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 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.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0015780 to Kolstad et al.
As to claims 14-15, Kolstad discloses a polyester including ethylene 2,5-furanedicarboxylate units and also includes diethylene glycol in amounts of less than 0.045 (Abstract, Tables and Examples), wherein the polyester has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.65 to 1.0 dl/g (0024) and a melting temperature of values up to 245°C (0031). At the time of filing it would have been obvious to prepare the polyester with higher melting temperature values because the increase in crystallinity affects desired physical properties such as density (0031).
As to claim 16, Kolstad disclose a polydispersity index of 1.9 to 2.6, which touches the claimed values. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties, See MPEP 2100.
As to claim 17, with regard to the glass transition temperature, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients including the same properties and amounts of each reactant. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. Tg values would implicitly be achieved by a composite with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicants’ position; and (2) it would the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
As to claims 18-20 and 23, Kolstad disclose a process of transesterfying FDCA with ethylene glycol at a molar ratio of 1.3:1 or greater in the presence of Lewis acid catalysts such as titanium or zirconium alkoxides (0058), including titanium isopropoxide (See Examples in Sipos) conducted at temperatures of 220°C (range from 160 to 240°C) and times of 90 to 160 minutes under 0.9 to 5 bar pressure (0039), followed by pressure reduction and polycondensation at temperatures from 240-260°C for 90-120 minutes (0068, Table 1, 0070). Please note reference to WO-2010/077133 to Sipos and WO-2013/120989 to Hess for further transesterification conditions (0040).
As to claims 21-22, Kolstad in reference to Hess discloses multiple steps of transesterification that includes ramping temperatures and decreasing pressure values in stages. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the reaction conditions of Kolstad within the parameters claimed as taught in Hess (0021-0025) to ensure that the reactants are present in a homogeneous mixture so that the most complete conversion is possible (0020).
As to claim 24, Kolstad with reference to Hess disclose a shaping step wherein the polycondensate is cooled, dried at 100 to 200°C (0033), and prepared into granules or powders (0032).
As to claim 25, Kolstad with reference to Hess disclose a two stage post treatment of removing volatile reaction products under reduced pressure and temperatures of 100 to 200°C (0047).
As to claim 26, Kolstad discloses a final step wherein the polyester is subjected to extrusion (0061).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763