DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlee et al. (US 5274043) in view Green et al. (Journal of Vinyl Technology).
Greenlee discloses CPVC blends and articles thereof. Concerning claims 1 and 10, Greenlee discloses the CPVC is blended with a PVC resin, wherein the CPVC has a chlorine content is from 57% to 78%, specifically 63% to 69% and the PVC is found at a content of 3 to 30 parts by weight per 100 parts CPVC and PVC, resulting in 70 to 97 parts by weight per 100 parts CPVC and PVC and overlapping and including the claimed range and from 0.5 to about 15 parts by weight of a heat stabilizer and 0.1 to 7.0 parts by weight per 100 parts of the CPVC/PVC (cols. 2-5). While it is noted that Greenlee does not explicitly recite the total chlorine content with respect to the sum of the CPVC/PVC, Examiner notes that post-chlorinated PVC (CPVC) has a chlorine content of from 57% to 78% (col. 2, lines 49-60) which implies that prior to chlorinating PVC to form CPVC, the PVC would have a chlorine content less than 57%, wherein the total chlorine content of the CPVC/PVC blend would include and encompass the claimed range of 52% to 60%. As such, when the resulting composition is formed into a 5 mm sheet, the sheet would have properties that include and encompass the claimed ranges. The resulting composition is formed into sheets and the like (col. 7, lines 15-22). However, Greenlee is silent to the secondary stabilizer having the claimed materials as claimed in claim 2.
With respect to claim 4, the heat stabilizer is one of the claimed materials (col. 5, lines 44-51). In regards to claims 6 and 7, the composition further includes at least one impact modifier found at a content of 1 to 50 parts by weight and includes the claimed materials (col. 6, lines 1-26). Examiner notes that the term “acrylic rubber” includes the claimed acrylate copolymers. Regarding claim 8, Greenlee discloses the exact type of impact modifier utilized and the amounts thereof varies depending based upon the desired impact strength (col. 6, lines 13-16); as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed materials with the MBS at a greater content than an acrylic rubber depending upon the desired impact strength. Concerning claim 9, the composition can further include a filler, plasticizer, and colorant (cols. 6 and 7). However, Greenlee is silent to the secondary stabilizer having the claimed materials as claimed in claim 2.
Green discloses phosphate esters are added to PVC compositions for flame retardancy and also for low smoke generation when exposed to heat (pp. 37-41). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the phosphate ester as the secondary stabilizer of Greenlee.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlee et al. (US 5274043) in view Green et al. (Journal of Vinyl Technology) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Greenlee (EP 0587104; Hereafter “Greenlee ‘104”).
The prior art discloses the above but is silent to the claimed combination of stabilizers as claimed.
Greenlee ‘104 discloses adding a butyltin mercaptide and can further include a calcium and zinc derivative together (p. 5, lines 5-17), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed butyltin mercaptide content higher than the calcium and zinc compounds for the desired heat stabilization without producing undesired effects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art id silent to the combination of elements at the ratio as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsumura et al. (US 20170008981).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights