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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant response to a Nonfinal rejection filed July 17, 2026.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
This Office Action is FINAL.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
An inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition, comprising 8 to 20 parts by mass of a polybutylene terephthalate resin (A), 1 to 7 parts by mass of a polyethylene terephthalate resin (B), 1 to 12 parts by mass of a copolymerized polybutylene terephthalate resin (C), 5 to 12 parts by mass of a copolymerized polyethylene terephthalate resin (D), 1 to 6 parts by mass of a polycarbonate-based resin (E), 50 to 70 parts by mass of a glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F), and 0.05 to 2 parts by mass of a transesterification inhibitor (G), relative to 100 parts by mass of a total of components (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F),
wherein glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F) comprises at least 40 to 55 parts by mass of a flat cross-section glass fiber (F1) having a ratio of major diameter to minor diameter (major diameter/minor diameter) of fiber cross-section of 1.3 to 8 and 5 to 20 parts by mass of a milled short glass fiber (F2) having a fiber length of 30 to 150 pm,
wherein glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F) in the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition has a weight average fiber length Lw of 200 to 700 pm, and
wherein the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition has a melt viscosity of 0.6 kPa-s or more and 1.5 kPa-s or less at 270°C and a shear rate of 10 sec-1.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoharai et al. (JP 2017-39878 A as listed on IDS dated May 18, 2023) in view of Takahashi et al. (WO 2019235299).
The examiner will refer to the English translation of Shimoharai et al. provided in this Office Action.
The examiner will refer to the US equivalent of Takahashi et al., US 20210162638.
Regarding claim 1, Shimoharai et al. disclose in Example 1 an inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition comprising 10 parts by mass of polybutylene terephthalate resin (A), 5 parts by mass of polyethylene terephthalate resin (B), 10 parts by mass of a polybutylene terephthalate copolymer (C), 9 parts by mass polyethylene terephthalate copolymer (D), 3 parts by mass polycarbonate resin (E), 48 parts by mass of a flat glass fiber (F1) having a major/minor diameter ratio of 2 and 15 parts by mass of a milled glass fiber (F2) having a length of 100 µm, and 0.15 parts by mass of a transesterification inhibitor (G) (See Table 1, machine translation provided below), thereby lying within the claimed ranges of the amounts of (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shimoharai et al. is silent on the glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F) has a weight average fiber length of Lw as recited in the instant claim.
Takahashi et al. teach a molded body comprising a thermoplastic resin and a glass fiber having a weight average fiber length of 0.1 to 0.7 mm, equivalent to 100 to 700 microns and thereby overlapping with the claimed range (claim 22 and 35). Takashi et al. offer the motivation that within this range it is possible to secure a balance between the strength of the resin and the flowability of the resin [0090]. Shimoharai is also concerned with the rigidity of the resin and processability [0002-0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glass fibers having the weight average fiber length as taught by Takahashi et al. with the thermoplastic resin composition of Shimoharai with reasonable expectation that the strength and processability would improve.
Shimoharai et al. is silent on the melt viscosity and shear rate 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 Shimoharai et al. in view of Takahashi et al., the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of Shimoharai et al. in view of Takahashi et al. will possess the claimed properties because melt viscosity and shear rate are inherent properties. (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 2, Shimoharai et al. disclose the crystallization temperature (TC2) during cooling for Example 1 is 165°C (see Table 1 shown above), thereby lying within the claimed range of 160°C ≤ TC2 ≤ 180°C.
Regarding claim 3, Shimoharai et al. is silent on the acid value of the resin component as recited in the instant claim.
However, in view of the substantially identical resin component of Shimoharai et al., the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of Shimoharai et al. will possess the claimed properties because acid value is an inherent property. (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 4, Shimoharai et al. is silent on the glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F) has a number average fiber length Ln and a weight average fiber length of Lw as recited in the instant claim.
However, Shimoharai et al. disclose the same trademarks “CSG3PL830S” and “EFH-100-31” as fibers F1 and F2 used in the examples of the instant specification (See instant specification page 25, line 2-8). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the number average fiber length and weight average fiber length to be inherent.
Regarding claim 5, Shimoharai et al. disclose the inorganic material-reinforced thermoplastic polyester resin composition of Example 1 was prepared by a twin-screw extruder wherein the raw materials except the reinforcing material were fed into the twin-screw extruder from a hopper and the reinforcing material was fed from a vent port by a side feed [0053], thereby reading on the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “Specifically, between the above Examples and Comparative Examples, although the glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F1) is separately fed into a twin-screw extruder from different feeders, the amounts fed from each of the feeders are different. As a result, properties such as the weight average fiber length and melt viscosity are completely different between these Examples and Comparative Examples.
The examiner acknowledges that the examples shown in Table 1 does appear to have unexpected results in view of the weight average fiber length. However, the examples are not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
For instance, claim 1 recites “8 to 20 parts by mass of a polybutylene terephthalate resin (A), 1 to 7 parts by mass of a polyethylene terephthalate resin (B), 1 to 12 parts by mass of a copolymerized polybutylene terephthalate resin (C), 5 to 12 parts by mass of a copolymerized polyethylene terephthalate resin (D), 1 to 6 parts by mass of a polycarbonate-based resin (E), 50 to 70 parts by mass of a glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F), and 0.05 to 2 parts by mass of a transesterification inhibitor (G)”. However, Table 1 only shows examples comprising 14 to 20 parts by mass of polybutylene terephthalate. The applicant has not provided an example below 8 parts by mass and above 20 parts by mass of a polybutylene terephthalate. Similar points can be made over the amount of polyethylene terephthalate (B), copolymerized polyethylene terephthalate (C), copolymerized polybutylene terephthalate (D), polycarbonate resin (E), glass fiber-based reinforcing material (F), flat cross section glass material (F1), milled short glass fiber (F2), and transesterification inhibitor (G). Additionally, similar points can be made over the major diameter to minor diameter ratio of (F1), and the fiber length of (F2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
