DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 27 July 2026, amending claims 1, 3, 13, and the specification, and canceling claim 2, are acknowledged.
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 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, 3-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirono et al. (JP 2016-165817 A) in view of Tajiri et al. (WO 2012/108245 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirono discloses a method for producing a molded product of a polycarbonate resin by molding the polycarbonate resin with an injection molding machine (title/abstract), the method comprising:
feeding granules of the polycarbonate resin to the injection molding machine by hungry feeding;
plasticizing the granules in the cylinder of the injection molding machine to generate a plasticized resin;
and
molding the plasticized resin into the molded product (abstract, pp. 7+, 11+ §§ Injection molding method, Injection molding method; FIG. 1), wherein
the granules fed by the hungry feeding to the injection molding machine has a water content of 200ppm or more to 3000ppm or less (0.05-0.3 wt%) (abstract, p. 9 § Moisture content of pellet), which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2131.03).
Hirono does not appear to explicitly disclose the size of the granules or the lack of a vent.
However, Tajiri discloses a similar method for melting and plasticizing polycarbonate (title/abstract) in which the polycarbonate is supplied and wherein 50 wt% or more of the granules fed by the hungry feeding has a particle diameter of 200 to 2000 μm (p. 5)
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Hirono to include the granule sizes of Tajiri, in order to allow for adequate surface area for treatment in the extruder and to allow for quantitative feeding to the extruder (Tajiri p. 5).
Additionally, Hirono discloses that the supply port can act as the vent (p. 9 bottom) and also discloses a comparative example of the cylinder without a vent (pp. 10-11; Table 2).
Therefore, the Examiner’s position is that at the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Hirono to include a cylinder with no vents, because the supply port could provide sufficient venting absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3, Tajiri discloses the granules fed by the hungry feeding has a specific surface area of 0.008 m2/g or more (p. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Hirono discloses the granules fed by the hungry feeding have are predetermined sized pellets, which is equated with the claimed flake or granular shape (p. 7 § Method for producing aromatic polycarbonate resin composition pellet).
Regarding claims 5-8, Hirono discloses a water content of 200ppm or more to 3000ppm or less (0.05-0.3 wt%) (abstract, p. 9 § Moisture content of pellet), which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 10, Hirono discloses a screw type hungry feeder (pp. 9+ § Hunger feed).
Regarding claim 13, Hirono discloses a temperature in the cylinder is 260 to 320° C. (p. 10 § Injection molding conditions) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 14, Tajiri discloses a screw is disposed in the cylinder, and a rotation speed of the screw is 200 rpm (p. 15) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirono et al. (JP 2016-165817 A) in view of Tajiri et al. (WO 2012/108245 A1) as applied to claims 10 above, further in view of Yusa et al. (WO 2019/009362 A1).
Hirono does not appear to expressly disclose the rotation speed of the screw type hungry feeder.
However, Yusa discloses a similar method for plasticizing and molding plastic articles (title/abstract) wherein a hungry feeder has a screw speed of 30 rpm (p. 13) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Hirono to include the screw speed of Yusa, because such speeds are known in the art and could be used with expected results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirono et al. (JP 2016-165817 A) in view of Tajiri et al. (WO 2012/108245 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fujiwara et al. (JP 2013-185083 A)
Hirono does not appear to expressly disclose the time period of plasticizing.
However, Fujiwara discloses a similar method for feeding and plasticizing polycarbonate (title/abstract) with a molding cycle of 60 seconds (p. 8) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Hirono to include the molding cycle times of Fujiwara, because such times are known in the art and could be used with expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that both Hirono and Tajiri only disclose vented cylinders. However, as discussed above, Hirono discloses a comparative example without a vent. The resulting injection molded 300 mm long optical path has a YI value of 21.0 which is sufficiently close to passing the required YI value that the skilled artisan would recognize that a no-vent process is prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the contrary. Additionally, Hirono discloses that the supply port acts as a vent and therefore suggests that a non-vented cylinder would still allow for sufficient off gassing to function as intended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights