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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nunome et al (WO2019131841, cited in IDS, cited herein with identical US 20210371650).
Nunome teaches a polyester carbonate resin for optical lenses and films (meeting the limitations of claims 16 and 17) comprising a dicarboxylic acid residue of the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
367
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where each of R1 and R2 independently represents a hydrocarbon group having a carbon number of 1 to 10, each of n and m independently represents an integer of 0 or more (meeting the limitations of claim 2), and each of R3 to R10 independently represents a hydrogen atom, a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, a bromine atom, an iodine atom or a hydrocarbon group having a carbon number of 1 to 20, which may contain an aromatic group (see 0090).
or the following residue:
PNG
media_image2.png
353
1122
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see 0155), where each of R37 and R38 independently represents a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, or a hydrocarbon group having a carbon number of 1 to 12, each of Ar1 and Ar2 represents a hydrogen atom or an aromatic group having a carbon number of 6 to 10 the ring Z is a naphthalene ring and Ar1 and Ar2 are selected from the same chemical groups as those of R37 and R38, is also favorably used (see 0081-0082).
Thus, limitations of claims 4 and 5 are met.
Diol residue is represented by, for example, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, butylene glycol, pentanediol, hexanediol, heptanediol, octanediol, nonanediol, neopentyl glycol, hexanediol, etc. (see 0071), meeting the limitations of claim 8.
Thus, all limitations of claim 3 are met, when p=1.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Nunome teaches refractive index range of 1.665 to 1.700 and Tg is from 130 to 160° C (see 0117)
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.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 12-13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Ishizuka et al (US 20150285954, cited in IDS).
Nunome fails to teach the units disclosed in claims 6, 10 and 11
Ishizuka discloses a polycarbonate resin having a structural unit represented by general formula (A):
PNG
media_image3.png
332
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
268
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in formula (A), X is an alkylene group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms) (see claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Nunome discloses the following structural unit, which derived from a corresponding diol:
PNG
media_image5.png
288
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where R1 and R2 are each independently a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group (see claim 13).
Ishizuka teaches that optical lenses produced by using the polycarbonate resin are very useful because they have a high refractive index and are excellent in heat resistance, and therefore can be used in the fields of telescopes, binoculars, television projectors and others where expensive high refractive index glass lenses have been used conventionally (see 0287)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ishizuka’s monomers in Nunome’s lenses, since they produce articles with high refractive indexes and excellent heat resistance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome as applied to claims 1-5, 12-13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Kato et al (US 20190241703).
Nunome fails to teach monomers of claim 7.
Kato teaches 9,9-bis[6-(2-hydroxyethoxy)naphthalene-2-yl]fluorene (abbreviated as “BNEF”) (see Example 1 at 0173).
Kato teaches a polycarbonate resin having a high refractive index, low Abbe number and high moist heat resistance, and to provide an excellent optical lens by using the resin (see 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kato’s monomers in Nunome’s lenses, since they produce articles high refractive index, low Abbe number and high moist heat resistance.
Claim 9, 14 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 12-13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Motegi et al. (WO2020137927).
Nunome fails to teach diacids of claim 9, dispersion degree and volume flow rate of claims 14 and 15.
Motegi discloses a polyester polycarbonate for lens manufacturing, which includes such monomer as 2,2'-bis (hydroxycarbonylmethoxy) -1,1'-binaphthyl (BINOL-DC) (see Example 1).
Motegi teaches that since the thermoplastic resin has high refractive index, high heat resistance and low YI value, it has an optical disk, a transparent conductive substrate, an optical card, a sheet, a film, an optical fiber, a lens, a prism, an optical film, a substrate, and an optical filter. It can be used for an optical member such as a hard coat film and is particularly useful for lens for a camera such as a smartphone, a DSC, or an in-vehicle object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Motegi’s monomers in Nunome’s lenses, since they produce articles with high refractive indexes and excellent heat resistance.
Motegi teaches the thermoplastic resin has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of preferably 10,000 to 50,000, which is the same range as disclosed in the instant Application (see printed publication at 0165).
Note that according to Carothers formula, theoretical molecular weight distribution (MWD) for polycondensation copolymers is equal to 2. Typically, commercial polymers have slightly higher MWD due to the presence of residual monomers and oligomers in the composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same MWD range from Nunome’s, Motegi’s and Applicant’s polymers, since they obtained by the same method using the same monomers.
Regarding claim 15, Nunome and Motegi do not teach melt flow rate claimed.
However, such parameters strictly depend on polymer structure and molecular weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same melt flow range from Nunome’s, Motegi’s and Applicant’s polymers, since they obtained by the same method using the same monomers and having same or similar molecular weight range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST 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, Heidi Riviere 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights