DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said antimony-containing catalyst" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken to mean said non-antimony-containing catalyst.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,350,851).
Regarding claims 1 and 2: Inada et al. teaches a method for improving the L* color (col. 8 lines 40-50) of polyethylene terephthalate (col. 1 lines 60-67). The method comprises exposing bis-hydroxyethyl terephthalate (col. 7 lines 55-67) in a molten state (melting point 112 °C, table 1, performed at 150 °C, col. 8 lines 10-20) to a point that the content of material having a boiling point lower than the boiling point of BHET is 5 wt% (col. 8 lines 10-20). Next an antimony trioxide catalyst is added at the molten state of BHET (col. 9 lines 20-35). Then the BHET is polycondensed/reacted to an oligomer (col. 9 lines 40-45). Inada et al. teaches heating the catalyst to 200 °C or less (col. 4 lines 55-67), which overlaps 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 (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an overlapping temperature of the catalyst and would have been motivated to do so since Inada et al. teaches it is an acceptable temperature to add the catalyst.
Regarding claim 3: Inada et al. teaches removing glycol at 150 °C (col. 8 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 5: Inada et al. teaches the BHET is derived from post-consumer PET containing waste material/ground flakes of used PET bottles (example 1).
Regarding claim 6: Inada et al. teaches the post-consumer PET-containing waste material as set forth above; therefore, the dimethyl terephthalate limitation is optional.
Regarding claim 7: Inada et al. teaches the BHET is derived from post-consumer PET containing waste material/ground flakes of used PET bottles (example 1).
Regarding claim 8: Inada et al. teaches antimony trioxide (col. 9 lines 30-35).
Regarding claims 9 and 10: Inada et al. teaches a method for improving the L* color (col. 8 lines 40-50) of polyethylene terephthalate (col. 1 lines 60-67) by adding a non-antimony-containing catalyst/germanium dioxide (col. 8 lines 55-60) and polycondensing/reacting to an oligomer (col. 9 lines 40-45). Inada et al. teaches heating the catalyst to 200 °C or less (col. 4 lines 55-67), which overlaps 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 (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an overlapping temperature of the catalyst and would have been motivated to do so since Inada et al. teaches it is an acceptable temperature to add the catalyst.
Regarding claim 11: Inada et al. teaches titanium tetrabutoxide (col. 4 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 13: Inada et al. teaches a polyethylene terephthalate polymer (col. 1 lines 60-67) produced by the claimed process.
Regarding claim 14: Inada et al. teaches a shaped product/molded product (col. 3 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 15: Inada et al. teaches a polyethylene terephthalate polymer (col. 1 lines 60-67) produced by the claimed process.
Regarding claim 16: Inada et al. teaches a shaped product/molded product (col. 3 lines 1-10).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,350,851) as applied to claims 1 and 9 set forth above and in view of JP 2003-160650 using the English language machine translation for the citations below.
Regarding claim 4: Inada et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed is removing glycol at the claimed range. However, JP 2003-160650 teaches removing glycol at 13 kPa/100 mmHg (pg. 8). Inada et al. and JP 200-160650 are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polycondensing polyethylene terephthalate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to remove glycol at 13 kPa and would have been motivated to do so since Inada et al. teaches the ethylene glycol can be successfully removed at this pressure.
Regarding claim 12: Inada et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed are the claimed catalysts. However, JP 2003-160650 teaches zinc acetate (pg. 8). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the zinc acetate of JP 2003-160650 in the method of Inada et al. and would have been motivated to do so since the reference teaches it is an acceptable catalyst for polyethylene terephthalate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that they can find no description or suggestion of the feature “wherein said antimony-containing catalyst is added at a temperature between 150°C and 200°C” is not persuasive. Inada et al. lists the catalysts, including both antimony-containing catalysts and non-antimony containing catalysts in column 4. In column 4 starting at line 56, Inada et al. teaches that the catalyst can be used directly or after it is dispersed in ethylene glycol at normal temperature or after it is dispersed in ethylene glycol and heated. It is preferably used after it is dispersed in ethylene glycol and heated. The heating temperature is preferably 200 °C or less, which overlaps the claimed ranges. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiment (MPEP 2123 II).
The previous Double Patenting rejection is removed due to the amendment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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 at 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights