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 .
The status of the parent must be updated at the beginning of the specification.
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.
Claim 4 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.
The claim requires the polycarbonate have a certain Mw. However, the method of determining Mw is not given. Values vary drastically depending on the method used.
See page 181 of the Handbook of Polycarbonate Science and Technology. There is variation even among GPC measuring techniques. See O’Neil 2003/0139529’s explanation (paragraph 82) that polystyrene standards provide Mw values 1.5-2.5 higher than when using a polycarbonate standard.
It is impossible to ascertain whether or not a particular polycarbonate meets applicant’s requirements without a particular method of testing being specified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2 and 4-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahood 2003/0195295 as evidenced by the APEC brochure.
Mahood exemplifies (#17) a blend of 49.9 % APEC 9353, 49.9% PCCD (ie applicant’s 2nd resin) and 0.3% stabilizers. APEC is a polycarbonate (paragraph 115) which qualifies as applicant’s 1st resin. The transmittance of the PCCD alone is not reported. PCCD is a polyester of cyclohexane dimethanol and cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid (paragraph 41). Given it is made from the preferred diacid and diol of applicant, the same optical properties are assumed to be inherently present. Secondly, the transmission of the overall blend is 90.2 (table 5) which is further indicative that the individual PCCD must have a transmission over 90%.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The APEC polycarbonate has a molecular weight of 29,000 (paragraph 100) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
The PCCD has a refractive index of ~1.53 (paragraph 12). APEC polycarbonates have refractive indices of ~1.56 to 1.57 (see the APC brochure) – meeting applicant’s claims 2 and 5.
PCCD is a polyester of cyclohexane dimethanol and cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid (paragraph 41) – meeting applicant’s claim 6.
The blend is molded into test specimens (paragraph 117) – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
The HDT and optical path difference of the blend is not reported. Given the blend is made from polycarbonate and the preferred polyester of applicant, the same HDT and optical properties are assumed to be inherently present – meeting applicant’s claims 8 and 10.
Claims 1,2 and 4-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahood 2003/0195295.
Mahood exemplifies (#8) a blend of 50% L198 polycarbonate (ie applicant’s 1st resin and 50% PCCD (ie applicant’s 2nd resin). The transmittance of the PCCD alone is not reported. PCCD is a polyester of cyclohexane dimethanol and cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid (paragraph 41). Given it is made from the preferred diacid and diol of applicant, the same optical properties are assumed to be inherently present.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The PCCD has a refractive index of ~1.53 (paragraph 12). The polycarbonate should have refractive indices of ~1.58 (paragraph 95) – meeting applicant’s claims 2 and 5.
The L198 polycarbonate has a molecular weight of 29,000 (paragraph 99) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
PCCD is a polyester of cyclohexane dimethanol and cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid (paragraph 41) – meeting applicant’s claim 6.
The blend is molded into a film (paragraph 108) – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
The blend’s HDT, transmission and optical path difference is not reported. Given the blend is made from polycarbonate and the preferred polyester of applicant, the same HDT and optical properties are assumed to be inherently present – meeting applicant’s claims 8-10.
Claims 1-7 and 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahood 2003/0195295.
Mahood exemplifies (#7) a blend of 75% L198 polycarbonate (ie applicant’s 1st resin and 25% PCCD (ie applicant’s 2nd resin). The transmittance of the PCCD alone is not reported. PCCD is a polyester of cyclohexane dimethanol and cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid (paragraph 41). Given it is made from the preferred diacid and diol of applicant, the same optical properties are assumed to be inherently present.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The PCCD has a refractive index of ~1.53 (paragraph 12). The polycarbonate should have refractive indices of ~1.58 (paragraph 95) – meeting applicant’s claims 2 and 5.
The L198 polycarbonate has a molecular weight of 29,000 (paragraph 99) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
PCCD is a polyester of cyclohexane dimethanol and cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid (paragraph 41) – meeting applicant’s claim 6.
The blend is molded into a film (paragraph 108) – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
The blend’s HDT, transmission and optical path difference is not reported. Given the blend is made from polycarbonate and the preferred polyester of applicant, the same HDT and optical properties are assumed to be inherently present – meeting applicant’s claims 8-10.
Claims 1,2 and 4-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim 2020/0032052 as evidenced by Hale 2006/0199871and Mahood 2003/0195295.
Kim exemplifies (table 1) blends of polycarbonate “A” (ie applicant’s 1st resin), a first polycarbonate-siloxane “B”, a second polycarbonate-siloxane “C” and a polyester “D”. This polyester “C” (paragraph 83) terephthalic acid and cyclohexane dimethanol which is applicant’s preferred polyester of claim 6.
The transmittance of the polyester alone is not reported. Given it is made from the preferred diacid and diol of applicant, the same optical properties are assumed to be inherently present.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Polyesters made from terephthalic acid and cyclohexane dimethanol inherently have a refractive index of 1.5519 (see table 1 of Hale 2006/0199871). The polycarbonate is BPA based (paragraph 77). Such BPA based polycarbonates inherently have a refractive index of ~ 1.58 (see paragraph 12 of 2003/0195295) – meeting applicant’s claims 2 and 5.
The polycarbonate has Mw of 25,000 (paragraph 77) – meeting applicant’s claim 4.
The blend is useful as interior/exterior parts of automobiles (paragraph 73) – meeting applicant’s claims 7,11 and 12.
The HDT and optical path difference of the blend is not reported. Given the blend is made from the preferred polycarbonate and polyester of applicant, the same HDT and optical properties are assumed to be inherently present – meeting applicant’s claims 8 and 10.
The blend has a transmittance of >90% (table 1) meeting applicant’s claim 9.
Claims 1-3,5-10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN108976747.
The reference is believed to exemplify (#1) a blend of 49 parts polycarbonate, 21 parts polyester and 30 parts of additional polymer. The combination of polycarbonate with the additional polymer qualifies as applicant’s “first resin comprising polycarbonate”. The polyester itself (comparison example 2) has a transmittance of 90%. Therefore, the polyester of example 1 qualifies as applicant’s second resin.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The polycarbonate’s and polyester’s refractive index are within 0.02 (paragraph 19) – meeting applicant’s claim 2.
The polycarbonate’s refractive index is 1.56-1.59 (paragraph 11) meeting applicants claim 5.
The polyester is derived from terephthalic acid and cyclohexanedimethanol (see the chemical abstract) meeting applicant’s claim 6.
The composition is useful as automotive lampshades meeting applicant’s claims 7 and 12.
The transmission s 92% - meeting applicant’s claim 9.
The HDT and optical path difference of the blend is not reported. Given the blend is made from the preferred polycarbonate and polyester of applicant, the same HDT and optical properties are assumed to be inherently present – meeting applicant’s claims 8 and 10.
Claims 1,2 and 4-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agarwal 2008/0119596 as evidenced by Mahood 2003/0195295 and Hale 2006/0199871.
Agarwal exemplifies (#C51) a blend of 50% BPA based polycarbonate (ie applicant’s 1st resin) and 50% PCT (ie applicant’s 2nd resin). The PCT is made from cyclohexane dimethanol and terephthalic acid (table 1).
The transmittance of the polyester alone is not reported. Given it is made from the preferred diacid and diol of applicant, the same optical properties are assumed to be inherently present.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
BPA based polycarbonates inherently have a refractive index of ~1.58 (see paragraph 95 of Mahood). PCT inherently has a refractive index of ~1.57 (see table 1 of Hale). It is apparent that the difference is less than 0.05 – meeting applicant’s claims 2 and 5.
The Mw of the polycarbonate (table 1) is said to be 60,000. However, given the uncertainty of how applicant’s Mw of claim 4 is to be determined, applicant’s numerical value does not distinguish from Agarwal.
The blend is molded into a test article (paragraph 128) – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
The transmission of the blend is 90% (table 9) - meeting applicant’s claim 9.
The HDT and optical path difference of the blend is not reported. Given the blend is made from the preferred polycarbonate and polyester of applicant, the same HDT and optical properties are assumed to be inherently present – meeting applicant’s claims 8 and 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 2/4/26