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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 have been amended. Claim 5 is canceled. Claim 11 is added. Applicant’s amendment to claim 4 is found sufficient to overcome the objection set forth in the Action dated 1/22/26. As such, this objection is hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are also found sufficient to overcome the anticipation rejections made over the cited prior art of JP 2012007079 A issued to UNITIKA LTD set forth in the Action dated 1/22/26. Specifically, JP 2012007079 A issued to UNITIKA LTD does not teach the claimed high impact polystyrene resin. As such, this rejection is hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following obviousness type rejections are made over JP 2012007079 A issued to UNITIKA LTD in view of US 20130280468 A1 issued to GOMIBUCHI et al., for reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants argue that the primary reference of JP 2012007079 A issued to UNITIKA LTD does not disclose or suggest a combined use of a wax with at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic layered double hydroxide and zeolite, and a styrene-based resin, as claimed. Applicants submit that Unitika is directed to primarily polylactic acid-based resin compositions that can be used to form molded articles. Specifically, Unitika teaches that by adding a carbodiimide compound and a wax to a polylactic acid-based resin, certain deficiencies can be overcome. Applicants submit that while Unitika mentions some styrenes, a hydrotalcite compound, and a zeolite independently among numerous optional additives, Unitika does not disclose or suggest a composition in which these components are combined in the claimed manner, nor does it attribute any function to such a combination. The working examples in Unitika are limited to PLA-based compositions and do not demonstrate the presence of zeolite or hydrotalcite, either alone or in combination with a styrene-based resin and wax. In response, these arguments are not found persuasive. The Examiner is of the position that the instant claims are broadly directed to a composition comprising a wax, polystyrene and at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic layered double hydroxide and zeolite. Applicants’ open claim language of comprising does not preclude the presence of PLA-based compositions and/or carbodiimide compound. Applicants also do limit the amount of polystyrene present in the composition as set forth in independent claims 1 and 10. With regard to Applicant’s arguments that Unitika does not disclose or suggest a composition in which these components are combined in the claimed manner, nor does it attribute any function to such a combination, the Examiner is of the position that it would be improper to ignore the disclosure directed to adding polystyrene resin to the composition of Unitika. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.),cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). With regard to Applicants arguments that the molded article possesses desirable properties, the Examiner respectfully points out that Applicants have not set forth such features. Rather, Applicants broadly claim a blow molded article comprising a polystyrene (high impact), a wax and with at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic layered double hydroxide and zeolite. For these reasons, the Examiner is of the position that the cited prior art of Unitika in combination with GOMIBUCHI et al., renders the claims obvious as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012007079 A issued to UNITIKA LTD and further in view of US 20130280468 A1 issued to GOMIBUCHI et al.
With regards to claims 1, 6, 7 and 10, the published JP document issued to UNITIKA teach composition comprising polystyrene resin, a filler that includes zeolite, inorganic nucleating agents that can include mica and kaolin and a wax such a mineral, animal or plant wax (see machine translation-description of embodiments). According to Applicant’s specification kaolin and mica are examples of inorganic double layered hydroxides. With regard to claim 2, UNITIKA does not expressly teach the claimed amount of the inorganic double layered hydroxide and zeolite. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed weight percentages the inorganic double layered hydroxide and zeolite, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). With regard to claim 3, UNITIKA further teach that the filler can include hydrotalcite compounds (see machine translation-description of embodiments). Said composition can be used in stretch blow molding processes to form molded containers such as bottles that hold fluids (see machine translation-description of embodiments). With specific regard to the limitations pertaining to “toner bottle”, UNITIKA LTD does not specifically teach a “toner bottle”, however, absent any further distinguishing limitations the Examiner is of the position that the disclosed fluid liquid storage containers/bottles are capable of storing/containing toner. In other words, the Examiner is of the position that absent evidence to the contrary the fluid storage containers/bottles of UNITIKA LTD are capable of specifically holding toner fluid.
UNITIKA LTD does not teach using a recycled and/or an impact resistant polystyrene.
The published patent application issued to GOMIBUCHI et al., teach a polystyrene resin composition used in blow molding processes (title and abstract). GOMIBUCHI et al., teach a polystyrene resin composition comprising an impact resistant polystyrene and a recycled polystyrene (paragraph 0023, 0078, 0079). It would have been obvious to form the stretch blow molded containers and bottle of UNITIKA LTD with a recycled and/or an impact resistant polystyrene. Motivation to use a recycled polystyrene is found in the desire to reduce waste, conserve natural resources and energy, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide cost-effective material for new products. Motivation to use an impact resistant polystyrene is found in the desire to produce bottles and contains having superior durability and shock absorption, to prevent cracks in consumer goods, packaging, and enclosures, while remaining lightweight, cost-effective, and easy to process via molding.
5. Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012007079 A issued to UNITIKA LTD and further in view of US 20130280468 A1 issued to GOMIBUCHI et al., as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fava et al. US 20170298224.
The combination of Unitika in view of Gomibuchi et al., is set forth above.
Unitika in view of Gomibuchi et al., fail to teach the claimed amount of high impact polystyrene.
The published patent application issued to Fava et al., discloses a method of producing a container ([0134-0135]), comprising: a process of producing a preform ([0167-0168]) from a melt-kneaded product ([0155]) of a resin mixture ([0141]) comprising at least a wax ([0098]) and a styrene-based resin ([0072]); and a process of stretch-blow molding ([0146]) the preform to produce the container, wherein the styrene-based resin is a high impact polystyrene ([0072]), and wherein a content of the high impact polystyrene is 80 mass% or more ([0073, 0121]; component A, which can be high impact polystyrene, is 88 to 99.887% by weight) with respect to a mass of the preform. It would have been obvious to form the stretch blow molded containers and bottle of modified UNITIKA LTD with the amount of impact resistant polystyrene as taught by Fava et al., Motivation is found in the desire to produce bottles and contains having superior durability and shock absorption, to prevent cracks in consumer goods, packaging, and enclosures, while remaining lightweight, cost-effective, and easy to process via molding.
Conclusion
6. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692The 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights