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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0009902).
I. Regarding claims 1-9, Sato teaches a composition comprising: 2-10 wt% of poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer (0005 and 0088) and 55-75 wt% a first poly(phenylene ether) (0005 and 0088). Sato teaches that the poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane can be a block copolymer (0009) comprising reaction product comprising a second polyphenylene ether and a poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer (claim 1) comprising on average 20-80 siloxane repeat units (0018) and the reaction product comprising 2-7 wt% siloxane units and 93-98 wt% phenylene ether repeat units (0034). Sato teaches that all of the poly(phenyl ether)s and the phenylene ether block may comprise poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether) (see Table 1), wherein the first poly(phenylene ether) has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.2-0.5 deciliter per gram (0039), and that the polysiloxane block has a formula identical to that in claims 2, 4, 9 and 12 (see Sato at claims 2 and 10 in particular). Sato further teaches the composition including 1-5 wt% of a hydrogenated block copolymer (0088) which can be polystyrene-poly(ethylene/butylene)-polystyrene (Table 1), and 5-25 wt% of a flame retardant (0005), which is bisphenol A bis(diphenyl phosphate) (Table 1), and reinforcing filler (0005) which may be 0.5 wt% carbon black (Table 11) and may include 0 wt% of adhesion promoters and addition polymer as they are not required or disclosed in the Examples. Sato fails to teach an exemplary embodiment with each component present in the range as claimed.
However, Sato teaches that the composition can include all the claimed components (see above), and Sato teaches the components may be present in ranges overlapping the claimed ranges (see above), as well as the polymers having intrinsic viscosities overlapping the claimed ranges. Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, Sato makes obvious the claimed compositions.
II Regarding claims 10-15, Sato makes obvious the composition of claims 1, 12 and 13 (see above). Furthermore, Sato teaches an article, such as an electrical enclosure (see Sato at claim 1 and 0093), made by injection molding, blow molding etc. (0093) comprising the composition (see Sato at claim 1). Therefore, Sato also makes obvious claims 10-15.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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 S WALTERS JR/
July 6, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights