DETAILED ACTION
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
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 2, 8, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2019/048802 to Brule, with US Pub. No. 2020/0172670 cited as the English equivalent, in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0287255 to Bertelo.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 18-21, Brule teaches a part including polyetherketoneketone, in which the polyetherketonekeone is at least partially crystalline and in which at least 50% by weight of the crystalline polyetherketoneketone is of form 1 (Brule, Abstract, paragraph 0005). Brule teaches that the part also comprises one or more additional elements, including preferably fibers (Id., paragraph 0013), wherein the fibers are impregnated with PEKK (Id., paragraph 0069). Brule teaches that PEKK can exist in the amorphous form or in a partially crystalline form, including a proportion by weight of PEKK in form 1 and/or form 2 (Id., paragraph 0032). Brule teaches that the proportion by weight of crystalline PEKK can vary (Id., paragraphs 0046-0049, 0071-0074), wherein the PEKK represents at least 90% of all the polymers present (Id., paragraph 0054). Note that Examples 1 and 2 of Brule show PEKK of form 1 in combination with PEKK of form 2, wherein the mass ratios overlap with the claimed ranges, including Example 2 showing 95% form 1 and 5% form 2.
Brule teaches varying the proportion by weight of T units with respect to the sum of the T and I units, such as from 70% to 75% or from 95% to 100%, wherein the choice of the proportion by weight of T units is one of the factors which makes it possible to adjust the melting temperature of PEKK (Brule, paragraphs 0028-0032). Brule teaches the approximate melting points of crystalline PEKK of form 1 and of crystalline PEKK of form 2 (Id., paragraph 0076). Note that the melting points vary by greater than 20º. Brule does not appear to teach the claimed reduced viscosities. However, Bertelo teaches polymeric compositions containing a polyetherketoneketone, wherein the T:I ratio in the polyetherketoneketone can range from 100:0 to 0:100, and can be easily varied as desired to achieve a certain set of properties (Bertelo, Abstract, paragraph 0008). Bertelo teaches that polyetherketoneketones having little or no crystallinity will generally be less stiff and brittle than more crystalline polyetherketonekeone (Id., paragraph 0008). Bertelo teaches that as crystallinity increases, the strength generally increases (Id.). Bertelo teaches blending a polyetherketoneketone having a T/I ratio of 80:20 with a polyetherketoneketone having a T/I ratio of 60:40 (Id., paragraph 0011), wherein a high T/I ratio will be more crystalline, and wherein the strength, stiffness/flexibility, and other mechanical, thermal, thermomechanical and other properties can be varied by controlling the crystallinity of the polyetherketoneketone or polyetherketoneketone mixture (Id., paragraph 0012).
Brule teaches that the PEKK of the parts of the invention comprise different crystallinities, wherein the choice of the proportion by weight of T units is one of the factors which makes it possible to adjust the melting temperature of PEKK such that the melting temperatures vary by greater than 20º. Bertelo teaches blending polyetherketoneketones with different crystallinities, wherein the crystallinity is determined by varying the T/I ratio, and wherein the crystallinity may be varied based on the desired properties of the resulting composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the part of Brule, wherein the part includes blends of PEKK having different crystallinities and melting points, such as within the claimed ranges, by varying the T:I ratio, as suggested by Brule and Bertelo, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional part having the desired properties including strength, stiffness and mechanical properties suitable for the intended application.
Regarding the claimed reduced viscosities, the prior art combination establishes a mixture of PEKK having different T:I ratios to predictably vary the crystallinity, melting point, strength, stiffness/flexibility, and other properties. Note that it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that varying the T/I ratio and crystallinity of the polyetherketoneketones will result in different viscosities, as the ratios overlap with the ratios set forth in Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0073. Therefore, the claimed reduced viscosities appear to naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art combination.
Regarding the claimed mass ratio, the prior art combination teaches that the mass ratios overlap with the claimed ranges, including Example 2 showing 95% form 1 and 5% form 2.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the part of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the mass ratio of the PEKKs, such as within the claimed mass ratio, as suggested by Brule and Bertelo, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional part having the desired properties including strength, stiffness and mechanical properties suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed crystallization enthalpy. However, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar thermoplastic resin composition comprising first and second PEKK having a mass ratio and intrinsic viscosity value within the claimed ranges. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the crystallization enthalpy naturally flows from the composition of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brule in view of Bertelo, as applied to claims 2, 8, and 18-21 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0251353 to Rodgers.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed crystallization enthalpy appears to be taught by the prior art combination. Alternatively, Rodgers teaches a three-dimensional part including a blend of one or more semi-crystalline polymer and one or more secondary materials (Rodgers, paragraph 0068), including blends of polyetherketoneketones (Id., paragraphs 0152-0153) and fiber fillers (Id., paragraph 0155). Rodgers teaches that the enthalpy of the material is at least 5 J/g (Id., paragraph 0008), based on the desired properties of the material (Id., paragraph 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the part of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the amounts of polymers to result in the desired crystallization enthalpy, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Rodgers, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional part having the desired properties known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed September 12, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Brule teaches that form 1 has a higher melting point than form 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection relies on the combined teachings of the prior art, which includes reference to a combination of form 1 and form 2 in addition to blending the polyetherketoneketones having different T/I ratios. As shown in at least paragraph 0076, form 1 and form 2 have different melting points based on the different T/I ratios, including form 2 having a higher melting point as claimed compared to form 1. Note that the Rejection does not rely on form 1 and form 2 having the same T/I ratio, as the Rejection relies on the PEKK having different crystallinities based on the T/I ratios being different.
Applicants argue that the claimed and prior art products are not identical or substantially the same, based on the difference in melting points. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the difference in melting points is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of the prior art. Applicants do not provide any evidence to establish that the invention of the prior art is not substantially similar as claimed.
Applicants argue that Rodgers discloses at least J/g when cooled at 10ºC/min. whereas claim 8 refers to a crystallization enthalpy of 22 J/g or more at a cooling rate of 50ºC/min from 400ºC. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the claimed crystallization enthalpy appears to naturally flow from the composition of the prior art combination. Alternatively, Rodgers establishes that for blends of polyetherketoneketones, the enthalpy of the material is at least 5 J/g based on the desired properties of the material. Although the enthalpy of Rodgers is not measured in the exact manner as claimed, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the enthalpy of Rodgers and the claimed enthalpy are measured substantially similarly and would be expected to overlap in scope. Applicants have not established to the contrary.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786