DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The submission filed on 04/14/2023 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are currently under examination.
Priority
This US Application No. 18/134,577 is filed on 04/14/2023 and claims foreign priority of JAPAN 2022-066754 filed on 04/14/2022 and JAPAN 2023-010715 filed on 01/27/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I invention (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Thus, claims 1-5 are currently under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/14/2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, change the incorrect recitation “represented by” (line 5) and “represents” (last line), which means one of many, to “of” and “is”, respectively; and replace the incorrect recitations “where R's each independently represent hydrogen atoms or alkyl carbonyl groups” and “at least one of R’s is” (last 2 lines) with “wherein R is each independently hydrogen atom or alkyl carbonyl group” and “at least one R is”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because the claim includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant is advised to change the recitation “Chemical Formula 1” immediately beneath the chemical structure to “(Chemical Formula 1)”.
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 1-5 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “alkyl carbonyl group” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “carboxylic acid,” while the accepted meaning is “alkyl carbonyl group after acylation” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0038631, Feb. 5, 2015, hereinafter referred to as Hamaguchi ‘631) in view of Gan et al. (Polymer Degradation and Stability 145:142-149, 2017, hereinafter referred to as Gan ‘2017).
With regard to structural limitations “a resin composition comprising: a ß-1,3-glucan derivative resin with a main chain of the following Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R is each independently hydrogen or alkyl carbonyl group after acylation, at least one R is alkyl carbonyl group, and n is a natural number; and talc having an average particle diameter of 10 μm or less (or a mass ratio in parts by mass of the talc to the ß-1,3-glucan derivative resin at 1:100 to 10:100; or the talc having an aspect ratio of 4 or greater; or the alkyl carbonyl group is one of acetyl group, propionyl group, butyryl group, a pentanoyl group, and a hexanoyl group)” (claims 1-4) and “further comprising a flame retardant (for example, mica)” (claim 5):
Hamaguchi ‘631 disclosed a liquid crystalline polyester resin composition, comprising: 100 parts by weight of a liquid crystalline polyester (A) having a ratio (a)/[(a)+(b)] of an amount of terminal hydroxyl group (a) to a sum of the amount of terminal hydroxyI group (a) and an amount of terminal acetyl group (b) which is 0.70 to 1.00; and 10 to 100 parts by weight of a mica (B), wherein the mica (B) included in the liquid crystalline polyester resin composition has a volume-average particle size of 10 to 50 μm and has an aspect ratio of 50 to 100. The liquid crystalline polyester resin composition further comprises 5 to 70 parts by weight of a talc (D) relative to 100 parts by weight of the liquid crystalline polyester (A). It is especially preferable to use the talc having the number-average particle size of not greater than 10 μm, which has specifically high tracking resistance (pages 3/21 to 4/21, [0008 and 0014]; page 9/21, [0075]). Talc: (D-1) "NK-48" manufactured by FUJI TALC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. (number-average particle size before mixing: 26 μm); (D-2) "PKP-53" manufactured by FUJI TALC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. (number-average particle size before mixing: 18.5 μm); (D-3) "P-6" manufactured by Nippon Talc Co., Ltd. (number-average particle size before mixing: 4.0 μm); (D-4) "SG-2000" manufactured by Nippon Talc Co., Ltd. (number-average particle size before mixing: 1.0 μm); (D-5) "ULLTRATALC 609" manufactured by Specialty Minerals Inc. (number-average particle size before mixing: 0.9 μm).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
*16: Resistance to tracking breakdown (V) (page 16/21 [0131]; page 19/21, Table 4). With increased demand for high-performance plastics, many polymers having various novel properties have been developed, especially noted are liquid crystalline resins such as liquid crystalline polyester having optical anisotropy characterized by the parallel alignment of molecular chain and having good moldability and good mechanical properties )page 3/21, [0002]).
Hamaguchi ‘631 did not explicitly disclose the structural limitations “a ß-1,3-glucan derivative resin with a main chain of the following Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R is each independently hydrogen or alkyl carbonyl group after acylation, at least one R is alkyl carbonyl group, and n is a natural number”, and “a mass ratio in parts by mass of the talc to the ß-1,3-glucan derivative resin at 1:100 to 10:100; or the talc having an aspect ratio of 4 or greater; or the alkyl carbonyl group is one of acetyl group, propionyl group, butyryl group, a pentanoyl group, and a hexanoyl group”, required by claims 1-4.
Gan ‘2017 disclosed paramylon triesters having higher thermal degradation temperatures than that of neat paramylon, a ß-(1,3)-D-glucan. Moreover, it was found that the paramylon triesters with C2-C6 alkyl chains (PaAc, PaPr, PaBu, PaVa, PaHe) are crystalline polymers with melting temperatures from 281 oC to 114 oC, and those with C8-C12 alkyl chains are amorphous polymers, Paramylon triesters with C3-C12 alkyl chains could shape self-sustaining films by both solvent-casting and melt-quench methods with high optical transmittance and sufficient tensile strength or elongation at break. Comparing with general engineering plastics, Tm of PaAc (281 oC) is higher than that of polyethylene terephthalate (PET, Tm = 269 oC). Furthermore, PaPr, PaBu, and PaVa have Tm of 221 oC, 207 oC, and 196 oC, respectively, which are higher than that of polypropylene (PP, Tm = 175 oC). Considering that the Tm of all of the crystalline paramylon triesters are significantly lower than the thermal degradation temperature of around 330 oC, these ester derivatives have relatively good thermal plasticity during the molding process, which is conducted above the melting temperature. Environment friendly bio-based plastics have attracted a lot of attentions because the manufacturing process of plastics derived from petroleum will accelerate global warming (page 142, Abstract; page 146, right col., para. 1; page 142, left col., para. 1).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the generic polyester plastic as taught by Hamaguchi ‘631 with the ß-(1,3)-D-glucan paramylon triesters having C2-C6 alkyl chains (PaAc, PaPr, PaBu, PaVa, PaHe) in view of Gan ‘2017, followed by selecting optimal size and aspect ratio of filler, including talc, to prepare an environment-friendly bio-based crystalline plastics having sufficient tensile strength or elongation at break and relatively good thermal plasticity during the molding process, as described above. Thus, one of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that by substituting the generic polyester plastic as taught by Hamaguchi ‘631 with the ß-(1,3)-D-glucan paramylon triesters having C2-C6 alkyl chains (PaAc, PaPr, PaBu, PaVa, PaHe) in view of Gan ‘2017, followed by selecting optimal size and aspect ratio of filler, including talc, one would achieve Applicant’s claims 1-5. "Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results". See MPEP § 2143 [R-01.2024] [I]. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 [R-01.2024] [II.A].
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIH-HORNG SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 08:30 am to 07:00 pm EST.
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, Deirdre (Renee) Claytor can be reached at 571-272-8394. 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.
/YIH-HORNG SHIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691