DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2015/0093507 to Kurosawa et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Kurosawa teaches a composition including a mixture of block copolymers [0012] to produce a phase-separated structure [0011] wherein Example 8 comprises 50 parts of BCP-6 [0182, Table 6] which is a PS/PMMA block copolymer (polystyrene/polymethylmethacrylate) [0180] i.e., copolymer A. Example 8 further comprises 50 parts of BCP-7 [0182, Table 6] which is a PS/PMMA block copolymer (polystyrene/polymethylmethacrylate) [0180] reading on the limitations of copolymer B.
Kurosawa does not particularly teach a (L0B/L0A) ratio of 0.90 or more and 1.151 in the preferred example.
However, the broader disclosure of Kurosawa teaches that, in the case where 2 kinds of different block copolymers are to be mixed, the difference between L01 and L02 (corresponding to L0A and L0B) is most preferably 4 to 18 nm [0128]. Given BCP-7 (i.e., polymer B) of example 8 has a period of 56.7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to prepare a second block copolymer with a period as little as 4nm away from polymer B (i.e., 52.7nm or 60.7). As such, using the minimum period distance, the L0B/L0A ratio is reasonably calculated to be 1.076 to 0.934 (calculated by dividing 56.7/52.7 and 56.7/60.7) thereby reading on a ratio of 0.90 or more and 1.151 or less.
The motivation would have been that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges (i.e. the weight ratio of polyester resin to glass fibers) including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05. In the instant case Kurosawa teaches any difference between L01 and L02 in the range of 4-18nm is preferable, providing evidence of obviousness of selecting any period value difference in this range (e.g., 4nm).
Kurosawa does not particularly teach in the preferred embodiment that copolymer A has three blocks.
However, Kurosawa teaches BCP-7 (PS/PMMA) [Table 6] and further teaches block copolymers having 2 or more blocks [0064] thereby teaching a third block with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an additional block of PS in the BCP-7 of Example 9. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” three blocks within block copolymer BCP-7 as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Choosing PS as the third block in BCP-7 of Example 9 would then read on the claim 1 wherein the first block a, third block a and first block b are identical in structure and are PS (polystyrene) [0180] reading on an aromatic group, and further reading on the second block a and second block b having an identical structure to each other which is PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) [0180] reading on an (α-substituted) acrylic ester.
Regarding Claim 2, Kurosawa teaches the resin composition of claim 1, wherein Example 8 comprises 50 parts copolymer A and 50 parts copolymer B [0182, Table 6] which corresponds to a mass ratio of 50:50 and reads on the mass ratio limitation set forth in instant claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Kurosawa discloses compositions that only contain block copolymer B alone.
In response, it is noted example 8 teaches BPC-6 and PBC-7 [Table 6] wherein Kurosawa further teaches block copolymers having 2 or more blocks [0064] reasonably reading on polymer A.
Applicant states the combination of copolymer B and copolymer A synergistically improves process margin, specifically citing the examples in table 2-3 in instant specification. Applicant further states claim 1 is now sufficiently commensurate in scope with the data provided in the specification.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the evidence provided shows that the combination of copolymer B and copolymer A necessarily improves process margin. Comparative example 1 (that has no component B and thus no period ratio) provides a higher process margin then inventive examples 5-7 that are within the scope in the instant claims.
Moreover, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 716.02(d)II. It is noted that instant specification does not have any data with a period ratio lower than 0.950. Therefore there is no data to support the criticality of the period ratio range of 0.90-1.151.
Applicant states Kurosawa does not teach the newly amended period ratio range of 0.90 or more and 1.151 or less.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 wherein the Office sets forth the position that Kurosawa renders obvious the period ratio range of 0.90 or more and 1.151 or less.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights