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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenquist (US 20180223097, US Patent Application #2 from IDS dated 6/5/2024) in view of Shan (US 20200369875).
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 10-12,
Rosenquist teaches a composition that includes polycarbonate and polycarbonate copolymers (Abstract), including bisphenol A polycarbonate homopolymers (Paragraph 8), poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymers (Paragraph 43), a polycarbonate copolymer that contains between 0.25 and 25 mole% of the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R can be ethyl (Paragraph 16) or any C2-C15 alkyl (Paragraph 5) and where m, n, p, and q are 0 or 1 and m+n and p+q equal 1 (Paragraph 5) meeting the requirements of claims 2 and 3, and further teaches than when this copolymer is combined with other polycarbonates that the amount of this monomer is preferred to be from 0.25 to 5 mole% (Paragraph 10). The range of Rosenquist is contained within the range of claims 1 and 10-12.
Rosenquist further teaches that the composition includes a flame retardant (Paragraph 12) that is present in amounts of 0.05 to 0.5% by weight (Paragraph 60) and that has a UL94 V0 performance rating at a thickness of 1.5 mm (Paragraph 13).
While Rosenquist doesn’t explicitly teach the homopolycarbonate and polycarbonate with the pendant ester group are linear, Rosenquist teaches that branching agents must be added to obtain branched polymers (Paragraph 37) and as such, these polymers would be linear unless the artisan purposely added branching agents to the polymerization. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used linear polymers.
Rosenquist teaches the use of both homopolycarbonates and poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymers and though Rosenquist does not specifically teach the use of these polymers together, Rosenquist does teach the use of multiple polycarbonates (Paragraph 10) and as such, because Rosenquist teaches the use of these polymers for the same purpose, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used them in combination. See MPEP 2144.06.I.
While Rosenquist teaches both the use of flame retardants and poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymers, Rosenquist does not teach that the total siloxane content of the composition is between 0.1 and 10% by weight, that the copolymer has a specific weight of siloxane content, or that the flame retardant is an organophosphorus compound. Shan teaches that siloxane content of the copolymer is preferably between 35 and 65% by weight (Paragraph 27) and that the total siloxane content of the composition is from 0.5 to 10% by weight (Paragraph 32). Both ranges are contained within the ranges of the instant claims. Shan also teaches that a second poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymer can be used in which the siloxane content of the second copolymer can be between 10 and 25% by weight (Paragraph 30), meeting the requirements of claims 4 and 11. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Rosenquist teaches poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymers, but does not provide guidance as to the amount that should be used and would be motivated to look to the art for this information. Because Shan teaches similar polycarbonate compositions that are used for electronic components (Paragraph 8) and demonstrate good flame retardant properties (Paragraph 7), both of which are taught by Rosenquist (Paragraphs 2 and 69), the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Shan about the amount of siloxane in the copolymer as well as in the total composition to augment the teachings of Rosenquist. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the teachings of Rosenquist and Shan to obtain the predictable result of a flame-retardant polycarbonate composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Shan further teaches that the flame retardant can be an organophosphorus compound can be a phosphazene (Paragraph 52) of the following types:
PNG
media_image2.png
100
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R can be an aryl group (Paragraph 52). Shan also teaches that the organophosphorus flame retardants are equivalent to flame retardants such as alkyl sulfonates (Paragraphs 45 and 46). As Rosenquist teaches the use of alkyl sulfonate flame retardants (Paragraph 57), it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have substituted the organophosphorus flame retardants of Shan for the alkyl sulfonates used by Rosenquist. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Regarding Claim 5,
While Rosenquist doesn’t explicitly teach the homopolycarbonate and polycarbonate with the pendant ester group are linear, Rosenquist teaches that branching agents must be added to obtain branched polymers (Paragraph 37) and as such, these polymers would be linear unless the artisan purposely added branching agents to the polymerization. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used polymers substantially free of branching.
Regarding Claim 6,
Rosenquist teaches the use of flame retardants such as C1-C16 alkyl sulfonates (Paragraph 57).
Regarding Claims 7-9,
Rosenquist in view of Shan teaches the use of organophosphorus flame retardants that meet the requirements of claims 7 and 9 as discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 10-12, but further teaches the use of organophosphorus flame retardants with the following structures:
PNG
media_image3.png
126
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
220
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in which G can be C1-C30 hydrocarbyl groups (Paragraph 50), meeting the requirements of claim 8 and it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the teachings of Rosenquist and Shan for the reasons stated above in regard to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 13 and 16,
Rosenquist does not teach the use of anti-drip compounds. As such, it would logically follow that the amount of anti-drip compound would be less than 0.1% by weight.
Regarding Claims 14-15 and 17-19,
Rosenquist teaches that the composition is used to make a variety of articles through extrusion or molding (Paragraph 68), meeting the requirements of claims 14 and 15. Rosenquist further teaches that the articles made from the composition include housings for cell phones, monitors, and other handheld electronics as well as electrical connectors, home appliances, roofs, greenhouses, sun rooms, and pools (Paragraph 69), meeting the requirements of claims 17-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwartz (EP 3757158) teaches similar compositions to those of the instant application and discloses organophosphorus flame retardants as well as amounts of poly(carbonate-siloxane) polymers to afford reinforced polycarbonate articles with improved heat resistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765 /HEIDI R KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights