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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda et. al., (JP2007119638, herein Yoda, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), in the view of Akiyoshi et. al., (JP2000034384, herein Akiyoshi, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Masayuki et. al., (US20110190178, herein Masayuki).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, Yoda teaches PPS, PTFE based blend [0055], wherein, the combination of fluororesin and polyolefin in the above is PTFE and polyethylene is desirable [0053] comprising: “100 parts by mass of PPS” [0021], “per 100 parts by mass of PPS, 3 to 70 parts by mass of fluororesin,” [0021], wherein the “fluororesins such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)” [0052], hence, the PTFE/PPS range is 3/100 to 70/100, overlaps the claimed PTFE/PSPS range which is 15/80 to 40/40.
“polyolefin, powders of polyethylene (ethylene homopolymer)” [0056] in the range of “The amount of polyolefin to be blended is preferably about 1 to 40 parts, per 100 parts of PPS.” [0056], hence, the PE/PPS range is 1/100 to 40/100, overlaps the claimed PE/PSPS range which is 2/80 to 20/40.
Yoda does not explicitly teach the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene resin, however, Akiyoshi teaches the selection of “ultra-high molecular weight
polyethylene that can be used include commercially available products such as "Mipelon XM-220" (manufactured by Mitsui Petrochemical Industries, Ltd.)” [0009] matches ““MIPELON XM-220”, product of Mitsui Chemicals, Inc.” [Instant App. P4; 0051]. Yoda and Akiyoshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polyphenylene sulfides blend based resin composition toward sliding member applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoda to add the teachings of Akiyoshi and provide wherein said the "Mipelon XM-220" (manufactured by Mitsui Petrochemical Industries, Ltd.)” [0009] into the composition development. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “excellent friction and wear properties and reduced occurrence of mold deposits during molding and delamination of molded articles,” [0016] as taught by Akiyoshi.
Yoda further teaches “modified polyethylene” [0053] as modified polyolefin resin, in the range of “The amount of polyolefin to be blended is preferably about 1 to 40 parts, per 100 parts of PPS.” [0056], hence, the modified polyolefin resin /PPS range is 1/100 to 40/100, overlaps the claimed PE/PSPS range which is 0.5/80 to 5/40.
“polyphenylene ethers (PPE)” [0036] as amorphous polymer, which matches the “amorphous polymer, a polysulfone-based resin, a polyetherimide resin, or a polyphenylene ether resin is used” [Instant App. P3; 0030], in the range of “1 to 100
parts per 100 parts of PPS” [0036], hence, the PPE/PPS range is 1/100 to 100/100, overlaps the claimed PE/PSPS range which is 0.1/80 to 5/40.
Yoda teaches “fluororesins such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)” [0052], Yoda does not explicitly teach the wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene resin has 1 to 10 mass% of a high molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin and 10 to 35 mass% of a low molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin, however, Masayuki teaches “The mixing ratio (by weight) of the high molecular weight PTFE to the low molecular weight PTFE is usually from 1:1 to 3:1.” [0019], overlaps the claimed ratio between high molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin and low molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin. Yoda and Masayuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the application of polytetrafluoroethylene resin into sliding member toward the low friction property management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoda to add the teachings of Masayuki and provide wherein said the specified blends of high molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin and low molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin into the composition development. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “improving low friction properties” [0019] as taught by Masayuki.
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)
Regarding Claims 7-8, Yoda teaches “alkali metal sulfates and alkaline earth metal sulfates” [0059] in the range of “The blending amount of the metal sulfate is preferably 2 to 10 parts, per 100 parts of PPS.” [0060], hence, the metal sulfate/PPS range is 2/100 to 10/100, overlaps the claimed PTFE/PSPS range which is 0.1/80 to 10/40.
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)
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda et. al., (JP2007119638, herein Yoda, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), Akiyoshi et. al., (JP2000034384, herein Akiyoshi, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) and Masayuki et. al., (US20110190178, herein Masayuki) as applied in claim 1, in the further view of Ueda et. al., (JP2005220148, herein Ueda, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 3, 4, Yoda, Akiyoshi and Masayuki teach resin composition for sliding member as set forth in claim 1. Yoda teaches “polyethylene modified with an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid and” [0056], Yoda does not explicitly teach the specified modified polyolefin resin, however, Ueda teaches “Glycidyl group-containing copolymer: Ethylene/glycidyl methacrylate/acrylic acid copolymer (Bondfast 7M, manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.).” [0036], which reads on the “Modified Polyolefin resin; (E-2) Epoxy group containing polyolefin resin “BONDFAST E”, product of Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.” [Instant App. P2; 0052, 54], hence, inherently match the claimed modification process. Yoda and Ueda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of modified polyethylene based resin compositions development toward sliding member application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoda to add the teachings of Ueda and provide wherein said the specified modified polyethylene into the composition development. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “excellent in sliding properties and mechanical properties, and can be widely used in bearings for rotating bodies, gears, automotive cables, and other applications.” [0034] as taught by Ueda.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda et. al., (JP2007119638, herein Yoda, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), Akiyoshi et. al., (JP2000034384, herein Akiyoshi, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Masayuki et. al., (US20110190178, herein Masayuki) as applied in claim 5, in the further view of Ueda et. al., (US20140187721, herein Ueda).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoda, Akiyoshi and Masayuki teach resin composition for sliding member as set forth in claim 5. Yoda is silent on wherein the polysulfone-based resin is selected from polyethersulfone resins, polysulfone resins, and polyphenylsulfone resins, however, Ito teaches “polysulfone (PSU), polyethersulfone” [0016]. Yoda and Ito are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of modified polyphenylene sulfide based resin compositions development toward sliding member application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoda to add the teachings of Ito and provide wherein said the “polysulfone (PSU), polyethersulfone” [0016] into the composition development. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “sliding member composed of the resin composition can exhibit excellent mechanical properties and sliding properties” [0010] as taught by Ito.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 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 Yoda et. al., (JP2007119638, herein Yoda, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), Akiyoshi et. al., (JP2000034384, herein Akiyoshi, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Masayuki et. al., (US20110190178, herein Masayuki) as set forth in the new rejection above.
In this case, Yoda explicitly teaches PPS, PTFE based blend [0055], wherein, the combination of fluororesin and polyolefin in the above is PTFE and
polyethylene is desirable [0053] having excellent sliding properties [0024]; heat resistance [0028], excellent in moldability [0012], matches the resin composition for sliding member is capable of improving sliding properties [Instant App. US20230272217; 0011]; excellent heat resistance; moldability [Instant App. US20230272217; 0015]. Hence, Yoda does not teach away the instant application.
Furthermore, as analogues art, Masayuki teaches “The mixing ratio (by weight) of the high molecular weight PTFE to the low molecular weight PTFE is usually from 1:1 to 3:1.” [0019], overlaps the claimed ratio between high molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin and low molecular weight polytetrafluoroethylene resin, which can lead to “improving low friction properties” [0019] as taught by Masayuki
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Yoda explicitly teaches PPS, PTFE based blend [0055], wherein, the combination of fluororesin and polyolefin in the above is PTFE and polyethylene is desirable [0053] with the desired properties as set forth above in first response above, as analogous art, Masayuki explicitly teaches sliding member body composition comprising: polytetrafluoroethylene and waxes [0009], but also explicitly teaches the high molecular weight PTFE and low molecular weight PTFE [0019], which collectively lead to the sliding member body showed excellent sliding properties [0038]; wear resistance, shape-keeping ability and strength [0022]; thermal stability [0023] as taught by Masayuki, collectively match the resin composition for sliding member is capable of improving sliding properties [Instant App. US20230272217; 0011]; excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance; moldability [Instant App. US20230272217; 0015]. Furthermore, Yoda and Masayuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the application of polytetrafluoroethylene resin into sliding member toward the low friction property management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select “the high molecular weight PTFE and low molecular weight PTFE” [0019] from Masayuki substitute the “fluororesins such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)” [0052] in Yoda’s composition, as it is recognized by Masayuki as being suitable for use in this capacity in similar PTFE based resin composition formation with similar end uses of sliding member manufacturing.
It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
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 extension fee 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 Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767