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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures are faint and/or blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the semi-colon after ‘resin’ in the recitation of (A) should be a comma and the comma after ‘resin’ in the recitation of (B) should be a semi-colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “using” should instead be –obtained from--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US PGPub 2015/0183985) in view of Ito et al. (JP H10-130485 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches thermoplastic resin compositions comprising 100 parts of a base resin component comprising about 5 to about 95 wt% polycarbonate resin (instant (A)) and about 5 to about 95 wt% polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer (instant (B)), and comprising about 0.1 to about 5 parts by weight luster pigment per 100 parts base resin, and may further comprise additives for their intended purposes (abstract; [0013]; [0073]). Hong further teaches it is preferred that the base resin comprise about 60 to about 80 wt% of the polycarbonate ([0044]) and about 20 to about 40 wt% of the polycarbonate-polysiloxane ([0057]).
Hong further teaches the luster pigment is selected from pearl particles and aluminum particles ([0061]) having an average diameter of about 1 to about 100 µm ([0062]) and wherein pearl particles can include mica-based pearl particles ([0065]) (overlaps with and renders taught instant 0.1 to 5 parts aluminum-based pigment (C) and instant 0.01 to 0.1 parts mica-based pigment (C)).
Hong teaches that additives can be included for their known uses but does not specifically teach 0.05 to 0.5 parts of sodium phosphate monobasic dihydrate. However, Ito teaches similar thermoplastic resin compositions comprising polycarbonate and fillers (pg1; abstract), and teaches it is known to include an inorganic phosphorous compounds for the express purpose of suppressing decomposition reactions of polycarbonate compounded in thermoplastic resin compositions, even at high temperature, and suppresses decreases in physical properties arising therefrom (pg11, bottom to pg12, top). Ito teaches the inorganic phosphorous compounds is usually included in .01 to 2 parts by weight per 100 parts composition and is preferably a sodium dihydrogen phosphate compound (pg12), exemplified as sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate (pg15 (inorganic phosphorous compound)(instant sodium phosphate monobasic dihydrate (D)). Ito and Hong are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polycarbonate based thermoplastic resin compositions further comprising fillers. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the inorganic phosphorous compounds of Ito in the composition of Hong and would have been motivated to do so as Hong invites known additives for their known uses and further as Ito teaches inorganic phosphates, specifically sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate, is a known compound to include in polycarbonate resin compositions in order to suppress decomposition reactions even at high temperatures.
Regarding claims 2-3, Hong in view of Ito render obvious the composition as set forth above. Hong further teaches the polycarbonate has an MFI (instant melt flow index) of about 3 to about 120 g/10min under measurement conditions of 310ºC and 1.2 kg ([0043]; [0079] ASTM D1238) and a weight-average molecular weight of about 10,000 to about 200,000 g/mol ([0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Hong in view of Ito render obvious the composition as set forth above. Hong further teaches the polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer comprises about 40 to about 95 wt% polycarbonate block and about 5 to about 60 wt% polysiloxane block ([0051]).
Regarding claims 5-6, Hong in view of Ito render obvious the composition as set forth above. Hong further teaches the above noted average diameter of the as-selected luster pigment of from about 1 to about 100 µm ([0062]). Hong additionally exemplifies a mica-based luster pigment of about 20 µm and an aluminum-based luster pigment of about 40 µm ([0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 7, Hong in view of Ito render obvious the composition as set forth above. Hong further teaches the above noted inclusion of additives ([0073]. Hong teaches additives include, but are not limited to, dye, pigment, filler, UV stabilizer, lubricant, antimicrobial, release agent, nucleating agent, anti-static agent and/or antioxidant ([0074]).
Regarding claim 8, Hong in view of Ito render obvious the composition as set forth above. Hong further teaches molded products obtained from the thermoplastic molding composition ([0023]; [0084]-[0085]).
Regarding claims 9-10, Hong in view of Ito render obvious the composition as set forth above. Hong further teaches Izod impact strength, measured in accordance with ASTM D256 ([0078]; [0109]), of about 5 to about 30 kgf·cm/cm ([0022]; Table 2) and teaches HDT (heat deflection temperature), measured in accordance with ASTM D648 ([0080]; [0113]), of about 120 to about 150ºC ([0022]; Table 2).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights