 150-800 ppm results in improved flexural strength (par. [0014]). Furthermore, the specification indicates that non-metal flame retardants also contribute to the improved flexural strength of the composition. (par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Kurasawa et al. teaches the inclusion of 3-200 parts by mass of a fluidity modifier into the polycarbonate resin in the form of an inorganic filler. (page 9, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, the flame retardant disclosed in Okaya et al. is a phosphate-based material. (phosphate ester, par. [0018]-[0020]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Kurasawa et al. discloses that the polycarbonate resin has a terminal OH group of 500 ppm. (See production Examples 1-2) and Okaya et al. teaches 5-30 parts by mass of a phosphate ester flame retardant (i.e. a non-metal salt flame retardant), overlapping with the presently claimed ranges (par. [0016]-[0019])
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurasawa et al. (JP 2011-063812) in view of Okaya et al. (JP 2020-041253) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/21/2024), further in view of Takagi (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2003/0065092).
Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. does not disclose the use of recycled polycarbonate resin.
Takagi teaches a regenerated resin composition for making molded articles including recycled polycarbonate materials. (Abstract and par. [0004]-[0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a recycled polycarbonate resin as the polycarbonate resin material in Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use recycled polycarbonate for reducing the environmental impact of the molded resin material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurasawa et al. (JP 2011-063812) in view of Okaya et al. (JP 2020-041253) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/21/2024), further in view of Hirono et al. (JP 2010-229305).
Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. does not disclose a mold release agent or carbon black in an amount of 0.1-10 parts by weight.
Hirono et al. teaches inclusion of a coloring agent such as carbon black into a polycarbonate resin composition in amounts of 5 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the resin composition to impart color without compromising impact resistance. (page 13, last paragraph – page 14, first 2 paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 5 parts by weight or less of carbon black into the polycarbonate resin composition disclosed in Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include 5 parts by weight or less carbon black in order to impart sufficient coloring to the resin while not compromising the impact resistance thereof.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurasawa et al. (JP 2011-063812) in view of Okaya et al. (JP 2020-041253) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/21/2024), further in view of Takagi (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2003/0065092) and Hirono et al. (JP 2010-229305).
Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kurasawa et al. teaches the inclusion of 3-200 parts by mass of a fluidity modifier into the polycarbonate resin in the form of an inorganic filler. (page 9, 4th paragraph). Furthermore, given that the composition of the polycarbonate resin in Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. is substantially identical as that presently claimed, it would be expected to have substantially the same properties. In particular, the present specification indicates that a terminal hydroxyl values of 150-800 ppm results in improved flexural strength (par. [0014]). Furthermore, the specification indicates that non-metal flame retardants also contribute to the improved flexural strength of the composition. (par. [0034]).
Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. does not disclose the use of a recycled polycarbonate resin material.
Takagi teaches a regenerated resin composition for making molded articles including recycled polycarbonate materials. (Abstract and par. [0004]-[0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a recycled polycarbonate resin as the polycarbonate resin material in Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use recycled polycarbonate for reducing the environmental impact of the molded resin material.
Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al. does not disclose a mold release agent or carbon black in an amount of 0.1-10 parts by weight.
Hirono et al. teaches inclusion of a coloring agent such as carbon black into a polycarbonate resin composition in amounts of 5 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the resin composition to impart color without compromising impact resistance. (page 13, last paragraph – page 14, first 2 paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 5 parts by weight or less of carbon black into the polycarbonate resin composition disclosed in Kurasawa in view of Okaya et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include 5 parts by weight or less carbon black in order to impart sufficient coloring to the resin while not compromising the impact resistance thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/05/2026