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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-16, 19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio (JP2000198923, herein Ishio, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), in view of Takagi (US5310776, herein Takagi).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 9, and 16: Ishio teaches polyphenylene sulfide resin composition comprising: polyphenylene sulfide [0007] and a polyamide resin [0007].
Ishio does not teach the compatibilizer with the claimed structural formula (I), however, Takagi teaches “hydrogenated styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer; styrene content: 65% by weight” [P19; L64], as compatibilizer, which lies in the claimed styrene monomers range, and matches the formula (I), wherein, the p=0; q=1; D is a copolymeric block derived from copolymerizing a styrenic monomer and a conjugated diene monomer, which is isoprene and hydrogenating ethylenic double bonds of styrene.
Ishio and Takagi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the modifier selection toward polyphenylene sulfide based functional compositions development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishio to add the teaching of Takagi and provide wherein the “hydrogenated styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer; styrene content: 65% by weight” [P19; L64] as the compatibilizer and into the composition development.
Doing so would lead to the desired property of thermoplastic resin composition owing to the special property of the compatibilizer including: changing interface characteristics of dispersed phases and/or heightening phase dispersion, to improve compatibility of a resin mixture so as to be shown by impact strength, stretchability (elongation) and weld line strength which are particularly heightened as a result of the interaction. [P9; L13] as taught by Takagi.
Regarding Claim 2, Ishio does not teach the compatibilizer range, however, Takagi teaches the compatibilizer as set forth above, and in the range of “0.01 to 50% by weight of a compatibilizer” [P3; L34] which encompassed the claimed range.
Ishio and Takagi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the modifier selection toward polyphenylene sulfide based functional compositions development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishio to add the teaching of Takagi and provide wherein the compatibilizer and the range of “0.01 to 50% by weight of a compatibilizer” [P3; L34] which encompassed the claimed range, and into the composition development.
Doing so would lead to the desired property of thermoplastic resin composition owing to the special property of the compatibilizer including: changing interface characteristics of dispersed phases and/or heightening phase dispersion, to improve compatibility of a resin mixture so as to be shown by impact strength, stretchability (elongation) and weld line strength which are particularly heightened as a result of the interaction. [P9; L13] as taught by Takagi.
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).
Regarding Claim 8, Ishio teaches “Ethylene-butene copolymer grafted with maleic anhydride (0.5 wt%)” [0101] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 11, Ishio teaches the composition further comprising “polyhexamethylene adipamide (nylon 66)” [0058].
Regarding Claims 13-15, 19, Ishio teaches the polyphenylene sulfide resin composition comprising: “(A) 100 parts by weight of polyphenylene sulfide” [0007]; “(B) 1 to 100 parts by weight of an ethylene/α-olefin copolymer” [0007] and “(C) 1 to 100 parts by weight of a functional group-containing a carboxyl group” [0007] wherein the (C) is “olefin-based copolymers obtained by copolymerizing a polyolefin-based (co)polymer such as styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS); maleic anhydride modified SBS, SIS, SEBS, SEPS” [0049] as “graft copolymer” [0050] collectively read on the claimed compatibilizer with the maleic anhydride block.
“component (D), 1 to 99 parts by weight of a polyamide resin” [0007].
“component (E), 1 to 400 parts by weight of a filler” [0007].
Hence, the concentration of polyphenylene sulfide is in the range of 100/(100+1+1+1+1)=96.15% to 100/(100+100+100+99+400)=12.52%; hence, overlap the claimed range.
the concentration of polyamide is in the range of 99/(100+1+1+99+1)=49% to 99/(100+100+100+99+400)=12.39%; hence, overlap the claimed range.
the concentration of compatibilizer is in the range of 1/(100+1+1+1+1)=0.96% to 100/(100+100+100+99+400)=12.52%; hence, overlap the claimed range.
the concentration of filler is in the range of 1/(100+1+1+1+1)=0.96% to 400/(100+100+100+99+400)=50%; hence, overlap the claimed range.
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).
Regarding Claim 24, Ishio teaches “A molded article obtained by injection molding the polyphenylene sulfide resin composition described above” [0007]
Claims 4, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio (JP2000198923, herein Ishio, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Takagi (US5310776, herein Takagi) as applied in the claim 1 above, and in the further view of Zhou (WO2016127355, herein Zhou, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and in the further view of Aepli (US20120065332, herein Aepli).
Regarding Claims 4, 5, 7, Ishio does not explicitly teach wherein the hydrogenated styrene-diene block copolymer is a star hydrogenated styrene-diene block copolymer having the following structural formula (II) or (III) or (IV) or (V), however, Apeli teaches “hydrogenated block copolymers of the component (A2): hydrogenated block copolymers styrene-(ethylene-butylene) two-block and styrene-(ethylene-butylene)-styrene three-block copolymers” [0041] and “star-shaped structures are also usable” [0036] which collectively indicate the star shaped hydrogenated styrene-diene block copolymer. Zhou further teaches “star molecular structure having the formula [S 1 -(A x -B y ) n -S 2 ] m -R [0064] wherein S 1 and S 2 are independently a styrene monomer polymer block [0016]; A x is a styrene monomer polymerization micro block, B y is a hydrogenated micro block which is polymerized and then hydrogenated by a conjugated diene monomer [0052-53];
Accordingly, Ax and By combine reads on D, wherein D is a copolymeric block derived from copolymerizing a styrenic monomer and a conjugated diene monomer and hydrogenating ethylenic double bonds.
“x is the number (average value) of styrene monomer units, and is 1-100, Y is the number (average value) of hydrogenated conjugated diene monomer units, and is 1-170, n is 30-1100 (average value), preferably 300-1100” [0054-56] overlaps the claimed range.
“R is a coupling agent residue and m is the number of arms of the star molecule, which is selected from an integer of from 3 to 55” [0082] lie in the claimed arm number range,
which collectively reads on the claimed formulae (II) and (IV).
Zhou further teaches “the degree of hydrogenation of the hydrogenated conjugated diene block may be 80-99.99%” [0060] lies in the claimed range.
Ishio, Aepli and Zhou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the styrene block copolymer and preparation method development lead to mechanical property improvement. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Ishio by adding the SEBS with star molecular structure taught by Aepli and Zhou. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “excellent damping performance” [0066] as taught by Zhou; and “good mechanical properties and high surface quality (gloss), are reliably solderable in the reflow process and attain the fire retardant classification V0 according to UL94.” [0165] as taught by Aepli.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio (JP2000198923, herein Ishio, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Takagi (US5310776, herein Takagi) as applied in claim 1 above, and in the further view of Akiyama (US6875812, herein Akiyama).
Regarding Claim 10, Ishio does not explicitly teach wherein the polyphenylene sulfide A) has a melt mass flow rate (MFR) in the range of from 10 to 3,000 g/10 min, as measured according to ISO 1133-1-2011 at 316° C./5 kg, however, Akiyama teaches “Polyphenylene Sulfide, a commercial name: TORELINA-M2588, manufactured by Toray Industries, Inc.” [P21; L35] matches the claimed “Torelina™ from Toray” [Instant application_0085], hence the inherently match the claimed wherein the polyphenylene sulfide A) has a melt mass flow rate (MFR) in the range of from 10 to 3,000 g/10 min, as measured according to ISO 1133-1-2011 at 316° C./5 kg.
Ishio and Akiyama are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the polyphenylene sulfide, polyamide based composite development. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishio by adding the specific PPS of Akiyama, which the selection of “component (d)” [P14; L16] which is “Polyphenylene Sulfide, a commercial name: TORELINA-M2588, manufactured by Toray Industries, Inc.” [P21; L35] into the composition development.
Doing so would lead to the desired property of “the obtained resin composition is remarkably improved in its impact strength, particularly impact strength at low temperature, and superior in its heat resistance and processability” [P14; L16] as taught by Akiyama.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio (JP2000198923, herein Ishio, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Takagi (US5310776, herein Takagi) as applied in claim 1 above, and in the further view of Peters (US20130237648, herein Peters).
Regarding Claim 12, Ishio does not explicitly teach wherein the polyamide B) has a content of amino end groups in the range of 30 to 100 mmol/kg, however, Peters teaches “polyamide-6,6 sold by BASF under the trade name ULTRAMID” [0019] matches the claimed polyamide B), hence the inherently match the claimed wherein the polyamide B) has a content of amino end groups in the range of 30 to 100 mmol/kg.
Ishio and Peters are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the polyamide based composite development and polymer selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishio to add the specific PA 66 of Peters.
Doing so would lead to the processing optimization of “The melt blending temperature will depend on the identities of the polar polymer and non-polar polymer” [0085] as taught by Peters, wherein the “polyamide-6,6 sold by BASF under the trade name ULTRAMID” [0019] is polar polymer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio (JP2000198923, herein Ishio, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) and Takagi (US5310776, herein Takagi) as applied in claim 16 above, and in the further view of Akiyama (US6875812, herein Akiyama).
Regarding Claim 17, Ishio does not explicitly teach wherein the polyphenylene sulfide A) has a melt mass flow rate (MFR) in the range of from 10 to 3,000 g/10 min, as measured according to ISO 1133-1-2011 at 316° C./5 kg, however, Akiyama teaches “Polyphenylene Sulfide, a commercial name: TORELINA-M2588, manufactured by Toray Industries, Inc.” [P21; L35], hence the inherently match the claimed wherein the polyphenylene sulfide A) has a melt mass flow rate (MFR) in the range of from 10 to 3,000 g/10 min, as measured according to ISO 1133-1-2011 at 316° C./5 kg.
Ishio and Akiyama are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the polyphenylene sulfide, polyamide based composite development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishio to add the teachings of Akiyama and provide wherein said the specific PPS, into the composite development taught by Akiyama. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “thermoplastic resin as the component (d) constitutes a matrix and the components constituting the graft copolymer form a dispersed phase, the obtained resin composition is remarkably improved in its impact strength, particularly impact strength at low temperature, and superior in its heat resistance and processability” [P14; L16] as taught by Akiyama, owing to the selection of “component (d)” [P14; L16] which is “Polyphenylene Sulfide, a commercial name: TORELINA-M2588, manufactured by Toray Industries, Inc.” [P21; L35].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio (JP2000198923, herein Ishio, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) and Takagi (US5310776, herein Takagi) as applied in claim 16 above, and in the further view of Weber (US20100036043, herein Weber).
Regarding Claim 18, Ishio does not explicitly teach wherein the polyamide B) has a content of amino end groups in the range of 30 to 100 mmol/kg, however, Weber teaches “nylon-6 ULTRAMID” [0191] matches the claimed polyamide B), hence the inherently match the claimed wherein the polyamide B) has a content of amino end groups in the range of 30 to 100 mmol/kg.
Ishio and Weber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the polyamide based composite development and polymer selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishio to add the teachings of Weber and provide wherein said the specific polyamide, into the composite development taught by Weber. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “a feature of the inventive molding compositions is reduced anisotropy of notched impact resistance” [0181] as taught by Weber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument of the “Ishio is further deficient for not teaching that all monomer units derived from the styrenic monomers account for 40 to 80 % by weight of the hydrogenated styrene-diene block copolymer, as presently claimed. Rather, Ishio is silent on modifying the polyphenylene sulfide resin composition in such a manner that it would include the increase of styrene. Thus, Ishio is deficient at least for these reasons”, the argument is not persuasive.
In fact, Ishio teaches component (C), which is epoxidized hydrogenated block copolymers consisting of at least one polymer block A mainly made of an aromatic vinyl compound and at least one polymer block B mainly made of a conjugated diene compound, such as an aromatic vinyl compound conjugated diene compound block copolymer having a structure such as A-B, A-B-A [0041; 0045], collectively read on the compatibilizer as hydrogenated styrene-diene block copolymer with coupling agent R, including: polyfunctional epoxides [Instant App. US20230183481; 0138; 0139; 0148], hence, Ishio does not teach away the instant application.
In response to the applicant’s argument of the “the "styrene content: 65% by weight" disclosed by Takagi is irrelevant here because it relates to an irrelevant polymer component”, the argument is not persuasive.
In fact, Takagi teaches “hydrogenated styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer; styrene content: 65% by weight” [P19; L64], as compatibilizer, which lies in the claimed styrene monomers range, and matches the formula (I), wherein, the p=0; q=1; D is a copolymeric block derived from copolymerizing a styrenic monomer and a conjugated diene monomer, which is isoprene and hydrogenating ethylenic double bonds of styrene, matches the S 1 p-D-S 2 q (I) wherein, the styrenic monomers may be selected from styrene [Instant App. US20230183481; 0121]; the conjugated diene monomers for deriving the copolymeric block D may be selected from isoprene [Instant App. US20230183481; 0122], hence, Ishio does not teach away the instant application. Furthermore, as analogous art, Takagi teaches “hydrogenated styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer; styrene content: 65% by weight” [P19; L64] as the compatibilizer, which can be applied into the composition of Ishio and further lead to the desired property of thermoplastic resin composition owing to the special property of the compatibilizer including: changing interface characteristics of dispersed phases and/or heightening phase dispersion, to improve compatibility of a resin mixture so as to be shown by impact strength, stretchability (elongation) and weld line strength which are particularly heightened as a result of the interaction. [P9; L13] as taught by Takagi.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the “improve the melt flowability and toughness of the polyphenylene sulfide and polyamide composition without serious sacrifice of other mechanical properties of polyphenylene sulfide and polyamide blends”, the argument is not persuasive.
In fact, when Examples 1-3 and Ref Examples 1-2 are considered as a whole, they establish results associated with the ranges, respect to the claimed ranges provided for comparison. Claim 13 is open to the 20 to 50% by weight of the polyphenylene sulfide. However, Examples 1-2 and Ref Examples 1-2 include PPS 31% as single vale. The Examples 1-2 and Ref Examples 1-2 are therefore insufficient to establish non-obviousness.
Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767