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
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on March 4, 2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to change the ranges of the refractive index. This combination of limitations was not present at the time of the previous office action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muschiatti et al (US 5,405,921) in view of Semen et al (US4,483,949).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10, Muschiatti teaches a crystallized polyethylene terephthalate resin comprising:
A crystallized polyethylene terephthalate (col. 2, lines 5-15)
And additives which are chosen with a refractive index within 0.01 of the base polyester (col. 5, lines 1-10)
However, it fails to teach the inclusion of an impact modifier and the compatibilizer.
Semen teaches a modified crystallized polyethylene terephthalate resin comprising, a crystallized polyethylene terephthalate (col. 2, lines 5-10), an impact modifier such as a styrene-butadiene copolymer (col. 10, lines 60-65) and a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (col. 10, lines 10-20) as the compatibilizer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the impact modifier and the compatibilizer as taught by Semen as additives in the composition of Muschiatti. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of improving impact properties and good surface appearance (col. 1, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 7, Muschiatti teaches that the composition further comprises a nucleating agent (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Muschiatti teaches a monolayer formed sheet comprising the modified crystallized PET resin of claim 1 (col. 6, lines 5-15).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muschiatti et al (US 5,405,921) in view of Semen et al (US4,483,949) with evidence by Gonzales Montiel et al (US 2007/0049696).
The discussion regarding Muschiatti and Semen in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 4, modified Muschiatti teaches that the compatibilizer is a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (Semen, col. 10, liens 10-20). It is evidenced by Gonzales Montiel that SMA naturally forms an alternating structure ([0012]) and therefore, the SMA of modified Mushiatti would inherently have the alternating structure.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muschiatti et al (US 5,405,921) in view of Semen et al (US4,483,949) and Peiffer et al (US 2019/0389187).
The discussion regarding Muschiatti and Semen in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 5-6, while Muschiatti teaches that additives can be included in the composition, it fails to teach the addition of a free radical scavenger and/or a stabilizer.
Peiffer teaches a transparent package (Abstract) made from polyester and incorporates a free radical scavenger which offers stabilization properties ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the free radical scavenger/stabilizer of Peiffer as an additive of the Muschiatti composition. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of providing thermal stability (Peiffer, [0064]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muschiatti et al (US 5,405,921) in view of Semen et al (US4,483,949) with evidence by Nissel (US 5,318,811).
The discussion regarding Muschiatti and Semen in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, modified Muschiatti fails to teach that the crystalline PET is clear in its amorphous state, however, Nissel provides evidence that PET in the amorphous state is clear (col. 3, lines 20-25). Therefore, the modified crystallized polyethylene terephthalate is inherently clear in the amorphous state.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muschiatti et al (US 5,405,921) in view of Semen et al (US4,483,949) and Porter (US 2003/0205852).
The discussion regarding Muschiatti and Semen in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 11, Muschiatti teaches that thin-walled thermoformed articles can be formed (col. 6, lines 5-15), it fails to teach that the article is a container.
Porter teaches that crystallized polyethylene terephthalate are often made into containers ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the article of Muschiatti made into a container as taught by Porter. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having a container with good dimensional stability over common cooking temperatures (Porter, [0003]).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, please refer to the rejection of claim 1 for the compositional limitations of the claim. Modified Muschiatti teaches a method of making an article by blending the components (Semen, examples) and extruded to form the object (Semen, col. 9, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 13, modified Muschiatti teaches that the crystallized polyethylene terephthalate is mixed with a nucleating agent (Semen, col. 10, lines 40-60) and dried (Semen, col. 9, lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 14, modified Muschiatti teaches pelletizing the extrusion, drying the pelletized material, extruding the dried pelletized material and thermoforming the extruded material (Semen, col. 8, lines 1-10 and col. 9, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 18, Muschiatti teaches that the thermoformed extruded material is clear (col. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Muschiatti teaches that the thermoformed extruded material is a monomaterial (col. 5-6).
Regarding claim 20, please refer to the rejection of claim 1 for the compositional limitations of the claim. Modified Muschiatti teaches a dry blend of the components (Semen, col. 9, lines 20-30) configured for injection molding (Semen, Examples).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muschiatti et al (US 5,405,921) in view of Semen et al (US4,483,949) and Porter (US 2003/0205852) and Peiffer et al (US 2019/0389187).
The discussion regarding Muschiatti, Semen and Porter in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 15, while Muschiatti teaches that additives can be included in the composition, it fails to teach the addition of a free radical scavenger and/or a stabilizer.
Peiffer teaches a transparent package (Abstract) made from polyester and incorporates a free radical scavenger which offers stabilization properties ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the free radical scavenger/stabilizer of Peiffer as an additive of the Muschiatti composition. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of providing thermal stability (Peiffer, [0064]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muschiatti et al (US 5,405,921) in view of Semen et al (US4,483,949) and Porter (US 2003/0205852) with evidence by Gonzales Montiel et al (US 2007/0049696).
The discussion regarding Muschiatti, Semen and Porter in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 17, modified Muschiatti teaches that the compatibilizer is a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (Semen, col. 10, liens 10-20). It is evidenced by Gonzales Montiel that SMA naturally forms an alternating structure ([0012]) and therefore, the SMA of modified Muschiatti would inherently have the alternating structure.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in paragraph 4 of the office action mailed on December 5, 2025 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on March 4, 2026.
It is noted that the arguments pertaining to the Kurihara reference have been considered fully, but as the Kurihara reference is no longer being used in the above prior art rejection, applicant’s arguments pertaining to this reference is considered moot.
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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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 Lanee 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights