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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant has argued that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the features of the amorphous polyester having a crystallization melting point below 170C, the crystalline polyester having a crystallization melting point of greater than 200C, or the blended composition having a strain induced crystallization melting point of greater than 200C.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the strain induced crystalline melting point must be greater than 200C to withstand the drying temperature for PET and remain free-flowing. The Applicant argues that these strain induced crystalline melting points are much higher than is possible from reactor grade materials of the same compositions. The Applicant argues that compositions with high strain induced crystalline melting points are advantageous to applications where higher melting points are required.
The Applicant points to blend #12 of table 5 to indicate that when the blend compositions are outside the claimed ranges the strain induced crystalline melting points are lower than 200C.
The Examiner notes that none of the examples fall within the scope of the claims, (e.g. the amounts of CHDM or TMCD ). However, most still possess the claimed strain induce melting point, including blend #11, which additionally shows a composition comprising 90% crystallizable resin and 10% amorphous resin (Specification table 2). Therefore, it’s apparent that the claimed composition is not critical to achieving this property.
The Applicant further argues that the ‘857 is silent on the strain induced crystalline melting point required by the claimed invention. The Applicant also argues that when one polyester is blended with another polyester the strain induced crystalline melting point varies. The Applicant argues that it is dependent on the type of monomers each polyester comprises and the weight ratios of the different polyester blends. The Applicant specifically points to the data in tables 4-5 of the current specification. The Applicant also argues that Tables 5 and 6 show examples of blends comprising the same types of polyesters but with different weight ratios and the melting points vary from 160-225C.
The Examiner reiterates that as stated above all of the examples demonstrate it is possible to achieve the claimed property even when falling outside the scope of the claim. Therefore, the identity and amount of each monomer recited in the claims does not appear to be critical.
The Applicant argues that ‘930 does not remedy the deficiencies of ‘857. The Applicant argues that ‘930 does not suggest blends which comprise a crystallizable resin blended with an amorphous resin as required by the claimed invention. The Applicant also disagrees that ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol are equivalents because of the limitations on the amount of diethylene glycol that can be added to the claimed invention.
The Examiner notes that while the claims do not list diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol as equivalents. The prior art of Crawford does recognize these compounds as equivalents. Specifically, in paragraph [0730] ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol are recited in parallel as art recognized equivalents.
The Applicant also argues that there is no apparent reason to combine ’930 and ‘857 and there is no suggestion or likelihood of success of the proposed combination. Therefore, the Applicant argues these two references cannot be used in combination.
The Examiner notes that Lin teaches a polyester laminate comprising at least one polyester (Abstract). Lin teaches that the polyesters comprises at least 70% terephthalic acid (Paragraph [0104]). Lin teaches the polyester can comprise ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol (Paragraph [0110]). Lin also teaches the polyester can comprise neopentyl glycol 1,4 cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0108]). Lin also teaches that the polyester laminate of this invention can comprise melt blended polyesters (Paragraph [0117]). Lin also teaches that inherent viscosity of the polyesters ranges from 0.45 to 1.2 dL/g. (Paragraph [0100]).
Crawford teaches the polyester blend can be used to form laminates (Paragraph [0880]). Crawford also teaches the polyesters also have an inherent viscosity of 0.45 to 1.2 dL/g (Paragraph [0720]). Lin teaches a similar composition for use in a similar application.
These similarities indicate that Crawford and Lin both teach similar compositions used for the similar application of laminates. Crawford and Lin both teach the composition comprise the same/similar quantities of the same monomers and the viscosity of the polyesters used in both Crawford and Lin exactly overlap. This establishes that there is a motivation to combine these similar polymer compositions used in similar applications.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s Amendment to claim 1 has overcome the 112(b) rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford US 20080293857A1 in view of Lin US 20180104930A1.
Regarding claims 1, Crawford teaches polyester compositions that contain at least one polyester (Claim 81). Crawford teaches that the polyester can be amorphous or semicrystalline (Paragraph [0638]). Crawford also teaches that the composition comprises 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid residues (Paragraph [0723]). This reads on the limitations of the claimed 70-100mol% terephthalic acid resides. Crawford also teaches that the composition comprises modifying glycols like ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol (Paragraph [0730]). Crawford recognizes the suitability of ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Therefore the prior art recognizes these as equally suitable alternatives. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 .
This reads on the claimed “residues of ethylene glycol” and residues of “diethylene glycol.”
Crawford teaches the glycol component of the polyester can comprise 1-99% cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0699]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-20% cyclohexanedimethanol.
Crawford is silent on the mol% of diethylene glycol in the glycol component.
Crawford is silent with respect to suitable amounts when using a combination of equivalent modifying glycols. However, Crawford teaches the modifying glycol component can comprise 25% or less of the glycol component (Paragraph [0729]).
The obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Crawford recognizes ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol as equivalents as indicated above. It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. Crawford’s glycol component is present in a total amount of 25% or less (Paragraph [0729]). Combining ethylene glycol in a 1:1 ratio will therefore result in a composition comprising 12.5% or less ethylene glycol and 12.5% or less diethylene glycol. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-15% diethylene glycol
Crawford teaches that the total mol% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mol%. (Paragraph [0725]). Crawford also teaches that the total mol% of the glycol component of the polyester is 100 mol%. This reads on the claimed “the total mole% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole%, and wherein the total mole% of the glycol component is 100 mole%.”
Crawford is silent on the crystalline melting temperature of the crystallizable polyester. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Crawford’s semicrystalline polyester as described above will therefore necessarily possess the claimed crystalline melting temperature.
The composition of Crawford can contain multiple polyesters (Claim 81). Crawford teaches that the polyester can be amorphous or semicrystalline (Paragraph [0638]). The polyester of Crawford can contain 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid residues (Paragraph [0725]). The composition of Crawford can also contain modifying glycols, or glycols which are not 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol or cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0729]). Crawford teaches that the modifying glycol can be ethylene glycol (Paragraph [0730]). This reads on the claimed “70-100 mol%” terephthalic acid in the amorphous polymer and the “ethylene glycol” of the amorphous polymer.
Crawford teaches the glycol component of the polyester can comprise 1-99% cyclohexane dimethanol (Paragraph [0699]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 55-85% cyclohexanedimethanol. Crawford also teaches the glycol component can comprise 1-99% TMCD (Paragraph [0699]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10-45% TMCD.
Crawford also teaches that the composition comprises modifying glycols like ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol (Paragraph [0730]).
Crawford is silent with respect to suitable amounts ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. However, Crawford teaches the modifying glycol component can comprise 25% or less of the glycol component (Paragraph [0729]).
The obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Crawford recognizes ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol as equivalents as indicated above. It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. Crawford’s glycol component is present in a total amount of 25% or less (Paragraph [0729]). Combining ethylene glycol in a 1:1 ratio will therefore result in a composition comprising 12.5% or less ethylene glycol and 12.5% or less diethylene glycol. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01-40% diethylene glycol
Crawford teaches that the polyesters used in this invention can be used in a polymer blend (Paragraph [0858]). Crawford teaches that the polymer blend can be 5-95% of the polyesters (Paragraph [0859]).
Crawford is silent with respect to suitable amounts when using a combination of polyesters. Crawford recognizes the suitability of both amorphous and semicrystalline polyesters (Paragraph [0638]). Therefore the prior art recognizes these as equally suitable alternatives. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both amorphous and semicrystalline polymers in the composition.
Nevertheless, the obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Crawford recognizes amorphous and crystalline polyesters as suitable to use in the invention above as the claimed “polyesters.” It would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine the crystalline polyester and the amorphous polyester in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. Crawford’s polyester component is present in a total amount of 5-95 wt% (Paragraph [0859]). Combining the amorphous polyester with the crystalline polyester in a 1:1 ratio will therefore result in a composition comprising 2.5-47.5 wt% amorphous polyester and 2.5-47.5 wt% crystalline polyester. These ranges overlap the claimed amounts for the amorphous and crystalline polyesters establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Crawford is silent on the crystalline melting temperature of the amorphous polymer. Crawford does teach the polyester can comprise 25 to 50 mole % 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol and 50 to 75 mole% cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0715]). This overlaps on the claimed ranges present in claims 3 and 4. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Crawford’s amorphous polymer as described above will therefore necessarily possess the claimed crystalline melting temperature.
As stated above for the polyesters of Crawford, the total mole% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole %, and the total mole % of the glycol component is 100 mole %. The above described amorphous polyester, reads on the claimed amorphous polyester as taught in claim 1.
Lin teaches a polyester laminate comprising at least one polyester (Abstract). Lin teaches that the polyesters comprises at least 70% terephthalic acid (Paragraph [0104]). Lin teaches the polyester can comprise ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol (Paragraph [0110]). Lin also teaches the polyester can comprise neopentyl glycol 1,4 cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0108]). Lin also teaches that the polyester laminate of this invention can comprise melt blended polyesters (Paragraph [0117]). Lin teaches that the polyesters in the composition comprise crystalline domains that are strain induced ( Paragraph [0001]). Lin defines strain induced crystallinity as phenomenon in which an initially amorphous solid material undergoes a phase transformation in which some amorphous domains are converted to crystalline domains due to the application of strain. Lin also teaches that inherent viscosity of the polyesters ranges from 0.45 to 1.2 dL/g. (Paragraph [0100]).
Crawford teaches the polyester blend can be used to form laminates (Paragraph [0880]). Crawford also teaches the polyesters also have an inherent viscosity of 0.45 to 1.2 dL/g (Paragraph [0720]). Lin teaches a similar composition for use in a similar application.
Lin teaches that the polyester compositions used to form the articles have a melting point of 225-265 (Paragraph [0163], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ Lin’s strain induced melting point as a guideline or target when forming the polymer composition of Crawford as this range is shown to be suitable for similar polymer compositions used in similar applications. This represents the use of a suitable strain induced crystalline melting point range in a similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Crawford also teaches the polyester can comprise 25 to 50 mole % 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol and 50 to 75 mole% cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0715]). This overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Crawford also teaches the polyester can contain 1 to 99mol% 2,2,4,4, tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues (Paragraph [0699]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10-27% 2,2,4,4, tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues. Crawford also teaches that polyesters in this invention can comprise 50-99 mol% ethylene glycol residues (Paragraph [0632]). Therefore, when the amount of 2,2,4,4, tetramethyl glycol residues is 10% and the amount of cyclohexanedimethanol is 1% (Abstract), the amount of ethylene glycol components is 89%. This overlaps with the claimed range of 73-90% ethylene glycol.
Regarding claim 7, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 1. Crawford also teaches that the polyester contains 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid resides (Paragraph [0725]). This exactly overlaps with the claimed 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid.
Regarding claim 8, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 1. Crawford teaches that this composition can be used form films (Paragraph [0733]). Crawford also teaches that this is due to the long crystallization half-times of the polyesters of the invention contributes to their ability to form these articles (Paragraph [0733]). This reads on the claimed crystallizable film.
Regarding claim 9, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 1 and 8. Crawford also teaches that the composition can be used to form a stretch film (Paragraph [880]).
Regarding claim 10, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 1 and 8. Crawford also teaches that the composition can be used to form a shrink film (Paragraph [880]).
Regarding claim 11, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 1. Crawford also teaches that the composition can be used to form a thermoformed sheet (Paragraph [880]).
Regarding claim 12, Crawford teaches polyester compositions that contain at least one polyester (Claim 81). Crawford teaches that the polyester can be amorphous or semicrystalline (Paragraph [0638]). Crawford also teaches that the composition comprises 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid residues (Paragraph [0723]). This reads on the limitations of the claimed 70-100mol% terephthalic acid resides. Crawford also teaches that the composition comprises modifying glycols like ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol (Paragraph [0730]). Crawford recognizes the suitability of ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Therefore the prior art recognizes these as equally suitable alternatives. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 .
This reads on the claimed “residues of ethylene glycol” and residues of “diethylene glycol.”
Crawford teaches the glycol component of the polyester can comprise 1-99% cyclohexane dimethanol (Paragraph [0699]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-5% or less cyclohexanedimethanol.
Crawford is silent on the mol% of diethylene glycol in the glycol component.
Crawford is silent with respect to suitable amounts when using a combination of equivalent modifying glycols. However, Crawford teaches the modifying glycol component can comprise 25% or less of the glycol component (Paragraph [0729]).
The obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Crawford recognizes ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol as equivalents as indicated above. It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. Crawford’s glycol component is present in a total amount of 25% or less (Paragraph [0729]). Combining ethylene glycol in a 1:1 ratio will therefore result in a composition comprising 12.5% or less ethylene glycol and 12.5% or less diethylene glycol. This overlaps with the claimed range of 3-7mol% diethylene glycol
Crawford teaches that the total mol% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mol%. (Paragraph [0725]). Crawford also teaches that the total mol% of the glycol component of the polyester is 100 mol%. This reads on the claimed “the total mole% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole%, and wherein the total mole% of the glycol component is 100 mole%.”
Crawford is silent on the crystalline melting temperature of the crystallizable polyester. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Crawford’s semicrystalline polyester as described above will therefore necessarily possess the claimed crystalline melting temperature.
The composition of Crawford can contain multiple polyesters (Claim 81). Crawford teaches that the polyester can be amorphous or semicrystalline (Paragraph [0638]). The polyester of Crawford can contain 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid residues (Paragraph [0725]). The composition of Crawford can also contain modifying glycols, or glycols which are not 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol or cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0729]). Crawford teaches that the modifying glycol can be diethylene glycol or neopentyl glycol (Paragraph [0730]). This reads on the claimed “70-100 mol%” terephthalic acid in the amorphous polymer and the “neopentyl glycol” “diethylene glycol” of the amorphous polymer.
Crawford is silent with respect to suitable amounts diethylene glycol and neopentyl glycol. However, Crawford teaches the modifying glycol component can comprise 25% or less of the glycol component (Paragraph [0729]).
The obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Crawford recognizes diethylene glycol and neopentyl glycol as equivalents as indicated above. It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine neopentyl glycol and diethylene glycol in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. Crawford’s glycol component is present in a total amount of 25% or less (Paragraph [0729]). Combining diethylene glycol in a 1:1 ratio will therefore result in a composition comprising 12.5% or less diethylene glycol and 12.5% or less neopentyl glycol. This overlaps with the claimed range of 3-40% diethylene glycol and 11-27% neopentyl glycol.
Crawford teaches that the polyesters used in this invention can be used in a polymer blend (Paragraph [0858]). Crawford teaches that the polymer blend can be 5-95% of the polyesters (Paragraph [0859]).
Crawford is silent with respect to suitable amounts when using a combination of polyesters. Crawford recognizes the suitability of both amorphous and semicrystalline polyesters (Paragraph [0638]). Therefore the prior art recognizes these as equally suitable alternatives. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both amorphous and semicrystalline polymers in the composition.
Nevertheless, the obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Crawford recognizes amorphous and crystalline polyesters as suitable to use in the invention above as the claimed “polyesters.” It would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine the crystalline polyester and the amorphous polyester in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. Crawford’s polyester component is present in a total amount of 5-95 wt% (Paragraph [0859]). Combining the amorphous polyester with the crystalline polyester in a 1:1 ratio will therefore result in a composition comprising 2.5-47.5 wt% amorphous polyester and 2.5-47.5 wt% crystalline polyester. These ranges overlap the claimed amounts for the amorphous and crystalline polyesters establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Crawford is silent on the crystalline melting temperature of the amorphous polymer. Crawford does teach the polyester can comprise 25 to 50 mole % 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol and 50 to 75 mole% cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0715]). This overlaps on the claimed ranges present in claims 3 and 4. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Crawford’s amorphous polymer as described above will therefore necessarily possess the claimed crystalline melting temperature.
As stated above for the polyesters of Crawford, the total mole% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole %, and the total mole % of the glycol component is 100 mole %. The above described amorphous polyester, reads on the claimed amorphous polyester as taught in claim 1.
Lin teaches a polyester laminate comprising at least one polyester (Abstract). Lin teaches that the polyesters comprises at least 70% terephthalic acid (Paragraph [0104]). Lin teaches the polyester can comprise ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol (Paragraph [0110]). Lin also teaches the polyester can comprise neopentyl glycol 1,4 cyclohexanedimethanol (Paragraph [0108]). Lin also teaches that the polyester laminate of this invention can comprise melt blended polyesters (Paragraph [0117]). Lin teaches that the polyesters in the composition comprise crystalline domains that are strain induced ( Paragraph [0001]). Lin defines strain induced crystallinity as phenomenon in which an initially amorphous solid material undergoes a phase transformation in which some amorphous domains are converted to crystalline domains due to the application of strain. Lin also teaches that inherent viscosity of the polyesters ranges from 0.45 to 1.2 dL/g. (Paragraph [0100]).
Crawford teaches the polyester blend can be used to form laminates (Paragraph [0880]). Crawford also teaches the polyesters also have an inherent viscosity of 0.45 to 1.2 dL/g (Paragraph [0720]). Lin teaches a similar composition for use in a similar application.
Lin teaches that the polyester compositions used to form the articles have a melting point of 225-265 (Paragraph [0163], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ Lin’s strain induced melting point as a guideline or target when forming the polymer composition of Crawford as this range is shown to be suitable for similar polymer compositions used in similar applications. This represents the use of a suitable strain induced crystalline melting point range in a similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 13, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 12. Crawford teaches that this composition can be used form films (Paragraph [0733]). Crawford also teaches that this is due to the long crystallization half-times of the polyesters of the invention contributes to their ability to form these articles (Paragraph [0733]). This reads on the claimed crystallizable film.
Regarding claim 14, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 12. Crawford also teaches that the composition can be used to form a stretch film (Paragraph [880]).
Regarding claim 15, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 12. Crawford also teaches that the composition can be used to form a shrink film (Paragraph [880]).
Regarding claim 16, Crawford teaches on the limitations of claim 12. Crawford teaches composition can be used to form a thermoformed sheet (Paragraph [0733]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762