DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-8 are pending as amended on 10/21/2025. Claims 2, 4 and 5 stand withdrawn from consideration.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further limits the copper compound B2 to copper halide. Claim 1 was previously amended to limit copper compound (B2) to a copper halide, and therefore claim 3 does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takezawa et al (US 4690969) in view of Ishio et al (JP 03111451A, included machine translation cited herein).
As to claims 1, 3 and 8, Takezawa discloses that polyphenylene sulfide resins are excellent in heat, chemical and flame resistance, and are also superior in moldability (col 1, lines 12-20). Takezawa discloses moldings (corresponding to a “molded article” as recited in claim 8) whose supersonic welds are increased in strength, formed from a polyphenylene sulfide resin composition composed of polyphenylene sulfide (corresponding to instant (A)) and halogenized copper (col 2, lines 50-65). Takezawa names cuprous iodide as a most preferred halogenized copper (col 4, lines 45-47), ranging between 0.03 and 3% by weight of copper per unit of resin (col 4, lines 58-62). Takezawa exemplifies 0.5 parts by weight of cuprous iodide based on 100 parts by weight of polyphenylene sulfide (col 5, line 65 to col 6, line 1), which falls within the presently claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0 parts by mass based on 100 parts (A).
Takezawa does not disclose the complete decomposition temperature of cuprous iodide. However, according to the instant specification, the copper compound is preferably copper halide because the complete decomposition temperature is likely to be 400 C or higher, and copper iodide is named as most preferred [0025]. Copper (I) iodide is also utilized in instant examples [0086]. Based on the disclosure in the instant specification regarding the decomposition temperature of copper halide, and particularly copper iodide, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the cuprous iodide taught by Takezawa has a complete decomposition temperature of 400 C or higher (and therefore, corresponds to instant B2).
Takezawa names several other types of additives which may be included (col 5, lines 15-20), however, Takezawa fails to teach including a nickel halide salt.
Like Takezawa, Ishio seeks to obtain a polyphenylene sulfide resin which gives a molding improved in ultrasonic weldability, without detriment to heat resistance and chemical resistance (p 2, overview). Ishio teaches that welding strength is improved by adding 0.01 to 5 parts by weight of a metal halide MXn, wherein M can be nickel and X can be chloride, bromine or iodine (p 4). When the added amount is lower, ultrasonic weldability is insufficient; when higher, the strength of PPS is lowered (p 5). The composition of Ishio’s example 5 contains 0.5 parts nickel chloride and 70 parts PPS (see table on p 5 of the original document), which corresponds to a nickel content of 0.33 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the PPS resin, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 1 parts by mass [Nickel chloride is 45.3% by mass nickel; 0.5*0.453 = 0.23, therefore, Ishio’s example 5 contains 70 parts PPS and 0.23 parts nickel; a composition comprising 0.23 parts by mass nickel and 70 parts by mass PPS includes 0.33 parts by mass nickel based on 100 parts by mass PPS; 0.23*100/70 = 0.33].
Considering Ishio’s disclosure, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a nickel halide salt in a PPS resin composition in any amount within Ishio’s range of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight in order to improve ultrasonic weldability without decreasing strength, including an amount corresponding to a nickel content within a range of 0.1 to 1 parts by mass based on 100 parts PPS. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a composition comprising polyphenylene sulfide (corresponding to instant A) and cuprous iodide (corresponding to instant B2), as taught by Takezawa, by further including Ishio’s nickel halide salt (corresponding to instant B1) in an amount corresponding to a nickel content within a range of 0.1 to 1 parts by mass per 100 parts polyphenylene sulfide in order to further improve ultrasonic weldability, thereby arriving at a composition according to instant claims 1 and 3.
As to claim 6, modified Takezawa suggests a composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. Takezawa further exemplifies a composition comprising a glass fiber (corresponding to a fibrous filler) content of 40% by weight (corresponding to ~40 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of resin, which falls within the claimed range of 10-400 parts). See col 5, line 63 to col 6, line 6.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takezawa et al (US 4690969) in view of Ishio et al (JP 03111451A, included machine translation cited herein), and further in view of Imai et al (US 2016/0251498).
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 over Takezawa in view of Ishio is incorporated here by reference.
Modified Takezawa fails to teach a fiber reinforced plastic base obtained by impregnating a continuous fibrous filler with polyphenylene sulfide, or, obtained by impregnating a discontinuous fibrous filler dispersed in a reinforcing fiber base with polyphenylene sulfide.
Like Takezawa and Ishio, Imai discloses that polyarylene sulfide is excellent in heat and chemical resistance [0003]. Imai teaches that molded articles including reinforcing fibers and a thermoplastic resin are excellent in balance between lightness and dynamic characteristics, and are therefore widely used as structural members and building materials [0002]. Imai discloses a molded article including reinforcing fibers and polyarylene sulfide [0010] (examples of which include polyphenylene sulfide [0062]) which has dramatically improved tensile strength [0015, 0282]. The article is formed by a preferred method wherein a base material formed of reinforcing fibers (including continuous fibrous filler [0103]) is impregnated with melted matrix resin [0098].
Considering Imai’s disclosure, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a molded article from polyphenylene sulfide by including reinforcing fibers in order to achieve a desired balance in lightness and dynamic characteristics, including improved tensile strength. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a molded article from a polyphenylene sulfide composition comprising nickel and copper, as suggested by modified Takezawa, by a process which includes impregnating a base material of continuous reinforcing fibers with the polyphenylene sulfide composition, as taught by Imai, in order to improve the tensile strength of the ultimately obtained molded article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 and Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (p 6 and 7) that there is no motivation to combine Takezawa and Ishio because the references address entirely different problems (weatherability and ultrasonic weldability). However, Applicant has not explained why one would not have been motivated to improve ultrasonic weldability in a composition (as taught by Takezawa) which is taught to have improved weatherability. Therefore, Applicant has not established a lack of motivation to combine the two prior art references.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the criticality of the recited nickel and copper content ranges for achieving superior thermal stability. Applicant has provided data in the instant specification (examples in Tables 1 and 2) as well as supplemental data (examples S1 and S2 in the 10/17/2025 Declaration) showing the melt viscosity retention, tensile strength retention and tensile elongation retention (indications of melt stability) of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resin compositions which contain varying contents of nickel halide and copper halide compounds. Applicant argues that the specific combination of polyarylene sulfide resin, specific nickel halides and specific copper halides within specific ranges produces unpredictable synergy.
[Note: on page 7 of remarks, Applicant argues that instant examples 2, 7, S1 and S2 achieve superior and unexpected performance across all measured parameters. The examiner suspects Applicant intended to highlight instant example 6 or 8 rather than instant example 7 as achieving superior results. Instant example 7 is now comparative, as the composition of example 7 is no longer encompassed by the instant claims (the nickel compound utilized is nickel formate, not a nickel halide), and, example 7 has inferior melt stability performance relative to examples which are still encompassed by the instant claims (examples 1, 6, 8, 10, S1, S2).]
Examples 1, 6, 8, 10, S1, S2 in the instant specification and the Declaration are PPS compositions which have nickel halide and copper halide contents within the claimed ranges of 0.1-1.0 phr. The compositions of these examples have melt viscosity retention, tensile strength retention and tensile elongation retention values which are superior to exemplified compositions wherein the content of nickel halide and/or the content of copper halide falls below or above the claimed range. The examples appear to demonstrate that a synergistic and unexpected improvement in melt stability is obtained in PPS compositions containing certain nickel and copper compounds in certain amounts.
However, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. See MPEP 716.02(d). Therefore, if Applicant wishes to overcome the present rejection by showing unexpected results, Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show that unexpected results would be obtained for all species encompassed by the present claims. The data provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that unexpected synergy is achieved for any composition encompassed by the instant claims, for the reasons which follow:
Instant examples 1, 2, 3, S2, C1 and C2 show that when the copper content in PPS is 0.19 (a value within the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0), superior performance is obtained when the nickel content is 0.14 and 0.98 (Ex 2 and S2), while inferior performance is obtained when the nickel content is below the claimed range (0.008 or 0.0008, see Ex 1 and Ex C1) or above the claimed range (1.4 or 4.2; see Ex 3 and C2). This set of examples is considered sufficient to establish that superior performance is obtained for nickel contents over the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0 when the copper content is set at 0.19.
Instant examples 2, 4, 5, 8, S1, C3 and C5 show that when the nickel content in PPS is 0.14 (a value within the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0), superior performance is obtained when the copper content is 0.17, 0.19 and 1.0 (Ex 8, 2, and S1), while inferior performance is obtained when the copper content is below the claimed range (0.008, 0.0009; see Ex 4 and C3) or above the claimed range (1.9, 5.67; see Ex 5 and C5). This set of examples is considered sufficient to establish that superior performance is obtained for copper contents over the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0 when the nickel content is set at 0.14.
However, there is no set of instant examples which can be analyzed to determine whether superior performance is obtained across the entire claimed range of nickel contents (0.1 to 1.0) when the copper content is set to 1.0. Similarly, there is no set of instant examples which can be similarly used to determine whether superior performance is obtained across the entire claimed range of copper contents (0.1 to 1.0) when the nickel content is set to 1.0. Given that the superior performance attributed to the synergistic combination of copper and nickel is an unpredictable result, it is not possible to predict from the provided examples whether superior performance would be obtained for a composition having, e.g., both nickel and copper contents which are 1.0 (or substantially close to 1.0).
Additionally, the compositions of the instant examples utilize a specific polyarylene sulfide (i.e., a specific polyphenylene sulfide), a specific copper halide compound (copper (II) chloride or copper (I) iodide), and nickel (II) iodide hexahydrate. In contrast, the instant claims encompass compositions comprising any polyarylene sulfide (not limited to PPS homopolymer), any copper halide compound having a decomposition temperature higher than 400 C (not limited to copper (II) chloride or copper (I) iodide), and any nickel halide (not limited to nickel (II) iodide hexahydrate). As set forth above, if Applicant wishes to overcome the present rejection by showing unexpected results, Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show that unexpected results would be obtained for all species encompassed by the present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766