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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-22 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 requires the use of a “graft copolymer resin” which includes the components of “an aromatic vinyl monomer, and a vinyl cyanide monomer” and then later “a vinyl-based copolymer resin”, however it is unclear what differentiates these two polymers, as both require vinyl monomers and while the former polymer includes a rubbery polymer, there is no limitation that prevents the “vinyl-based copolymer resin” from including the rubbery polymer as well. Because the incorporation amounts of these two polymers require different incorporation amounts, it cannot be determined based upon the language of claim 1 what the allowed amounts would be. The applicant is required to review the claim language to differentiate the two polymers. For the purposes of examination, the vinyl-based copolymer resin can be interpreted to be the same or different from the graft copolymer used in an amount up to 5% by weight.
Claims 2-22 are rejected based upon their dependence upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daga (US 20150099845).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5,
Daga teaches a thermoplastic composition that contains 30 to 90% by weight of polycarbonate resins (Paragraph 44) which is comprised of at least a polycarbonate based on bisphenol A and a polycarbonate-polysiloxane (Paragraph 44) where the amount of non-siloxane polycarbonate can be from 20 to 70% by weight (Paragraph 131) and the polycarbonate-siloxane is from 1 to 25% by weight (Paragraphs 130 and 131), with the ranges overlapping those of claim 1. Daga further teaches that the composition includes impact modifiers such as acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) and acrylonitrile-styrene-acrylate (ASA) polymers, which read upon the graft copolymer and vinyl-based copolymers respectively, in amounts up to 15% by weight (Paragraph 44), phosphate ester flame retardants in amounts of 0 to 20% by weight (Paragraphs 191 and 193), inorganic fillers in amounts of 5 to 30% by weight (Paragraph 194). The range of the inorganic filler is identical to the instant claim while the other ranges overlap with the ranges of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the components other than the polycarbonate are used to improve the ductility of the composition (Paragraph 43) and would adjust their incorporation amounts to meet the requirements of the end product. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Daga also teaches a copolymer of polyester and polycarbonate (Paragraph 75) where the polyester is a poly(alkylene terephthalate with polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) mentioned (Paragraph 102). Daga teaches that when used as a copolymer that the ratio between the polyester and polycarbonate of the copolymer is between 1:99 and 99:1, but preferably between 25:75 to 75:25 (Paragraph 77) which reads upon a polyester resin, and that the amount is chosen based upon the desired final properties of the composition (Paragraph 77). Daga also teaches that the use of two or more polycarbonate polymers can be used (Paragraph 115) and in a case where three are used, the first polycarbonate comprises 20 to 70% of the composition by weight, with the second representing 10 to 40% and the third, representing the polycarbonate-polysiloxane polymer, comprising 1 to 25% by weight (Paragraph 131). In this case, the bisphenol A polycarbonate could represent 20-70%, the polyester-polycarbonate would be 10-40%, and the polycarbonate-polysiloxane 1 to 25%, which overlaps with the ranges of 40-80, 5-30, and 1-20% respectively. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portions of the ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 2,
Daga teaches that the first polycarbonate has a melt flow rate of at least 20 g/10 min when tested at a temperature of 300 °C and under a load of 1.2 kg (Paragraph 124), meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3,
While the instant claim introduces the limitation of using post-consumer recycled polymer, the polycarbonate polymer would fundamentally be the same polymer whether in the virgin or the recycled state, as the structure would be the same in order to be the same polymer. As a result, there would be no difference between recycled and virgin material. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used any amount of virgin or recycled polymer in the composition.
Regarding Claim 4,
Daga teaches that when using multiple polycarbonate polymers, an additional polycarbonate polymer (representing the polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer) should have a melt flow rate of at least 3 g/10 minutes up to 10 g/10 minutes (Paragraph 126), meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claims 6-9,
Daga teaches that the impact modifiers can be made of a rubber to which a polymer has been grafted (Paragraph 133) where the rubber is comprised of a diene monomer such as butadiene (Paragraph 135) but can also be made using isoprene (Paragraph 139) and can incorporate other monomers such as styrene (Paragraph 135), meeting the requirements of the instant claims. Daga further teaches that the impact modifiers can be used in combination (Paragraph 132) and also teaches that the impact modifier can be an ABS polymer as discussed in regard to claim 1 above. Daga additionally teaches that the modifier can have butadiene content of 30 to 65% by weight of the polymer (Paragraph 179), meeting the requirements for both the first and second graft copolymer.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11,
Daga teaches that the preferred grafting ratio is 25 to 60% (Paragraph 154), which contains the range of the instant claims. Further, Daga teaches that the particle size is preferred to be from 100 to 500 nm (Paragraph 150), meeting the size requirements of the instant claims. Daga also teaches that the rubber base polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 50,000-250,000 (Paragraph 155), which combined with the graft percentages as discussed above in regard to claims 6-9 would result in polymers with a molecular weight that overlaps with the ranges of the instant claims. Daga teaches that the grafted copolymers behave as two phase systems, with the grafted portion mixing with the matrix (Paragraph 133). This would mean that the rubber phase would be distinct. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that by altering both the amount of this distinct phase as well as the size of the domain would affect the properties of the composition, including the ductility of the composition and would be motivated to adjust the amount and size of these domains to meet the physical requirements of the final composition. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected any molecular weight and particle size that resulted in the desired physical characteristics. It would further have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portions of the ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13,
Daga teaches that radical initiators such as benzoyl peroxide are used to form the graft copolymers (Paragraph 149). While Daga does not teach the amount used, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of initiator used would directly affect the molecular weight of the grafted copolymer and would thus conclude that the initiator amount would be a result-effective variable based upon the desired final molecular weight. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used any amount of initiator that achieved the desired molecular weight of the polymer.
Regarding Claims 14-16,
Daga teaches the use of inorganic fillers such as wollastonite and lamellar talc (Paragraph 195), meeting the requirements of the instant claims.
Regarding Claim 17,
Daga teaches the use of oligomeric phosphate esters (Paragraph 191).
Regarding Claims 18-21,
Daga teaches that composition can include polymers such as acrylonitrile-styrene-acrylate (ASA) polymers (Paragraph 134) which can be made as graft copolymers (Paragraph 160). Daga also teaches that the acrylates used include methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, and butyl methacrylate (Paragraph 161). While Daga does not teach a specific proportion of acrylate or methacrylate, Daga does teach that monomer choice is determined based upon the desired properties (Paragraph 163) and that acrylates form a “rigid phase” in the copolymer, and as such, the ordinarily skilled artisan would adjust the incorporation amount of acrylate to obtain a suitable amount of this rigid phase. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected any appropriate amount of acrylate to obtain the desired material properties.
Regarding Claim 22,
Daga teaches that the composition is used to make molded articles (Paragraph 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang (US 20150159013) teaches compositions containing polycarbonate resins and polycarbonate-polysiloxane resins, polymers containing vinyl cyanides and monomers such as styrene grafted onto polybutadiene, polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate, phosphate derivatives, and fillers such as glass fibers and mica. Shin (KR 20200082275) teaches compositions that include polycarbonate and polycarbonate-polysiloxane resins, fillers such as talc and wollastonite, grafted polymers such as ABS and ASA, and alkyl phosphates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights