DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 27 February 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-11 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 27 February 2026. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 and 11 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 "the polyester comprising ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It raises the issue whether this polyester comprising ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units is the same as the polyester comprising alkylene 2,5-dicarboxylate units recited prior, or is a second polyester. If it is a second polyester, claim 6 is unclear because it fails to identify which polyester is poly(ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0368460 (“Sohn”) in view of US 2012/0220680 (“Bastioli”).
As to claim 1, Sohn teaches a polyester composition comprising a polyester and a terpolymer including alkyl methacrylate diene aromatic vinyl terpolymer (para. 0010). As the terpolymer, Sohn exemplifies the use of MBS M-511, a core shell rubber type graft copolymer (para. 0106), which is acknowledged by applicant (see specification, paras. 0036, 0099) as the recited type of impact modifier having styrene butadiene core and methyl methacrylate shell.
Sohn does not exemplify the polyester comprising alkylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units. However, Sohn teaches the polyester includes alkylene diols (paras. 0056-0059), and may include additional aromatic diacid, including 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (para. 0050), the use of which in combination with aliphatic diols would provide alkylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units. Therefore, the use of 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid is an obvious substitution suggested by Sohn. he use of this monomer is further obvious in view of Bastioli, which teaches the utility of using renewable monomers, preferably 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (para. 0017), in combination with aromatic diacids such as terephthalic acid (para. 0079), and diols such as ethanediol (para. 0018) specifically for providing polyesters with increased renewable content (para. 0011) or biodegradability (para. 0008). While not exemplified, Sohn teaches resins employing ethylene glycol as a diol (para. 0020, 0105). And as such, the presence of ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units is obvious as suggested by Sohn and Bastioli.
Sohn does not exemplify the recited amount of the polyester in the composition, but teaches generally that the composition may include 5 to 90 weight percent of the polyester (para. 0011), and therefore the use of polyester, including in the recited range, is an obvious modification in the range taught by Sohn for a polyester composition.
As to claim 2, Sohn does not recite the (B-M)/B ratio of the first impact modifier. However, Sohn exemplifies M-511 as the MBS polymer (para. 0106), and is therefore considered to be a suitable impact modifier for polyester composition. Applicant has acknowledged this core shell polymer meets the recited characteristic (see specification, para. 0106).
As to claim 3, Sohn does not discuss the lack of endotherm peaks more than 0.2 J/g. However, Sohn exemplifies M-511 as the MBS polymer (para. 0106), and is therefore considered to be a suitable impact modifier for polyester composition. Applicant has acknowledged this core shell polymer meets the recited characteristic (see Figs. 3-4 of applicant’s specification, showing no peaks for MBS 3 (M-511) in the recited range).
As to claim 4, Sohn does not discuss the metals or specific iron content of the first impact modifier. However, Sohn exemplifies M-511 as the MBS polymer (para. 0106), and is therefore considered to be a suitable impact modifier for polyester composition. Applicant has acknowledged this core shell polymer meets the recited characteristic (para. 0103, table 1).
As to claims 5 and 11, while not exemplified, Sohn teaches the utility of including ethylene-alkyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate as a compatibilizer (para. 0031), and is therefore an obvious modification suggested by Sohn. While Sohn does not refer to this as an impact modifier, it is the same type as recited, and presumed to meet the recited function.
As to claim 7, Sohn teaches mixing the polyester with the impact modifier in an extruder (para. 0105).
As to claim 8, Sohn does not discuss the increase in Charpy impact strength. However, Sohn teaches examples using 5 % of the impact modifier with respect to the polyester (see examples). Given that this is the same amount as shown in applicant’s examples, such as Ex. 21, it is reasonable to believe it would inherently have the recited Charpy impact increase.
As to claim 9, Sohn teaches forming articles by injection molding (para. 0132).
As to claim 10, Sohn teaches a polyester composition comprising a polyester and a terpolymer including alkyl methacrylate diene aromatic vinyl terpolymer (para. 0010). As the terpolymer, Sohn exemplifies the use of MBS M-511, a core shell rubber type graft copolymer (para. 0106), which is acknowledged by applicant (see specification, paras. 0036, 0099) as the recited type of impact modifier having styrene butadiene core and methyl methacrylate shell. Sohn teaches mixing with the polyester (para. 0105), which is thus utilized. Sohn teaches the use of these polymers provides excellent impact resistance (para. 0039), and thus it is reasonable to expect this polymer improves impact strength of the polyester.
Sohn does not exemplify the polyester comprising ethlene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units. However, Sohn teaches the polyester includes alkylene diols (paras. 0056-0059), and may include additional aromatic diacid, including 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (para. 0050), the use of which in combination with aliphatic diols would provide alkylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units. Therefore, the use of 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid is an obvious substitution suggested by Sohn. The use of this monomer is further obvious in view of Bastioli, which teaches the utility of using renewable monomers, preferably 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (para. 0017), in combination with aromatic diacids such as terephthalic acid (para. 0079), and diols such as 1,2-ethanediol (para. 0018) specifically for providing polyesters with increased renewable content (para. 0011) or biodegradability (para. 0008). While not exemplified, Sohn teaches resins employing ethylene glycol as a diol (para. 0020, 0105), the combination of which would provide ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units. And as such, the presence of ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units is obvious as suggested by Sohn and Bastioli.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/026621 A1 (“Hirschsohn”) in view of EP 0737715 A1 (“Meyer”) as evidenced by US 2017/0247527 (“Oda”).
Examiner notes that this ground of rejection would also be applicable to at least claim 1. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, this new grounds is applied to claim 6 as being necessitated by amendment.
As to claim 6, HIrschsohn teaches polyester composition (abstract) having a polyester that may be polyethylene furanoate (PEF) (p. 4), which as evidenced by Oda, para. 0039, is the polyester resulting from esterification of ethylene glycol and 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid, thus having ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate units as required by claim 6.
Hirschsohn teaches the composition may include 40 to 90 percent of the polyester (p. 14), which overlaps the recited range, and therefore a composition of polyethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate, including in the recited amount, is obvious as suggested by Hirschsohn.
Hirschsohn teaches the composition may include core shell polymers as impact modifiers (p. 13), having a rubber core wrapped in a vitreous resin. Hirschsohn does not teach the core shell impact modifier having the core and shell as recited. However, Meyer teaches core shell impact modifiers (abstract). While Meyer does not discuss furandicarboxylate polymers, Meyer teaches the composition is for aromatic polyesters, which category includes polyethylene 2,5-furandicarobxylate. Meyer teaches an impact modifier including a core shell graft copolymer having a core of a rubber of butadiene copolymer, with a shell of methyl methacrylate (2:35-43), with a preferred core rubber of butadiene and styrene (2:50-55). Meyer teaches the impact modifier provides impact strength without excessive increase in melt viscosity (2:25-26). As such, the use of the recited type of core shell impact modifier is an obvious modification suggested by Meyer for impact toughening aromatic polyesters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that Sohn teaches away from the use of the recited impact modifier is not persuasive because Sohn teaches the utility of the recited impact modifier for improving impact strength of polyesters. The inclusion of other embodiments of Sohn showing a higher impact strength with a different graft polymer does not constitute teaching away from the use of the recited impact modifier.
Applicant has not demonstrated unexpected results, as it is already known in the art to use the recited impact modifier for polyester compositions.
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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764