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 Interpretation
Claim 1 requires a “first portion of polymer” and a “second portion of polymer,” and meanwhile the instant claims and specification contemplate that more than one polymeric material may be used (c.f. instant claim 3). Finally, the instant claims and specification do not require that the “first portion of polymer” and “second portion of polymer” comprise or consist of the same polymeric species. The claim is therefore interpreted to include processes wherein the first and second portions of the claimed polymer comprise or consist of different polymeric species.
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 6 and 11 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 6 recites the limitation "the second portion of the carbonaceous filler" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first feeding zone” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, the “first feeding zone” is interpreted as referring to the “first feed section” of the extruder referenced in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 8, the claim has been amended to remove dependencies from preceding claims; however, the claim still refers to another claim but now fails to indicate a claim on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel (US 2013/0018137 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seidel teaches a masterbatch composition and a polymer composition containing the same (Abstract), wherein the polymer composition containing the masterbatch is produced via a process wherein the masterbatch is preferably mixed with polycarbonate within conventional melt-mixing units such as multi-shaft extruders or kneaders ([0048]). The masterbatch contains a pigment such as carbon black (p. 28, claim 5) and a demolding agent ([0041]), wherein the demolding agent may be inter alia polyolefin waxes ([0047]) such as LDPE ([0163]). Seidel specifically teaches that the polymer composition containing the masterbatch includes the pigment in amounts ranging from 0.02 to 10 wt% (p. 28, claim 11), which overlaps the claimed range of “0.01 to 3 wt. %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The polycarbonate and LDPE wax of seidel both read on the claimed “polymer” because both are polymeric materials; and the carbon black reads on the claimed “carbonaceous filler” (c.f. instant claim 7, wherein carbon black is among the listed “carbonaceous filler” components).
Regarding the requirements of claim 1 which require that the “first portion” of polymer and the carbonaceous filler are added into a first feed section of an extruder, and the “second portion” of polymer is added into a second feed section downstream of the first feed section, Seidel teaches that the masterbatch may be metered at a suitable location, either directly into the polymer melt or into the solids feed region of the extruder during compounding ([0048]). Seidel therefore contemplates the addition of the masterbatch to a first feed port of the extruder during compounding. Seidel therefore clearly indicates that the masterbatch may be optionally added at a different location than the polycarbonate and does not require that the polycarbonate is added before the masterbatch within the extruder. Seidel further contemplates extruders comprising more than one hopper and the use of lateral feed devices ([0048]). Finally, it is prima facie obvious to select any order of mixing (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to introduce the polycarbonate of Seidel into a secondary inlet port downstream of the primary inlet port (wherein the masterbatch of Seidel may optionally be added), thereby meeting the claimed limitations requiring that the “second portion of polymer” is added in a second feed section downstream of the first feed section. Seidel teaches extrusion of the compounded product ([0048]), which reads on claimed step “c.”
Regarding claim 2, Seidel teaches that the thermoplastic polymer (a), which includes the polycarbonate as described above, comprises between 1 and 99.96 wt% of the composition (p. 28, claim 11). Furthermore, the demolding agent (c), which includes the LDPE wax as described above, is indicated as comprising from 0.02 to 10 wt% of the composition (p. 28, claim 11). These two components are therefore extruded in a ratio ranging from about 0.002:9.998 to about 9.1:0.9, which encompasses the claimed range of “1:9 to 7:3,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, as described above, Seidel teaches the preferred use of polycarbonate ([0049]). Furthermore, as described above, the wax of Seidel is exemplified as LDPE wax ([0163]), which reads on the claimed “polyethylene.”
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Seidel teaches the incorporation of masterbatch pellets (e.g., [0023] and [0039]), which reads on the limitation requiring that the (optionally “first”) portion of polymer is included in a “particulate form” and as “pellets”
Regarding claim 6, Seidel does not require the incorporation of the inventive masterbatch in a second, downstream port of the compounding process. Seidel therefore teaches a method wherein 0% of carbonaceous filler is added as a “second portion,” which falls within the claimed range of “0 – 20 wt. %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, as described above, Seidel teaches the use of inter alia, carbon black as the pigment ([0046]).
Regarding claim 9, as described above, Seidel teaches that the polymer composition contains between 0.02 and 10 wt% of the pigment (, p. 28, claim 11, which includes carbon black as described above), which encompasses the claimed range of “0.05 to 1 wt. %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, as described above, Seidel teaches a process which utilizes an LDPE wax (reading on the claimed “first portion”) and a polycarbonate (reading on the claimed “second portion”). Seidel therefore teaches a process wherein the polymer portions comprise different polymer.
Regarding claim 11, any area where material is added to an extruder may be arbitrarily designated as a “first section” of an extruder. Furthermore, Seidel specifically states that the hopped material is added into the main intake of the extruder (e.g., the orientation of addition in Test Arrangement 11, [0212]). The specified locations of Seidel wherein materials are added to the extruder within the inventive process may therefore be denoted as a “first section,” which reads on the claimed location.
Regarding claim 12, Seidel teaches the formation of a polymer composition from the inventive process (Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Seidel teaches the formation of molded articles of the inventive composition (e.g., [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Seidel exemplifies the extrusion setup as including a region in which constituents are first taken into the extruder and conveyed deeper into the extruder, followed by a subsequent plasticization zone wherein kneading blocks mixing and knead the components together ([0211]). As described above, it would have been obvious to add the polycarbonate of Seidel after the masterbatch of Seidel, as doing so constitutes a change in order of mixing which is prima facie obvious and because Seidel contemplates multiple feeding zones. Given the disclosure that the kneading elements are downstream of the region in which materials are added into the extruder alongside Seidel’s intended purpose of mixing and combining the masterbatch with the polycarbonate to form a uniform polymer mixture (e.g., [0007]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to situate the second feed zone both downstream of the first feed zone and upstream of the kneading zone, as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, as described above, it would have been obvious to incorporate the polycarbonate of Seidel into a second extruder inlet downstream of the first inlet because Seidel contemplates multiple feeding zones and does not require that the polycarbonate is added before the masterbatch, and because prima facie any order of mixing is obvious (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.). Additionally, as described above, Seidel teaches that the masterbatch of the inventive method may be added in the solids feed region of the extruder (i.e., in the same location where the polymer, such as polycarbonate, is added). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06), and Seidel contemplates that adding the masterbatch with the polycarbonate and separately from the polycarbonate are equally suitable ([0048]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add at least some of the masterbatch of Seidel into the extruder alongside the polycarbonate of Seidel, as doing so is indicated as alternatively suitable to adding separately therefrom. It therefore would have been obvious to utilize an extrusion setup wherein a portion of the masterbatch of Seidel is added to the extruder in a first inlet, and a second portion of the masterbatch of Seidel is added to the extruder alongside polycarbonate in a second inlet, wherein the second inlet is downstream of the first inlet. In so doing, the process of Seidel would read on the claimed process.
Regarding claim 18, Seidel teaches that the masterbatch may be added in a powdered form ([0044]). The carbonaceous filler is therefore added in the form of a powder in these embodiments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights