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 Status
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13, drawn to a composition, in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (i) auxiliary polycarbonate comprises a branched homopolycarbonate in group A and species (iv) auxiliary polycarbonate comprises no optional … in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 9-10, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 belong to the elected invention of group I, and encompass the elected species.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Brouwer et al (herein ‘DB’; US 2016/0289377 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, and 11; DB teaches a composition comprising bisphenol-A polycarbonate(s), wherein a molded article of the composition has transmission level greater than or equal to 90.0% at 2.5 mm thickness as measured by ASTM D1003-00 and a yellow index (YI) less than or equal to 1.5 as measured by ASTM D1925 [p. 0006]. DB teaches that polycarbonates include copolycarbonates, wherein examples of bisphenol compounds that can be used in combination include bisphenol-A and 1,1-bis(4-hydroxy-3-methylphenyl)cyclohexane (DMBPC) [p. 0040-0041][see instant claims 2 and 3]. DB teaches an embodiment wherein the composition further comprises a second polycarbonate, derived from bisphenol-A, wherein the second polycarbonate may be branched [p. 0063-0064]. DB teaches branched polycarbonate blocks can be prepared by adding a branching agent during polymerization wherein the branching agents can be added at a level of 0.05 to 2.0 wt % [p. 0065]. DB further teaches the amount of chain termination agent used when the particular branching agent is used is generally higher than if only a chain termination agent alone is used. The amount of chain termination agent used is generally above 5 mole percent and less than 20 mole percent compared to the bisphenol monomer [p. 0066].
In light of this, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare a composition that has a transmission level greater than or equal to 90.0% at 2.5 mm thickness as measured by ASTM D1003-00, comprising (1) a copolycarbonate of bisphenol-A and DMBPC, and (2) a branched homopolycarbonate of bisphenol A comprising less than 20 mole percent of moieties derived from a branching agent with respect to the total moles of polycarbonate. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5; DB fails to specifically disclose the heat deformation temperature. However, since DB discloses a composition comprising the same materials at similar amounts thereof, one skilled in the art would have expected embodiments of DB to have heat deformation temperatures satisfying the claimed range.
Regarding claims 6 and 8; DB teaches the end-capping agents are selected from at least one of the following: phenol, para-t-butylphenol or para-cumylphenol [p. 0075].
Regarding claim 7; DB teaches examples of specific branching agents that are particularly effective in embodiments include trimellitic trichloride (TMTC), tris-p-hydroxy phenyl ethane (THPE) [p. 0069].
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehrmann et al (herein ‘Wehrmann’; US 2017/0226340 A1) in further view of de Brouwer et al (herein ‘DB’; US 2016/0289377 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11; Wehrmann exemplifies a compositon comprising (component A) a copolycarbonate based on bisphenol A and bisphenol TMC (1,1-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)-3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexane), and (component B) a homopolycarbonate based on bisphenol A having a branched structure [p. 0184-0186; table 1, examples 4-6]. Wehrmann teaches branching agent give rise to polycarbonates having a branched structure, wherein branching agents may be used in amounts preferably between 0.1-3 mol % based on the moles of diphenols used [p. 0101-0102]. Wehrmann teaches preferred modes of preparation of the (co)polycarbonates which are used with preference as component A and B in the composition of the invention are the interfacial method and the melt transesterification method [p. 0098]. Furthermore, Wehrmann teaches the amount of chain terminator to be used is preferably 0.5 mol % to 10 mol %, more preferably 1 mol % to 8 mol %, especially preferably 2 mol % to 6 mol %, based on moles of diphenols used in each case [p. 0103].Wehrmann exemplifies the use of a phenol as a chain terminator [p. 0184, 0186][see instant claim 6]. Wehrmann teaches suitable applications for molded articles of the composition include protective glasses and automobile headlamps, however, Wehrmann is silent with respect to the transparency of a molded sample of the composition when measured according to ASTM-D1003-00.
DB teaches a method of preparing polycarbonates and copolycarbonates [abstract]. DB teaches that a synergist effect can be achieved resulting in enhanced optical qualities (e.g., transmission levels higher than 90.0% at 2.5 mm thickness and a YI less than or equal to 1.5) by reacting, in an interfacial process (as opposed to a melt process), a low sulfur (less than or equal to 2 ppm) and highly pure (purity greater than or equal to 99.65 wt %) BPA starting material to form a BPA polycarbonate comprising a free hydroxyl level of less than or equal to 150 ppm. The use of an end-capping agent can be employed in the reaction such that the resultant composition comprising BPA polycarbonate comprises a free hydroxyl level less than or equal to 150 ppm[p. 0024-0025].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the composition of Wehrmann, comprising a cyclohexylidene-bridged copolycarbonate (A) and branched homopolycarbonate (B), wherein the components are prepared via interfacial polymerization and are end-capped, in order to prepare a composition with enhanced optical qualities (e.g., transmission levels higher than 90.0% at 2.5 mm thickness) as Wehrmann teaches molded articles of the composition that benefit from increased transparency.
Regarding claims 2 and 3; Wehrmann exemplifies the use of a copolycarbonate comprising bisphenol TMC. However, the general teachings of Wehrmann are that the copolycarbonate(s) may have monomers introduced by means of one or more corresponding diphenols of the general formula (1a) [p. 0060]:
PNG
media_image1.png
136
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which R1 is hydrogen or C1-C4-alkyl, R2 is C1-C4-alkyl, preferably methyl, and n is 0, 1, 2 or 3 [p. 0061-0064]. A skilled artisan would appreciate the general teachings obviously embrace repeating units capable of satisfying formula (1e) of instant claim 2.
Furthermore, when R1 is methyl, and n is 0, the general formula of Wehrmann reads over repeating units derived from 1,1-bis(4-hydroxy-3-methylphenyl)cyclohexane, as recited in instant claim 3.
Regarding claim 5; Wehrmann exemplifies the use of a branched homopolycarbonate as component B [p. 0184-0186; table 1, examples 4-6]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would reasonably predict embodiments of Wehrmann to be obviously capable of satisfying the claimed heat deformation temperature when tested under the same conditions, as the composition of Wehrmann significantly satisfies all other material/chemical limitations of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7; Wehrmann teaches suitable branging agents include 1,1,1-tri(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethane [p. 0101].
Regarding claim 8; Wehrmann teaches suitable chain terminators include tert-butylphenol or cumylphenol [p. 0100]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
van de Grampel et al (herein ‘VDG’; US 2008/0004404 A1)
VDG teaches a thermoplastic composition, useful to prepare articles e.g. film and sheet, comprising a first polycarbonate comprising two carbonate units; a polyester-polycarbonate compound; and a second polycarbonate. VDG exemplifies a composition comprising DMBPC-PC and BPA-PC [table 2; example 2].
PNG
media_image2.png
332
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
380
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The BPA-PC in the exemplary embodiments of VDG is a linear homopolymer derived from bisphenol A [p. 0034]. However, VDG teaches branched polycarbonates are useful, as well as blends of a linear polycarbonate and a branched polycarbonate [p. 0061].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM -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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights