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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 13-15, in the reply filed on May 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
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 1-8 and 13-15 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the copolyester resin is formed by polycondensing an ester reactant, which is formed through an acid component comprising at least one of terephthalic acid and isophthalic acid and a diol component comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below and ethylene glycol.” It is unclear is both terephthalic acid and isophthalic acid are required or if the acid component is terephthalic acid and/or isophthalic acid. Claim 7 encompasses no isophthalic acid so it appears that the latter interpretation is intended and will be used for the purpose of prior art application.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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.
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 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2002/0193555 to Hori.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 13-15, Hori teaches a polyester being formed by polycondensing a dicarboxylic acid or its ester-forming derivative, such as terephthalic acid and/or isophthalic acid, with a diol or its ester forming derivative, such as ethylene glycol and/or neopentyl glycol, using a solid titanium compound containing titanium, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen with Ti-O bond as a catalyst, including polycondensation catalyst, for the polyester preparation (Hori, abstract, para 0037-0040, 0161-0164), reading on a copolyester formed through an acid component comprising at least one of terephthalic acid and/or isophthalic acid and a diol component comprising ethylene glycol and neopentyl glycol, which meets the limitation of chemical formula 1. Hori teaches the polyester being use in fibers (Id., para 0205-0208), reading on the polyester being a copolyester resin for a binder fiber and the fiber formed of polyester resin would be capable of functioning as a binder fiber. Examiner would like to note that the limitation “for a binder fiber” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02.
The limitations “wherein the copolyester resin is formed by polycondensing an ester reactant, which is formed through an acid component comprising at least one of terephthalic acid and isophthalic acid and a diol component comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below and ethylene glycol, under a polycondensation catalyst comprising a titanium-based chelate compound” and “wherein the titanium-based chelate compound comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2” (claim 2) are interpreted as a product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. The prior art teaches a copolyester that is formed from an acid component comprising an terephthalic acid and/or isophthalic acid and a diol component comprising ethylene glycol and neopentyl glycol, which adheres to the chemical formula 1, including in the presence of a titanium catalyst. There is no indication that the use of a titanium-based chelate, including the specifically claimed structure, necessarily results in a structurally distinct copolyester resin product. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Hori does not teach the presence of diethylene glycol nor its use as a reactant (Hori, all, claim 1), reading on the resin comprising diethylene glycol at 5 wt.% or less, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13, Hori teaches the polyester being use in fibers (Hori, para 0205-0208). The limitation “binder fiber” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. The polyester fiber is capable of binding material, either mechanically through entanglement or adhesive by softening or melting.
Regarding the “automobile interior material” (claim 14), and “sanitary material” (claim 15) preamble recited in claims 14 and 15, respectively, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Since the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, and since an automobile interior material or sanitary material does not impute a specific structure absent from the prior art, the invention of Hori appears to be capable of the claimed intended use recited.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 2019/0061561 to Shin.
NOTE: English Machine Translation of KR 2019/0061561 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 13-15, Shin teaches a low melting point polyester resin (copolyester resin for a binder) having a softening point of 100 to 150°C formed of an acid component consisting of terephthalic acid and a diol component consisting of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (MPD) (Chemical Formula 1) and ethylene glycol having the effect of excellent bonding (Shin, abstract). Shin teaches MPD having a methyl group bonded to a second carbon facilitates rotation of the polymer main chain and acts as a polymer end portion, making the polymer irregular and having the same thermal properties as isophthalic acid (Id., p. 3). Shin teaches a specific embodiment having a softening point of 125 and 110 °C and glass transition temperature of 66.4 and 64.1°C, respectively (claim 5) (Shin, Table 2). Shin teaches the low melting polyester being used as a fiber (Id, p. 3-4), reading on the resin being acceptable for a fiber. The limitation “for a binder fiber” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the material is able to melt, the resin is capable of being used as a binder fiber.
The limitations “wherein the copolyester resin is formed by polycondensing an ester reactant, which is formed through an acid component comprising at least one of terephthalic acid and isophthalic acid and a diol component comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below and ethylene glycol, under a polycondensation catalyst comprising a titanium-based chelate compound” and “wherein the titanium-based chelate compound comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2” (claim 2) are interpreted as a product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. The prior art teaches a copolyester that is formed from an acid component consisting of an terephthalic acid and a diol component comprising ethylene glycol and 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, which adheres to the chemical formula 1. There is no indication that the use of a titanium-based chelate, including the specifically claimed structure (claim 2), necessarily results in a structurally distinct copolyester resin product. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches embodiments wherein the acid component being 100 mol% terephthalic acid and the diol component comprising 30/70, 40/60 and 50/50 MPD and EG molar ratios, respectively (Shin, Table 1).
Regarding claims 13-15, Shin teaches the low melting polyester being used as a fiber (Shin, p. 3-4) and teaches the fiber use as an automobile interior material (Shin, p.4). Regarding the “binder fiber” (claim 13), “automobile interior material” (claim 14), and “sanitary material” (claim 15) preamble recited in claims 13, 14, and 15, respectively, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). The polyester fiber is capable of binding material, either mechanically through entanglement or adhesive by softening or melting. Since the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, and since a binder fiber, an automobile interior material or a sanitary material does not impute a specific structure absent from the prior art, the invention of Hori appears to be capable of the claimed intended use recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2002/0193555 to Hori, remaining as applied to claim 1-3 and 13-15 above.
Regarding claim 4, Hori teaches the polyester having a titanium content in that range of 1 to 100 ppm (Id., para 0041). Hori teaches using a solid titanium compound containing titanium, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen with Ti-O bond as a catalyst for polyester preparation for higher catalytic activity, better transparency, better hue and lower acetaldehyde content as compared to a process using antimony compound as a polycondensation catalyst (Id, abstract).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 3 to 50 ppm of Ti element, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the titanium content, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding the claimed property of the copolyester resin having 45 or less -COOH groups in the molecular structure, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Hori teaches a polyester formed by polycondensing an acid component comprising as terephthalic acid and/or isophthalic acid, with a diol or its ester forming derivative, such as ethylene glycol and/or neopentyl glycol using a titanium-based catalyst. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0061561 to Shin, as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 13-15 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0108068 to Schoennagel.
NOTE: English Machine Translation of KR 2019/0061561 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 13-15, in the event that the use of a titanium catalyst, necessarily results in a structural distinction, Schoennagel teaches a polyester formed using a titanium containing catalyst having high thermal stability (Schoennagel, abstract). Schoennagel teaches polymerization of high viscosity polyesters, especially PET, is done commercially with antimony catalyst system and other catalyst systems tend to have higher thermal degradation behavior which results especially in a loss of viscosity, increase in COOH end groups, and AA increase during re-extrusion (Id., para 0029), reading on low -COOH groups in the molecular structure (claim 4). Schoennagel teaches the titanium containing catalyst being added to the polycondensation reaction and results in a titanium content in the resulting polyester preferably from 3 to 25 ppm (claim 4) (Id., para 0056). Schoennagel teaches the titanium containing catalyst having the general formula TiOx(OR)4-2x- with 0<x<2 and being the same or different of a linear or branched alkyl group with 1 to 32 carbon atom with at least one alpha-hydroxy carboxylic acid (Id., para 0032-0047), reading on a titanium-based chelate compound. Schoennagel teaches the polyester being a polyethylene terephthalate and can be modified with isophthalic acid and/or other diols to modify the properties (Id., para 0057-0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the polyester Shin, wherein the polyester is formed using the catalyst of Schoennagel, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known catalyst predictably suitable for forming polyester and by the desire to avoid thermal degradation behavior leading to in a loss of viscosity, increase in COOH end groups, and AA increase during re-extrusion.
Regarding the claimed property of the copolyester resin having 45 or less -COOH groups in the molecular structure (claim 4), although the prior art does not explicitly disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Hori teaches a polyester formed by polycondensing an acid component comprising as terephthalic acid and/or isophthalic acid, with a diol or its ester forming derivative, such as ethylene glycol and/or neopentyl glycol using a titanium-based catalyst taught as lower COOH groups. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to minimize the number of -COOH groups, such as within the claimed range, as being taught by Schoennagel as detrimental to thermal degradation behavior.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0061561 to Shin, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0108068 to Schoennagel, as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 13-15 above, in view of USPN 3,644,291 to Price.
NOTE: English Machine Translation of KR 2019/0061561 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not explicitly teach the ester reactant being formed by reacting the acid component and the diol component at a molar ratio of 1:0.8 to 1:6.
However, Prices teaches preparing polyesters using a reaction between a diol and lower dialkyl ester of a saturated aromatic dicarboxylic acid or by direct esterification reaction between a diol and a saturated aromatic dicarboxylic acid then polycondensing the reaction product thereof in the presence of a polycondensation catalyst, including titanium (III) oxalate and titanium (II) acetylacetonate (Price, abstract). Price teaches a molar ratio of the glycol to dicarboxylic acid being from about 1:1 to about 15:1, preferably 1.5:1 to about 2.6:1 (Id., col. 3 lines 34-64), reading on the ester reactant being formed by reacting the acid component and the diol component at a molar ratio preferably of 1:1.5 to 1:2.6. Price teaches the dicarboxylic acid can be isophthalic acid and terephthalic acid (Id., col. 2 lines 68- col. 3 line 6). Prices teaches the diol including ethylene glycol (Id., col. 3 lines 7-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the polyester of Shin, wherein the acid component and the diol component are at a molar ratio as taught by Price, such as 1:1.5 to 1:2.6, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known acid component and diol component ratios predictably suitable for use in the formation of a polyester formed using a dicarboxylic acid such as isophthalic acid and/or terephthalic acid with a diol containing ethylene glycol.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0061561 to Shin, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0108068 to Schoennagel, as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 13-15 above, in view of WO 2012/116481 to Gu.
NOTE: English Machine Translation of KR 2019/0061561 and WO 2012/116481 are being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 8, Shin does not teach the diol component comprising a diol according to Chemical Formula 3 and therefore does not teach the molar ratio of Chemical Formula 3, 2-methyl-1,3-propane diol, to Chemical Formula 4, neopentyl glycol, being 1:0.02 to 1.
However, Gu teaches a copolyester formed from a diol component comprising a mixture of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and 2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (Gu, abstract, p. 2-3). Gu teaches the copolyester also containing monomers comprising terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol (Id., p. 2). Gu teaches the polyester formed using the mixture of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and 2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol monomers being spun into fibers or filament having a high molecular weight, a uniform structure, good product quality, and good spinnability (id., p. 4-5). Gu teaches the dyeability being greater than containing either monomer alone as well as improving resilience (Id., p. 5). Gu teaches the electron donating effects of the two methyl groups on the quaternary carbon cancel each other out, showing a freely rotatable helical conformation and the flexibility of the molecular chain increases (Id.). Gu teaches that the presence of the monomethyl side chain exacerbates the irregularity of the macromolecular chain and contributes to further enhancement of flexibility (Id.). Gu teaches the combined effect contributes to improvement of the tensile resilience of the copolyester fiber at high elongation (Id.). Gu teaches the mixture of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and 2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol being in a molar ratio of 25:75 to 75:25 (Gu, abstract, p. 2-3), reading on a ratio of Chemical Formula 3 (2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, or neopentyl glycol) to Chemical Formula 4 (2-methyl-1,3-propanediol) of 1: 0.33 to 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the polyester of Shin, wherein the diol also comprise 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol and in a ratio with 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol as taught by Gu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known diol predictably suitable for use in polyester fiber formation in conjunction with terephthalic acid, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, and ethylene glycol and to improve the dyeability and resilience of the formed fiber versus just the use of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol alone. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 1:0.2-1, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the molar ratio, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2002/0193555 to Hori, as applied to claims 1-3 and 13-15 above, in view of WO 2012/116481 to Gu.
NOTE: English Machine Translation of WO 2012/116481 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 8, Hori does not teach the diol component comprising a diol according to Chemical Formula 4 and therefore does not teach the molar ratio of Chemical Formula 3, 2-methyl-1,3-propane diol, to Chemical Formula 4, neopentyl glycol, being 1:0.02 to 1.
However, Gu teaches a copolyester formed from a diol component comprising a mixture of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and 2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (Gu, abstract, p. 2-3). Gu teaches the copolyester also containing monomers comprising terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol (Id., p. 2). Gu teaches the polyester formed using the mixture of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and 2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol monomers being spun into fibers or filament having a high molecular weight, a uniform structure, good product quality, and good spinnability (id., p. 4-5). Gu teaches the dyeability being greater than containing either monomer alone as well as improving resilience (Id., p. 5). Gu teaches the electron donating effects of the two methyl groups on the quaternary carbon cancel each other out, showing a freely rotatable helical conformation and the flexibility of the molecular chain increases (Id.). Gu teaches that the presence of the monomethyl side chain exacerbates the irregularity of the macromolecular chain and contributes to further enhancement of flexibility (Id.). Gu teaches the combined effect contributes to improvement of the tensile resilience of the copolyester fiber at high elongation (Id.). Gu teaches the mixture of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and 2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol being in a molar ratio of 25:75 to 75:25 (Gu, abstract, p. 2-3), reading on a ratio of Chemical Formula 3 (2,2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, or neopentyl glycol) to Chemical Formula 4 (2-methyl-1,3-propanediol) of 1: 0.33 to 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the polyester of Hori, wherein the diol also comprise 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and in a ratio with 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol (neopentyl glycol) as taught by Gu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known diol predictably suitable for use in polyester fiber formation in conjunction with terephthalic acid, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, and ethylene glycol and to improve the dyeability and resilience of the formed fiber versus just the use of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol alone. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 1:0.2-1, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the molar ratio, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 2004/0096190 to Park teaches a heat-adhesive copolymer obtained by copolymerizing a diol component consisting of ethylene glycol and a diol having a boiling point of less than 300C, such as neopentyl glycol, with a dicarboxylic acid component consisting of terephthalic acid and/or its ester-forming derivative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights