DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/034299 filed 9/14/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) by Application No. JP 2021-186276 filed 11/16/2021, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites …uses a screw configuration consisting of two or more selected from the group consisting of an R kneading disc… and it would not be clear if Applicant intended to recite …consisting of two or more selected from the group consisting of… since Markush group formatted as “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C” limits the species to A, B, and C. See MPEP 2173.05(h). Hence, it would not be clear what is intended by …consisting of two or more selected from the group consisting of… recited in claim 1. An amendment to recite …uses a screw configuration
Claims 2-7 are subsumed by this rejection because of their dependence.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al (US 2002/0060378) in view of Nodera et al. (US 6,384,114) and Yoshino et al. (JP 2020/040356).
Regarding claim 1: Miyamoto is directed to a method for producing flame retardant polycarbonate composition pellets using a twin screw extruder the method comprising kneading in a kneading section of the twin screw extruder,
From 30-85 mass% of resin pellets (A) in which polycarbonate resin having a Mw of 5000-50,000 ([0098]) is contained in a quantity of more than 40% or more in the pellets (A) ([0116] Miyamoto).
Not less than 1 and less than 30% of a phosphorous flame retardant, preferably 5-18 wt% ([0134] Miyamoto)
0.01-3 parts by mass%, preferably 0.2-0.6 wt% of a fluoropolymer of PTFE ([0137] [0141] Miyamoto) to produce a mixture.
The amounts above are based on 100 parts by mass polycarbonate, although are within the scope of amounts based on a total amount (A) to (F) of 100 mass%.
The kneading section uses a screw configuration consisting of two or more selected from a mixing screw, and a sealing ring ([0161]) as well as disc including circular discs and quasi elliptical discs ([0156]) (equivalent to R kneading disc, N kneading disc, or L kneading disc, since no other option is possible). A screw rotation speed is preferably 400-800 rpm ([0185]), extruded as a strand from the extruder and [cut] into pellets ([0201]).
Miyamoto doesn’t mention a Mw/Mn value of the polycarbonate.
Nodera is directed to a flame-retardant thermoplastic resin composition comprising a polycarbonate, styrenic resin, phosphate ester, and fluoro olefin. The polycarbonate has a Mw/Mn of 3 or less. One skilled in the art would be motivated to have selected the polycarbonate of Nodera as the polycarbonate of choice in Miyamoto for mechanical strength and moldability (col. 6 ll. 46-63 Nodera). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a polycarbonate of Nodera as the polycarbonate of choice in Miyamoto.
A torque density is not mentioned, although a high torque operation is mentioned ([0147] Miyamoto).
Yoshino is directed to a method of producing a resin pellet which can comprise a polycarbonate utilizing a twin screw extruder, wherein the rpm is 400 to 600 rpm and a screw shaft torque of 11 to 15 Nm/cm3. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected this torque density in Miramoto for high discharge rate with high productivity (p. 2 Yoshino). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a screw shaft torque of 11 to 15 Nm/cm3.
Regarding claim 4: Miyamoto doesn’t mention recycled pellets. However “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113 In the present case, the product-by-process of claim 4 is the same as or obvious from a product of Miyamoto, and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5: Condensed phosphate esters are disclosed ([0120] Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 6: It is preferred the phosphous compound is in the form of a liquid ([0178] Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 7: An ABS resin is utilized in the working examples ([0217] Miyamoto).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto Nodera and Yoshino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funakoshi et al. (US 2003/0060593).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Miyamoto, Nodera and Yoshino does not mention a pellet weight.
Funakoshi is directed to a polycarbonate composition that is extruded into pellets of 10-100 mg/pellet ([0179] Funakoshi). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected this pellet weight to produce pellets for use in injection molding ([0150] Funakoshi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a pellet weight within the scope of claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto Nodera and Yoshino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nobuta et al. (US 2017/0355119).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Miyamoto, Nodera and Yoshino does not mention a pellet weight.
Nobuta is directed to a screw for injection molding, wherein the screw has a length of 7D to 12 D. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected such a screw to avoid clogging and plasticizing ability ([0046] Nobuta). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected the screw of Nobuta in the extrusion of Miyamoto to arrive at claim 3 of the present invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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 T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights