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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed December 22, 2025 wherein claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al (JP 2013155278).
With regards to claim 1, Nishida teaches a composition containing polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) resin at a concentration of 50 to 95 parts by mass (0012), a filler material that is inorganic (0043) and is present in the amount of 0 to 120 parts per 100 parts of the PBT resin (0048), and a dye (0008) at a concentration of 0.001 to 0.2 parts. Nishida teaches the dye to include Nigrosine (0008), however, Nishida teaches compositions in the examples that include no Nigrosine (0118) example 6.
With regards to claim 2, Nishida teaches the PBT to include a polycarbonate (0023).
With regards to claim 3, Nishida teaches the addition of a polyfunctional compound (0008) reading on a reactive compound.
With regards to claim 4, Nishida teaches the addition of an epoxy compound (0007).
With regards to claim 5, Nishida teaches the dye to include a black dye (0008).
With regards to claim 6, Nishida is silent on the deflection temperature. The deflection temperature is the temperature at which a material begins to deform under a specific applied load and heat. The deflection temperature is dependent on the material’s base resin, fillers, and any additives. Because Nishida teaches the composition to have the claimed components in the claimed amounts, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the deflection temperature are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 7, Nishida is silent on the color difference. Because Nishida teaches the composition to have the claimed components in the claimed amounts, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the color change are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 8, Nishida teaches the filler to include a glass fiber (claim 6).
With regards to claim 9, Nishida teaches the composition to include a dye that is a transmission absorbent (0004).
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al (US 2019/0016883).
With regards to claim 1, Yamanaka teaches a resin composition that contains a thermoplastic polyester resin that contains polybutylene terephthalate and a polycarbonate (abstract) as well as nigrosine (abstract) which is a black dye (0046-0047), and an inorganic filler (0137). Yamanaka teaches the amount of nigrosine to be from 0.0005 to 0.05 parts (0048), the amount of dye to be 0.386 parts, and the amount of filler to be 5 to 15 parts by mass (0142).
Yamanaka is silent on the glass transition temperature of either the polybutylene terephthalate or polycarbonate. However, polybutylene terephthalate has a known glass transition temperature of 55-65°C and polycarbonate has a known glass transition temperature of 147°C reading on the glass transition temperature of the polycarbonate being 82 to 92°C higher than the glass transition temperature of the polybutylene terephthalate.
Yamanaka teaches the concentration of the nigrosine to be from 5 to 5000 ppm (0020) which overlaps with the claimed concentration at the end point. Therefore, absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 2, Yamanaka teaches the copolymer to include polycarbonate (abstract).
With regards to claims 3 and 4, Yamanaka teaches the addition of additives that includes epoxy compounds (0136).
With regards to claim 5, Yamanaka teaches the addition of nigrosine (abstract) which is a black dye (0046-0047).
With regards to claim 6, Yamanaka is silent on the deflection temperature. The deflection temperature is the temperature at which a material begins to deform under a specific applied load and heat. The deflection temperature is dependent on the material’s base resin, fillers, and any additives. Because Yamanaka teaches the composition to have the claimed components in the claimed amounts, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the deflection temperature are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 7, Yamanaka teaches the change in color to be 6.0 or less (0200).
With regards to claim 8, Yamanaka teaches the addition of a glass fiber (0003).
With regards to claim 9, Yamanaka teaches the addition of nigrosine (0047) that makes the composition transmissive (0050).
With regards to claims 10 and 20, Yamanaka teaches the transmittance of the composition at a wavelength of 940 nm at a thickness of 1 mm-thick position (0234) to be at a value of 21-26% (examples C1-4).
With regards to claims 11 and 19, Yamanaka teaches the composition to include laser welding (abstract) but does not teach the use for Galvano-scanning laser welding. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the suitability for use for Galvano-scanning laser welding are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claims 12 and 14, Yamanaka teaches the composition to contain an additional resin and colorant (abstract and table 6).
With regards to claim 13, Yamanaka teaches the composition to be used to form a molded article (0001).
With regards to claims 15-17, Yamanaka teaches the use of the molded article to be used for cases for automotive electronic components and housings for motor components (0003).
With regards to claim 18, Yamanaka teaches the composition to undergo laser-welding (0344).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5 and 6, filed December 22, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 USC 102 under Yamanaka have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 103.
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument - Applicant argues that the composition does not have Nigrosine because of weatherability.
Response - However, “[i]t is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.”. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed.Cir.1984). Therefore, absent a showing of criticality/unexpected results, these arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
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 JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5203. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 5:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 5712721130. 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.
/JESSICA WHITELEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763