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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed on 02/10/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10, and 12-18 are currently pending.
Claims 16-18 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1-2, 6, 8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudleiner et al (US 2019/0143653 A1) in view of Crawford et al. (WO 2018/035337 A1) and APR (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Pudleiner teaches a thermoformable article (Paragraph 0002) comprising a multilayer film (Abstract). Pudleiner teaches comprises outer layer, layer A1, which can include a TMCD modified PET (Paragraph 0041) and a core layer, layer B, of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). (Paragraph 0018). Pudleiner teaches the article should be transparent/clear. (Paragraph 0130).
Pudleiner does not teach the claimed TMCD modified PET composition.
Crawford teaches a TMCD modified PET composition (Abstract), comprises a dicarboxylic acid component comprising 90 to 100 mole % of terephthalic acid residues and 0 to 10 mole % of aromatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 20 carbon atoms and a (b) a diol component comprising: 30 to 42 mole % of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues and 58-70 mol% of ethylene glycol. Crawford does not require any CHDM in the polyester. (Claim 1 of Crawford). Crawford further teaches up to 30% of another modifying glycol, such as neopentyl glycol, diethylene glycol, polyeteramethylene glycol and others. (Paragraph 0096-0097). These ranges 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Crawford teaches this TMCD copolyester provides the advantage of improved strength, durability and mechanical properties over conventional polymers. (Paragraph 0006-0007, 0015) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed TMCD modified PET taught by Crawford as the TMCD modified PET in Pudleiner for the improved physical properties.
Pudleiner teaches layer B, PET, is approximately 250 to 1600 microns thick and layer A1 can be 25 to 500 microns thick. (Paragraph 0129). PET has a density of approximately of 1.38 g/cm3. Crawford teaches density of the modified PET is greater than 1.2 g/cm3. (Paragraph 0200).
With these overlapping thickness ranges with one core layer of PET and a layer of A1 and overlapping ranges for density, there can be the same weight of A1 and B in an article; therefore, A1 is 50 wt% of the thermoformable article. PET is composed of terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol; therefore, the different comonomer content from glycols and acids other than ethylene glycol, terephthalic acid or dimethyl terephthalate is solely from A1.
Crawford teaches a TMCD modified PET composition (Abstract), comprises a dicarboxylic acid component comprising 90 to 100 mole % of terephthalic acid residues and 0 to 10 mole % of aromatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 20 carbon atoms and a (b) a diol component comprising: 30 to 42 mole % of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues and 58-70 mol% of ethylene glycol. Crawford does not require any CHDM in the polyester. (Claim 1 of Crawford). Crawford further teaches up to 30% of another modifying glycol, such as neopentyl glycol or diethylene glycol. (Paragraph 0096-0097). A polyester reaction is formed from a 1:1 mole reaction of dicarboxylic acid component to diol component.
Using the composition taught Crawford for layer A1, yields one range for total comonomer content from glycols and acids other than ethylene glycol, terephthalic acid or dimethyl terephthalate can be 0 to 4.8 wt%, where the additional glycol is NPG at 12 mol%, TMCD is at 30 mol% and EG is at 58 mol%. This would yield an a range for the article of total comonomer content from glycols and acids other than ethylene glycol, terephthalic acid or dimethyl terephthalate can be 0 to 2.4 wt%. These ranges 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Pudleiner and Crawford do not teach the article has the claimed melt-temperature and is hot-fillable and recyclable.
APR teaches PET resins are Resin Identification Code 1 (Page 4) and should made with RIC designation in mind, to ensure the PET resin product can be handled in the recycling industry, due to the large use of PET worldwide. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the article of Ishida is recyclable under RIC-1 and ensure the product is better for the environment.
However, as Pudleiner and Crawford teaches the claimed composition and structure and method of making, as discussed below, the article taught by Pudleiner and Crawford would inherently have the same physical properties, such as being hot-fillable. Furthermore, APR teaches PET article should have a melting point of 225 and 255 degrees C in a RIC-1 stream, as this ensures the PET product from damaging recycling infrastructure when it is melted (Page 5), which allows the article to be hot-fillable.
Regarding Claim 2, Pudleiner teaches the Tg of layer B is 80 to 150 degrees C. (Paragraph 0008). Crawford teaches the Tg of the modified polyester can be greater than 100 degrees C, 95 to 100 degrees C, or 102 to 108 degrees C (Claim 8 of Crawford; Paragraph 0016, 0190). These 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. (MPEP §2144.05). While Pudleienr and Crawford does not specifically teach the Tg is determined using the claimed device and scan rate, the method of determining a glass transition temperature does not change the glass transition temperature of the material.
Regarding Claim 6, Pudleiner teaches layer B is approximately 250 to 1600 microns thick and layer A can be 25 to 500 microns thick. (Paragraph 0129). PET has a density of approximately of 1.38 g/cm3. Crawford teaches density of the modified PET is greater than 1.2 g/cm3. (Paragraph 0200). These ranges 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, Furthermore, APR teaches PET article should have a melting point of 225 and 255 degrees C in a RIC-1 stream, as this ensures the PET product from damaging recycling infrastructure when it is melted (Page 5), which allows the article to be hot-fillable at the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 10, Pudleiner teaches the material is reusable. (Paragraph 0137).
Regarding Claim 12, Pudleiner teaches the article can have a thickness of 300 to 2000 microns. (Paragraph 0125). This 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).
Regarding Claim 13, Pudleiner teaches this multilayer sheet is formed through co-extrusion. (Paragraph 0132).
Regarding Claim 14, Pudleiner teaches a structure of A1/B or A1/B/A1. (Claim 1 of Pudleiner).
Regarding Claim 15, Pudleiner teaches the article can be used in medical/healthcare supplies. (Paragraph 0137).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudleiner, Crawford and APR, in further view of Ishida (JP 2015-131407 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Pudleiner teaches the material should be transparent (Paragraph 0130) but does not teach the haze range. Ishida teaches multilayer PET/coPET, where the haze is 0.3 to 10%. (Paragraph 0075). This 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). Ishida teaches ensure proper appearance of a clear PET/coPET. (Paragraph 0075). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the haze to the claimed range as taught by Ishida.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues there is no reason to combined use the TMCD composition of Crawford in Pudleiner. This argument is found unpersuasive. Pudleiner teaches good stability in wet environment is desired. (Paragraph 0003) Crawford teaches a polymer composition that has good dishwasher durability; stability in a wet environment. (Paragraph 0187). Thus, Crawford and Pudleiner are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art would combine both prior art references.
Applicant argues that Pudleiner and Crawford do not teach the comonomer content range without moles to weight and thickness to weight. This argument is found unpersuasive. Pudleiner and Crawford teaches densities, thicknesses, and compositions of each layer would yield at least one range that overlaps the claimed range, as discussed above.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not choose coPET or the thickness ranges. This argument is found unpersuasive. Pudleiner recites these coPET and thickness ranges are suitable; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would select them. In addition, a preference does not narrow the broad disclosure recited in the prior art of Pudleiner.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights