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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement sent on August 20, 2025 is withdrawn. All claims have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 12, 15, 17 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, the phrase “within 0.05 to 0.02 of the first refractive index” is unclear because does the applicant mean a range of refractive indexes that have a difference between 0.02 to 0.05 with a difference of 0.01 outside the scope of the invention? Or does applicant mean to claim a range of 0-0.02 to a range of 0-0.05? The word “within” is confusing and does not clearly define the scope of the claimed invention. The examiner suggests changing the above phrase to read “within 0.05 of the first refractive index”, thereby more clearly stating the scope of the invention. This would be in line with the dependent claim 10 which would further limit the 0.05 to 0.02.
Regarding claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation “dried mixture”. Perhaps this claim should depend from claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, it appears that the styrene-maleic anhydride is the compatibilizer rather than the impact modifier.
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, 6-7, 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semen et al (US 4,483,949) in view of Kurihara et al (US 2011/0114902).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Semen teaches a modified crystallized polyethylene terephthalate resin comprising: a crystallized polyethylene terephthalate (col. 2, lines 5-10), an impact modifier (col 10, lines 60-65) and a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (col. 10, lines 10-20) as the compatibilizer.
Semen does not teach the refractive index of the three components in relation to each other in the recited range. However, it is well known in the art to optimize result effective variables such as refractive index of components to achieve transparency. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the refractive index of the components to be 0.05 or less, 0.02 or less and even more preferably 0.01 or less, and the motivation to so would have been, as Kurihara suggests, to have thermoplastic resin molded objects to have good transparency with different components (Kurihara, [0209]).
Regarding claim 2, Semen teaches that the impact modifier is a styrene-butadiene (col. 10, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 3, Semen teaches that the impact modifier is a non-reactive copolymer (col. 10, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 6, Semen teaches that the resin further contains a stabilizer such as an anti-oxidant (col. 9, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 7, Semen teaches that the resin further comprises a nucleating agent (col. 10, lines 40-60).
Regarding claim 9, Semen teaches a monolayer formed sheet comprising the modified crystalline polyethylene terephthalate resin of claim 1 (Examples, test bars).
Regarding claim 20, Semen teaches a dry blend (col. 9, lines 20-30) configured for injection molding (Examples) of crystallized polyethylene terephthalate resin comprising: a crystallized polyethylene terephthalate (col. 2, lines 5-10), an impact modifier (col 10, lines 60-65) and a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (col. 10, lines 10-20) as the compatibilizer.
Semen does not teach the refractive index of the three components in relation to each other in the recited range. However, it is well known in the art to optimize result effective variables such as refractive index of components to achieve transparency. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the refractive index of the components to be 0.05 or less, 0.02 or less and even more preferably 0.01 or less, and the motivation to so would have been, as Kurihara suggests, to have thermoplastic resin molded objects to have good transparency with different components (Kurihara, [0209]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semen et al (US 4,483,949) in view of Kurihara et al (US 2011/0114902) with evidence provided by Gonzales Montiel et al (US 2007/0049696).
The discussion regarding Semen and Kurihara in paragraph 6 above is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 4, Semen teaches that the compatibilizer is a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (col. 01, lines 10-20). It is evidenced by Gonzales Montiel that SMA naturally form an alternating structure ([0012]) and, therefore, the SMA of Semen would inherently have the recited alternating structure.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semen et al (US 4,483,949) in view of Kurihara et al (US 2011/0114902) and Al Ghatta et al (US 6,057,016).
The discussion regarding Semen and Kurihara in paragraph 6 above is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 5, Semen teaches that other conventional additives such as antioxidants can be added to the composition (col. 9, lines 5-10), however fails to teach the addition of a free radical scavenger.
Al Ghatta teaches a polyester resin with an antioxidant which acts as a free-radical scavenger (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the composition of Semen to incorporate the free-radical scavenger as taught by Al Ghatta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of reducing contaminants from the resin composition (Al Ghatta, col. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semen et al (US 4,483,949) in view of Kurihara et al (US 2011/0114902) with evidence provided by Nissel (US 5,318,811).
The discussion regarding Semen and Kurihara in paragraph 6 above is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 8, modified Semen 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) 11-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semen et al (US 4,483,949) in view of Kurihara et al (US 2011/0114902) and Porter (US 2003/0205852).
The discussion regarding Semen and Kurihara in paragraph 6 above is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 11, while Semen teaches that articles are made from the blend, 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 Semen 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 18, Semen method of making an article (Examples) by blending (Examples) of crystallized polyethylene terephthalate resin comprising: a crystallized polyethylene terephthalate (col. 2, lines 5-10), an impact modifier (col 10, lines 60-65) and a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (col. 10, lines 10-20) as the compatibilzer. The blend is extruded (col. 9, lines 10-20) to form the object.
Semen does not teach the refractive index of the three components in relation to each other in the recited range. However, it is well known in the art to optimize result effective variables such as refractive index of components to achieve transparency. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the refractive index of the components to be 0.05 or less, 0.02 or less and even more preferably 0.01 or less, and the motivation to so would have been, as Kurihara suggests, to have thermoplastic resin molded objects to have good transparency with different components (Kurihara, [0209]).
While Semen teaches that articles are made from the blend, 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 Semen 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 claim 13, Semen teaches that the crystallized polyethylene terephthalate is mixed with a nucleating agent (col. 10, lines 40-60) and drying the mixture (col. 9, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 14, Semen teaches pelletizing the extrusion, drying the pelletized material, extruding the dried pelletized material and thermoforming the extruded material (col. 8, lines 1-10 and col. 9, lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 15, Semen teaches that the resin further contains a stabilizer such as an anti-oxidant (col. 9, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 16, Semen teaches that the impact modifier is a styrene butadiene (col. 10, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 19, as Semen teaches that all the components are thoroughly blended and extruded (Examples), it would be considered a monomaterial.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semen et al (US 4,483,949) in view of Kurihara et al (US 2011/0114902) and Porter (US 2003/0205852) with evidence provided by Gonzales Montiel et al (US 2007/0049696).
The discussion regarding Semen, Kurihara and Porter in paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
The discussion regarding Semen and Kurihara in paragraph 6 above is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 17, Semen teaches that the compatibilizer is a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (col. 01, lines 10-20). It is evidenced by Gonzales Montiel that SMA naturally form an alternating structure ([0012]) and, therefore, the SMA of Semen would inherently have the recited alternating structure.
Conclusion
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