DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 08/19/2026. Claim 6 was canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending in the application.
In view of the amendment a new ground of rejection of the claims under 103 is made.
This office action is final.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (JP 5396690 B2 or JP 2008214558 (A) in view of Sekimura et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0371389 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii et al. teach an inorganic-reinforced polyester resin composition for a molded product with high strength, high rigidity and good surface appearance and gloss (abstract), wherein the composition comprises 37 parts by mass of a polybutylene terephthalate resin, 17 parts by mass of a polyethylene terephthalate resin, 6 parts by mass of a copolyester with a molar ratio of 100/70/30 of terephthalic acid/ethylene glycol/neopentyl glycol (which correspond to the semicrystalline resin and/or amorphous resin), and 40 parts by mass of an inorganic reinforcing material ( Table 1, example 1), thereby reading on the claimed amounts of the claimed components A-D. Fujii et al. further teach the inorganic reinforced polyester resin composition has a cooling crystallization temperature Tc2M determined by a differential scanning calorimeter of 185°C or lower ([0017], claim 2, Table 1), as required by the instant claim.
Fujii et al. are silent on the number average fiber length Ln of the inorganic reinforcing material in the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition. Fuji et al. are further silent on the Lw/Ln≤ 2 of the inorganic reinforcing material in the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic resin.
Sekimura et al. teach a thermoplastic composition comprising liquid crystalline polyester [0037] and glass fibers [0081] to obtain a molded article ([0029]-[0030]), wherein the glass fibers have a weight average fiber length (Lw) of 80-400 µm [0114] and a number average fiber length (Ln) from 80 to 250 µm [0115], which implies a ratio (Lw)/(Ln) ranging from 0.32 to 5 (i.e. 80/250= 0.32 and 400/80= 5), which overlaps the claimed (Ln) and the claimed ratio (Lw)/(Ln). 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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sekimura et al. Sekimura et al. offer the motivation of using glass fibers having a Ln and Lw within these ranges to improve the fluidity or the resin composition, processability, the external appearance of the surface of the molded article and enhancing the reinforcing effect due to the glass fibers [0116]. In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have used the glass fibers having the (Ln) and (Lw) as taught by Sekimura et al. on the thermoplastic composition of Fuji et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Fujii et al. are silent on the flow length of the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition as recited in the instant claim.
However, in view of the substantially identical inorganic material- reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of Fujii et al. in view of Sekimura et al., the inorganic material- reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of Fujii et al. in view of Sekimura et al. is expected to possess the claimed property of flow length because flow length is an inherent property (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii et al. teach the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition comprises terephthalic acid//ethylene glycol/neopentyl glycol copolymer, a terephthalic acid//ethylene glycol/1,2-propane diol copolymer, and a terephthalic acid/isophthalic acid//ethylene glycol/neopentyl glycol copolymer ([0010], Table 1), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Fujii et al. teach the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition satisfies the relation Tc2N -Tc2M≥ 10°C, wherein Tc2N is the temperature-decreasing crystallization temperature of the polyester-based resin composition when the semicrystalline resin and/or amorphous resin is the only resin not contained in the polyester-based resin composition ([0005], [0017], claims 1,3-4), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Fujii et al. teaches the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition is substantially identical to the claimed invention, as previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Fujii et al. further teach the resins preferably have a molecular weight high enough to be usable as an engineering plastic by itself, exhibiting improved physical properties and toughness and teach that the molecular weight of the resin component is defined and controlled by reduced viscosity [0007]. Furthermore, Fuji et al. implies that the resin component possess a molecular weight within specific ranges of reduced viscosity to obtain a balance between toughness and fluidity ([0007], [0011], [0013]). Thus, Fujii et al. confirms that viscosity is correlated with molecular weight.
The reference further discloses reduced viscosity values for the resin component as follows: PBT is 0.70 dL/g; Toyobo PET, reduced viscosity 0.83 Dl/g; copolymer having a composition ratio of TPA//EG/NPG = 100/70/30 mol%, reduced viscosity 0.83 dL/g, copolymer having a composition ratio of TPA/IPA//EG/NPG = 50/50/50/50 mol%, reduced viscosity 0.56 dL/g ([0028]-[0029]). It is noted that the reduced viscosity of the resin component and composition of the copolymers in Fujii’s disclosure are substantially identical to the reduced viscosity of the resin component and the composition of the copolymers of the claimed invention (see [0011], [0013], [0019], [0054] of the instant specification). Accordingly, the weight average molecular weight and the number molecular weight Mn of the resin component of Fujii et al. are expected to fall into the claimed range of Mw/Mn because the molecular weight (reduced viscosity) have impact on the final properties (appearance, mechanical properties, warpage, [0036]) of the molded articles.
Regarding claim 5, Fujii et al. teach the content of the inorganic reinforcing material is 30-60% by mass [0016], which overlaps with 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. (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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sekimura et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (JP 5396690 B2 or JP 2008214558 (A) in view of Sekimura et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0371389 A1), as set forth above for claims 1-5 and further in view of Yang et al. (CN204955364 U, full English Machine translation incorporated herewith).
Fujii et al. in view of Sekimura et al. teach the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of claim 1 as set forth above and it is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 7, Fujii et al. teach the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of Example 1 was prepared by a twin-screw extruder [0025], wherein the raw materials except the inorganic reinforcing material (glass fiber) were fed into the twin-screw extruder through a hopper and the inorganic reinforcing material was fed from a vent port by a side feed [0033].
Fujii et al. in view of Sekimura et al. are silent on the plurality of side feeders as recited by the instant claims.
However, Yang et al. discloses an extruder for processing glass fiber reinforced material, wherein the resin and additives mixture is added to the extruder through the main feed port and the glass fiber is introduced in two stages through two side feeding ports located at 5th section and the 7th section of a twin screw extruder (abstract, [0009], [0015], [0020]). Yang et al. offer the motivation of incorporating the glass fiber through the two side feeders so the glass fiber and the resin are mixed and better dispersed, thereby improving the distribution of the glass fiber in the resin which results in the enhancement of the mechanical properties of the composite resin material ([0020]-[0022]). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the production method as taught by Yang et al. on the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of Fujii et al. in view of Sekimura et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-8, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and in light of the amendment, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 over Fuji et al. (JP 5396690 B2 or JP 2008214558 (A)) in view of Sekimura et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0371389 A1) for claims 1-5 and a 103 rejection over Fuji et al. in view of Sekimura and further in view of Yang et al. (CN204955364 A).
Regarding the rejection, Applicant states, the examples of Sekimura fails to teach each element claimed. In response, attention is drawn to a new ground of rejection made over Fuji in view of Sekimura as set forth above, wherein Sekimura in the broader disclosure does teach ranges of Ln and ratio of Lw/Ln that encompass the claimed ranges. For example Ln= 250 and Lw = 300 are both within the broad disclosure of Sekimura and results in Lw/Ln =1.2. It is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (C.C.P.A. 1982). A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also > Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). . It is for these reasons that Applicant's arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant should demonstrate the criticality of the claimed range of Ln and the claimed ratio Lw/Ln. by providing comparative experimental data in commensurate with the scope of the claim. In such situation, the applicant must show that the particular ranges are critical, generally by showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
