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 Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 27, 29-31, 33, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (U.S. Pat. No. 5,534,584) in view of Ying (CN102250326A) and Essaddam (U.S. Pat. No. 9,550,713).
Regarding Claims 27, 29, and 33, Kitamura teaches methods of forming thermoplastic compositions comprising providing PBT, combining 70 pbw of PBT and 32 pbw of other components, such as titanium dioxide, to form thermoplastic composition, the thermoplastic composition having a L* of 92.9 (Table 1), equivalent to roughly 68.6 wt% of PBT and 31.4 wt% of additional components. The particular embodiment of Kitamura differs from the subject matter claimed in that the amount of titanium dioxide brightening agent is less than the range claimed and the sourcing of materials used to create PBT is not indicated.
With respect to titanium dioxide quantity, Kitamura teaches 0.01-10 pbw of titanium dioxide is used relative to 100 pbw of thermoplastic resin composition (Col. 2, Lines 18-28), equivalent to roughly 0.01-9.1 wt%. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Kitamura suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Kitamura. See MPEP 2123.
Ying teaches PBT is commonly produced via polymerization of butylene glycol and terephthalic acid or dimethyl terephthalate (Page 1). Essaddam teaches it was known in the art terephthalic acid can be produced via depolymerizing post-consumer polyester feedstock, such as polyethylene terephthalate (Abstract; Col. 3, Line 63 to Col. 4, Line 48). The terephthalic acid in turn can be used in the creation of new polyester materials (Col. 2, Lines 10-13). Essaddam teaches impurity levels as low as 1 wt% can be achieved (Col. 2, Lines 15-16), suggesting the formation of “high purity” PTA. Essaddam indicates waste PET can be used from a number of sources (¶ Col. 3, Lines 1-44) and the use of depolymerized monomers is advantageous from an environmental/sustainability standpoint (Col. 3, Line 64 to Col. 4, Line 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize PBTs created with depolymerized high purty PTA monomers such as those taught by Essaddam because doing so would create thermoplastic compositions containing recycle content that is beneficial from an environmental/sustainability standpoint.
Regarding Claim 30, Kitamura teaches 0.01-10 pbw of titanium dioxide is used relative to 100 pbw of thermoplastic resin composition, the thermoplastic resin composition comprising 35-95 wt% of thermoplastic base resin such as polyester (Col. 2, Lines 18-28), suggesting PBT quantities that overlap the range claimed. Kitamura teaches L* values consistent with the range claimed (94.2 in Table 1). Alternatively, Kitamura indicates the degree of whiteness / L* changes with respect to quantities of white pigment and reinforcement material (Col. 1, Lines 30-54; Table 1). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal or workable white pigment quantities within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable degrees of whiteness, such as a L* value in excess of 94.
Regarding Claim 31, the butylene glycol disclosed is seen to be no different in structure than what would be sourced from petroleum or bio-based sources.
Regarding Claim 35, Kitamura teaches the incorporation of further materials such as fire retardants (Col. 4, Lines 33-41).
Regarding Claim 36, Essaddam teaches depolymerization can be achieved via hydrolysis (Col. 20, Lines 8-14; Example 5).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (U.S. Pat. No. 5,534,584) in view of Ying (CN102250326A), Essaddam (U.S. Pat. No. 9,550,713), and Schellekens (WO 2015/172966 A1; cited 11/11/2022).
The discussion regarding Kitamura, Ying, and Essaddam within ¶ 6-12 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 34, Kitamura differs from the subject matter claimed in that fluorescent whitening agent is not included. Schellekens also pertains to white color polyester compositions (Page 1) and teaches fluorescent optical brighteners can be included at ranges spanning 0.01-0.7 wt% for the purpose of achieving color closer to “arctic white” (Page 1, Lines 18-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate the fluorescent whitening agents of Schellekens into the compositions of Kitamura because doing so would further improve white coloration in accordance with the teachings of Schellekens. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Schellekens suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Schellekens. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Tao fails to described the newly claimed brightening agent quantities. This is not found persuasive as such contents would have been obvious in view of Kitamura.
Applicant argues the cited primary reference uses virgin material rather than from PCR materials. This is not found persuasive as the combination of references suggest the use of PTA monomer recovered from PCR materials with purity levels in excess of 99%.
Applicant urges high L* color values can be unexpectedly obtained from PCR materials owing to the ability to obtain high purity (>95%) PTA. This is not found persuasive since the prior art indicates it was already known PTA monomers with purities in excess of 99% can be readily obtained from PCT materials. Thus, Applicant’s observation of similar properties to that of virgin materials as a result of using highly pure monomers is not seen to be significant to the extent that it can be regarded as unexpected.
Applicant argues none of the references suggest the depolymerization method of claim 36. This is not found persuasive as Essaddam expressly teaches hydrolysis depolymerization, as is admitted by Applicant within the specification (¶ 35).
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 STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights