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 .
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012/213997 Hirata et al., the machine English translation provided by the Examiner being referenced below unless otherwise noted, in view of JP 2018-048227 Ota et al., the machine English translation provided by the Examiner being referenced below unless otherwise noted, and JP 1992-013719 Tajiri et al., the machine English translation provided by the Examiner being referenced below unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-8:
Hirata discloses a method for producing fiber-reinforced polybutylene terephthalate in which a resin composition containing polybutylene terephthalate and reinforcing fibers is processed with a twin screw extruder having a first kneading part, a second kneading part, and a vent. See Hirata, page 2, lines 3-7 and 12-23, noting the plasticizing kneading step of lines 15-16 and the following kneading step of lines 17-19 and noting that the two separate kneading steps would necessarily require the instantly claimed first and second kneading parts, page 3, lines 1-22, page 4, lines 1-23, noting the polybutylene terephthalate of lines 5-6 and the combination of polybutylene terephthalate and glass fibers of lines 21-23, page 9, lines 6-10, page 15, lines 11-13, noting that the polybutylene terephthalate is disclosed as being in the form of pellets, lines 16-17, and lines 19-22, page 16, lines 16-22, page 17, lines 1-2, noting the two kneading discs and the seal ring which fall within the scope of those of the instant claims, page 18, lines 15-19, noting the two kneading discs and the seal ring which fall within the scope of those of the instant claims, and the remainder of the document including the examples and Figures.
Hirata, page 3, line 3, discloses the torque density as being 11 Nm/cm3 or more which encompasses the torque densities of the instant claims including the instant claims 1 and 8. Hirata, page 28, lines 10-11 discloses the preferred torque density to be 13-18 Nm/cm3, which falls within the scope of the instant claims, including the instant claims 1 and 8.
Additionally, Hirata, page 15, lines 4-8, teaches that low viscosity resins, including polybutylene terephthalate, are more likely to cause the problem of unraveled thermoplastic resin bundles because, when the viscosity is low, shear stress is less likely to be generated in the molten state and the glass fiber bundle obtained by bundling the mono-filaments is less likely to be defibrated. It would be readily apparent that increasing the torque density to higher values in the range of Hirata would have been expected to give increased shear stress to counter this stated problem because torque is twisting force and applying more force to the molten polybutylene terephthalate/glass fiber mass would have been expected to further defibrillate the fiber bundles from this teaching of Hirata.
In their examples, Hirata uses 67.5 mass% of polybutylene terephthalate and 30 mass% of glass fiber bundle which falls within the scope of the instantly claimed ingredient amounts. See Hirata, page 31, lines 7-9.
Hirata, at paragraphs [0023] and [0104], discloses adding a vacuum vent downstream of the kneading section.
Hirata, page 32, line 17 discloses the length of the second kneading section as 2.5, which falls within the scope of the instant claim 5. See Fig. 4(e) of the Japanese document.
Hirata does not disclose the intrinsic viscosity of their polybutylene terephthalate.
Hirata does not disclose the weight of their polybutylene terephthalate pellets.
Hirata does not disclose the length of the first kneading part.
Hirata does not disclose adding styrenic polymer at a quantity of 5 to 30 mass% according to the instant claim 2.
Hirata does not disclose the length of the second kneading part of the instant claim 5.
Ota discloses a method for producing thermoplastic resin composition using a twin-screw extruder. The extruder has a first kneading zone having a zone length of 3 to 12 D and a second kneading zone. The thermoplastic containing polybutylene terephthalate and styrenic polymer is melt-kneaded. The thermoplastic is supplied through a first supply port. Glass fiber is used in an amount of 0.01-150 parts by mass. Ota also describes using a torque density of 11 Nm/cm3 or more or preferably 18.4 Nm/cm3 in order to achieve high-speed conveying and extrusion. These torque densities are similar to those of Hirata.
See Ota, page
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use the high torque densities of Hirata which fall within the scope of those of the instant claims with the instantly claimed first kneading part lengths of the instant claims, including the instant claims 1, because Hirata and Ota together suggest the use of such extruder dimensions with high torque densities of the instant claims, and the higher torque densities of Hirata and Ota coupled with the first kneading part lengths of Ota would have been expected to provide only predictable results to the process of Hirata in view of Ota, including predictable high-speed of conveying and extruding the polymer compositions.
The increased fibration expected from the of high torque density of Hirata and Ota from the entirety of the teachings of Hirata, including page 15, lines 4-8, and the high-speed conveyance and high-speed of extruding the polymer compositions would have been expected to increase the physical properties of the final polymer compositions due to reduced amounts of undefibrated glass fiber bundles and reduced times at higher temperatures which would have been expected to necessarily and inherently give the properties of the instant claims 6 and 7 because the compositions of Hirata are similar to those of the instant claims and the similar processing of Hirata is shown to give increased fibration which would have been expected to increase the physical properties of the composition. Decreased heating times would have been expected to reduce degradation from heating. See MPEP 2112.
Tajiri, page 4, lines 1-6, particularly line 6, and page 7, line 15 to page 8, line 5, particularly line 5 discloses polybutylene terephthalate pellets that weight 1-30 mg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use polybutylene terephthalate pellets of the weights of the instant claims because Hirata does not limit the weight of their polybutylene terephthalate pellets and therefore encompasses the instantly claimed weights thereof, Tajiri shows the instantly claimed polybutylene terephthalate pellet weights to be conventional, and the use of the larger weight pellets of Tajiri in the method of Hirata discussed above would have been expected to avoid the use of fines in the smaller sizes of Tajiri which create dust and to give pellets that readily flow into the ports of the extruder.
Ota, page 2, lines 7-8 discloses mixing hydrogenated material of a block copolymer of an aromatic vinyl compound in an amount of 2-20 parts by mass. Ota, page 30, lines 9-23, particularly lines 19-21, and page 31, lines 1-18, noting the polybutylene terephthalate of line 5, encompasses using styrene copolymers in admixture with other polymers, including polybutylene terephthalate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use the styrenic copolymers of Ota as their copolymer of aromatic vinyl compound in amounts thereof of the instant claim 2 in combination with their polybutylene terephthalate in the above discussed methods of Hirata because such combinations are encompassed by Ota and would have been expected to give only predictable results to the process and final product of Hirata.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to heat the product in the extrusion process of Hirata above to the temperatures of the instant claim 3 because the melting point of polybutylene terephthalate is about 223℃, which necessitates that the temperature be above that for extrusion, higher temperatures would have been expected to lower the viscosity of the polymer so that it is easier and quicker to extrude it and it coats the glass fibers more easily because it flows more easily, the skilled artisan would be aware to avoid degrading temperatures from undergraduate chemistry courses, the higher temperatures would have been expected to aid in removal of volatiles, and Hirata encompasses any such resin strand temperature by not limiting their resin strand temperatures of the instant claim 3.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012/213997 Hirata et al., the machine English translation provided by the Examiner being referenced below unless otherwise noted, in view of JP 2018-048227 Ota et al., the machine English translation provided by the Examiner being referenced below unless otherwise noted, and JP 1992-013719 Tajiri et al., the machine English translation provided by the Examiner being referenced below unless otherwise noted, as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-8 in paragraph 2 above, further in view of EP 3342823 Park et al.
The entire discussion of paragraph 2 above is repeated here.
Regarding claim 4:
Park, paragraph [0079] discloses polybutylene terephthalate having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.83 dl/g. This is lower than the other intrinsic viscosities of the polybutylene terephthalates of Park, such as the next PBT having an intrinsic viscosity of 1.20 dl/g. These PBTs are processed with glass fiber extruded into pellets noting paragraph [0080], particularly the cylinder temperature which infers the use of an extruder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use polybutylene terephthalate of Hirata having the intrinsic viscosities of the instant claim 4 because Hirata, page 15, lines 8-9 desires using polybutylene terephthalate of low viscosity, the intrinsic viscosity is a result effective variable as shown by Hirata, page 15, lines 5-9, Park shows polybutylene terephthalate having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.83 dl/g to be commercially available and to be a lower intrinsic viscosity that is taken as being encompassed by Hirata’s desire to use low viscosity polybutylene terephthalate, and the processing thereof and properties of the final products using this polybutylene terephthalate in the process of Hirata would have been expected to be predictable to the ordinary skilled artisan particularly in view of the teachings of Hirata referenced above.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D NILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert S Jones, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-7733. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PATRICK D NILAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762