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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 8/21/25.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 8/21/2025. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to limit the size of the inorganic nucleating agent and to specify the crystal peak temperature, super cooling degree, and half-peak breadth of crystal temperature. This combination of limitations was not present in the original claims. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumiya (JP 2016-199608, machine translation).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 10, Izumiya discloses a highly crystallized polyethylene terephthalate composition resistant to thermal deformation and has a glossy appearance (paragraph 0001) for use in tableware (paragraph 0039) comprising 50-95 wt % polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (paragraph 0014) and 10-35 wt % of an inorganic filler such as talc (paragraph 0017). Izumiya teaches that a molded article is formed by injection molding having mold temperature of 110-180°C (paragraph 0027) and deflection temperature under load (i.e., claimed heat distortion temperature) of 90°C and higher (paragraph 0038). Example 3 of Table 1 comprises 80 wt % PET and 20 wt % talc (タルク) and has a crystallinity (結晶化度) of 29.2 % and a mold temperature (金型温度) of 180°C, but a deflection temperature under load (荷重たわみ温度) of 116°C. Example 8 exhibits a heat distortion temperature of 154°C but also comprises 40 wt % talc, outside of claimed range, but illustrates that increasing talc provide for a higher heat distortion temperature.
Izumiya does not disclose the particle size of the talc filler, however, it teaches in the background that a suitable average particle size for an inorganic filler is 0.1-20 µm (paragraph 0005).
Given that an inorganic filler having a particle size that overlaps with claimed range of 1-3 µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a talc filler having a particle size like claimed—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results.
Regarding claimed crystal peak temperature, supercooling degree ΔTc, or a half-peak breadth of crystal temperature, Applicant states in the specification as originally filed that these properties are selected in order to be suitable for molding at a high mold temperature (paragraph 0045 of specification).
Izumiya discloses that its molded article has good moldability with a glossy surface (paragraph 0011). Izumiya also characterizes mold releasability with “O” which describes the appearance of the molded product after removal (paragraph 0036; Table 1). All inventive examples exhibit “O” mold releasability property (離型性/表面凹凸) (Table 1).
Given that Izumiya discloses molding articles with good moldability and glossy surface, it appears that the disclosure of Izumiya intrinsically teaches claimed crystal peak temperature, supercooling degree ΔTc, or a half-peak breadth of crystal temperature.
With respect to claim 5, Izumiya does not disclose multiple heat treatments.
With respect to claim 6, mold releasability “O” indicates the appearance of the molded product after removal (paragraph 0036; Table 1). All inventive examples exhibit “O” mold releasability property (離型性/表面凹凸) (Table 1).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumiya (JP 2016-199608, machine translation) in view of Liao (US 2020/0239683).
The discussion with respect to Izumiya in paragraph 2 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claims 7 and 9, Izumiya’s Example 3 includes 1 wt % calcium stearate (Table 1), i.e., claimed processing aid.
Izumiya discloses that an antioxidant (paragraph 0022) is used but does not disclose the amount of each.
Liao discloses a PET composite material for tableware comprising PET, inorganic filler, and 0.1-0.5 wt % antioxidant (abstract).
Given that both Izumiya and Liao are drawn to PET compositions for tableware and further given that they both add antioxidants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the amount of antioxidant taught by Liao as suitable for Izumiya.
With respect to claim 8, Liao discloses that suitable antioxidants include pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate), tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphite and octadecyl 3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate (paragraph 0025).
Given that both Izumiya and Liao are drawn to PET compositions for tableware and further given that they both add antioxidants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate), tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphite and octadecyl 3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate as an appropriate antioxidant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Izumiya fails to fairly disclose or suggest an inorganic nucleating agent that includes 15 wt % barium sulfate and 3 wt % talc and an organic nucleating agent that includes 1.15 wt % ionic polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Izumiya fails to disclose the particle size of the inorganic fillers.
Izumiya does not disclose the particle size of the talc filler, however, it teaches in the background that a suitable average particle size for an inorganic filler is 0.1-20 µm (paragraph 0005). Given that an inorganic filler having a particle size that overlaps with claimed range of 1-3 µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a talc filler having a particle size like claimed—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results.
Also, applicant argues that Izumiya fails to disclose crystal peak temperature, supercooling degree ΔTc, or a half-peak breadth of crystal temperature.
Applicant states in the specification as originally filed that these properties are selected in order to be suitable for molding at a high mold temperature (paragraph 0045 of specification). Izumiya discloses that its molded article has good moldability with a glossy surface (paragraph 0011). Izumiya also characterizes mold releasability with “O” which describes the appearance of the molded product after removal (paragraph 0036; Table 1). All inventive examples exhibit “O” mold releasability property (離型性/表面凹凸) (Table 1). Given that Izumiya discloses molding articles with good moldability and glossy surface, it appears that the disclosure of Izumiya intrinsically teaches claimed crystal peak temperature, supercooling degree ΔTc, or a half-peak breadth of crystal temperature.
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 VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn