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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanji et al (JP 2006-328166A), wherein the machine English translation is used for citation.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4; Sanji et al. teaches a chlorinated vinyl chloride resin obtained by introducing liquid chlorine or gaseous chlorine into a reactor while the vinyl chloride resin is suspended in an aqueous solvent [0031], and that the chlorination is carried out by exciting the bonds and chlorine of the vinyl chloride resin with heat alone or with heat and hydrogen peroxide, without ultraviolet irradiation [0037]. Sanji et al. teaches the chlorinated vinyl chloride resin (CPVC) is molded into a molded article [0042]. Sanji et al. teaches the chlorinated vinyl chloride resin is characterized by having a chlorine content of 65% or more by weight and less than 68% by weight, with -CCl₂- contained in the molecular structure at 6.2 mol% or less, -CHCl- at 58.0 mol% or more, and -CH2- at 35.8 mol% or less [0008] and a CPVC having a chlorine content of 70% or more by weight and less than 72% by weight, with -CCl--2- contained in the molecular structure at 17.0 mol% or less, and -CHCl- is contained 46 mol% or more, and -CH2- is 37 mol% or less [0024].
Sanji et al. teaches, 200 parts by weight of deionized water and 50 parts by weight of polyvinyl chloride resin with an average degree of polymerization of 1000 were supplied to a glass-lined reaction vessel with an internal volume of 300 liters, and the mixture was stirred to uniformly disperse the polyvinyl chloride resin in the deionized water. Then, the pressure was reduced to remove oxygen from the reaction vessel, and the temperature was raised to 90°C. Next, chlorine was supplied to the reaction vessel to a pressure of MPa, and the chlorination reaction was carried out while adding 0.2 wt% hydrogen peroxide at a rate of 1 part by weight per hour (320 ppm/hour) until the chlorine content of the chlorinated polyvinyl chloride resin reached 66.9 wt%. When the chlorine content of the chlorinated polyvinyl chloride resin reached 62 wt% (before 5 wt%), the amount of 0.2 wt% hydrogen peroxide added was reduced to 0.1 parts by weight per hour (200 ppm/hour), and the average chlorine consumption rate was 0.012 kg/PVC-kg 5 min; chlorination is advanced, and when it reaches 64% by weight (before 3% by weight), 0.2% by weight hydrogen peroxide added is reduced to 150 ppm/hour, and the chlorination process is advanced by adjusting the average chlorine consumption rate to 0.008 kg/kg PVC-kg・5 min, thereby obtaining a chlorinated polyvinyl chloride resin having a specific molecular structure with a chlorine content of 66.9 by weight [Ex1].
Sanji et al. does not explicitly teach a ratio (A/B) of a symmetry factor A to a symmetry factor B of 2.61 to 4.50 nor a C value calculated by instant formula (1). The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. symmetry factor and/or C value, would necessarily be present in a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants' position that this wouldn’t be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicants' position; and (2) it would be the Offices' position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. See In re Spada, MPEP §2112.01, I and II.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including the non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.); See MPEP §2123.
Regarding claim 3; Sanji et al. does not explicitly teach the chlorinated polyvinyl chloride resin contains added chlorine in an amount of 3.3 to 15.3% by mass. The experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; see MPEP §2144.05. At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of chlorine added to the chlorinated polyvinyl chloride resin, and would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a desired level or chlorination, ultimately resulting in a desired level of heat resistance (i.e. thermal stability), as suggested by Sanji et al. [0004-0005]..
Regarding claims 5 and 6; Sanji et al. teaches a molded article is manufactured from said chlorinated polyvinyl chloride resin [0007, 0042-0044].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5453. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JESSICA M ROSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights