DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The terms grinding and granulating, as used in the prior art, are often used inter-changeably with the Examiner finding teachings such as “grinding the resin to obtain granules” or “granulating the resin, followed by grinding to a powder”. In fact applicants’ own specification (paragraph 47, page 19) teaches that “granulating” can occur by using a sieve or filter. This is not within the strict definition of granulating. Dictionaries indicate that “granulate” results in larger particles than “grinding” such that grinding followed by granulating (as in the claims) seems inapplicable.
As such these steps in the claims are being given a broad interpretation such that the grinding and granulating steps embrace steps that serve to reduce the size of the molded product and the final granulated material.
In addition, the Examiner is interpreting “true specific gravity” to mean the same as specific gravity.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H04-248,841 (English translation, provided by applicants in the IDS dated 3/21/23) in view of Asakura et al. 4,286,018.
The JP reference teaches a process of producing a polyarylene sulfide (herein
PAS) by compressing and granulating the PAS, followed by crosslinking the powder (paragraph [006]).
More specifically paragraph [0012] teaches that an uncrosslinked PAS powder is mechanically compressed, meeting the claimed “compression molding” step.
This is then pulverized to obtain a granulated product. The resulting powder preferably falls within a specific particle size range. Note that paragraph [0018] teaches molding, pulverizing and sizing, all in a granulator. The steps of pulverizing and sizing appear to correspond to the claimed steps of grinding and granulating since paragraph 47 of the specification teaches that granulating can occur by using a filter or a sieve. This is the same as, or comparable to, “sizing” in the prior art (i.e. it results in particles having a desired particle size range.
The resulting granulated product then undergoes oxidative crosslinking.
As such the teachings in JP differ from that claimed in that they do not include the step of measuring a true specific gravity of the compression molded material.
Asakura et al. teach PAS resins. As found on column 4, lines 57 to 65, the PAS film has a specific gravity of from 1.33 to 1.4. If it is outside this range inferior products are obtained.
It follows that one would want to measure the specific gravity of the PAS film to ensure that it lies within this range in an effort to obtain properties associated therewith.
From this, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to measure the specific gravity of the polyphenylene sulfide film in the JP reference to ensure that it lies within the range of 1.33 to 1.4. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings in Asakura et al. which indicate that within this range beneficial properties are achieved. In this manner claim 1 is rendered obvious.
For claim 2, note that the pulverizing and sizing in the JP reference is random and will result in irregular, or amorphous, particles.
For claims 4, 5, 7 and 10, note that the JP reference subsequently melt kneads and molds the granulated material therein. See paragraph [0014] and multiple references to melt extrusion molding found in this reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Asakura et al. specifically teach inferior results at a specific gravity of less than 1.33. Thus there is nothing that would lead the skilled artisan to select a PAS having a specific gravity within the range of 1.1 to 1.3. This is true particularly since polyphenyl-ene sulfide generally has a specific gravity of around 1.35. There is no reason to believe that polyphenylene sulfide will inherently fall within the claimed range and there is no motivation to adjust the specific gravity of polyphenylene sulfide to within the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
2/27/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765