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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. (JP 2018-203979A).
Regarding claims 1-7: Hosoda et al. teach a composition comprising polyether ether ketone (polyaryl ether ketone) and a tetrafluoroethylene-propylene copolymer in the claimed proportion of volume [0052; Examples; Table 1] and from 5 to 40 wt% of a S-glass fiber [Claims 9-10].
The amount of S-glass fiber in Hosada et al. overlaps the claimed range.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of fiber for the desired reinforcement. It is a result effective variable.
Since the composition is the same as claimed it will possess the claimed properties. The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Regarding claim 10: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an ultraviolet absorber [0037] to stabilize the composition of Hosoda et al.
Regarding claim 11: Hosoda et al. teach a molded article [Examples; Claims].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. (JP 2018-203979A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Bando (5,389,725).
Hosoda et al. teach adding organic fillers [0037].
Hosoda et al. fail to specify an organic filler.
However, Bando teaches that poly(ethylene tetrafluoride) (polytetrafluoroethylene) is an organic filler for a composition comprising a fluorinated elastomer and polyaryl ether ketone (column 5, lines 50-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by Bando as the organic filler in Hosada et al. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. (JP 2018-203979A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Moniruzzaman et al. (2015/0087767).
Regaridng claim 14: Hosada et al. teach adding a UV absorber [0037].
Hosada et al. fail to teach the amount added.
However, Moniruzzaman et al. teach that UV abosorbers “are generally used in amount of 0.1 to 5 wt% [0136] in polyaryletherketone composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to use 0.1 to 5% as taught by Moniruzzaman et al. as the amount of UV absorber in Hosada et al. to use an art tested amount.
Regarding claim 15: Hosada et al. fail to teach a light stabilizer.
However, Moniruzzaman et al. teach adding 0.1 to 1 wt% of a light stabilizer to a polyaryletherketone composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0.1 to 1 wt% of a light stabilizer as taught by Moniruzzaman et al. to the composition of Hosada et al. to improve the light stability of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has made the argument that Hosada does not necessarily possess the claimed property because Example 2 of Hosoda does not possess the same Izod impact strength as instant Example 5. This is not persuasive because claim 1 requires a higher deflection temperature under load compared to the same composition without inorganic filler. Since the inorganic filler is present in the art rejection above, the property is met. Furthermore, Example 2 of Hosada does not comprise the S-glass fibers.
The Applicant has alleged unexpected results. This is not persuasive for the following reasons:
The claims are not commensurate in scope with the data provided. Claim 1 only claims a range for the inorganic fibers, and the claimed genera are broader than the data will support.
The Applicant has not demonstrated unexpected results over the closest prior art, which is Hosada. The difference between Hosada and claim 1 is 5 to 40 wt% of a S-glass fiber versus 20 to 30 mass% of inorganic filler. The Applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed range.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763