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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 7/31/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 7/31/2026. In particular, claims 21-24 are new. To reject claims 21 and 22, original claims and 6 are appropriately rejected with new grounds. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 108485265, machine translation) in view of Goto (JP 2013-249562, machine translation).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 4 of Office action mailed on 5/5/2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Claims 4, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 108485265, machine translation) in view of Goto (JP 2013-249562, machine translation) and further in view of Yamada (WO 2019/009234, English-language equivalent US 2020/015522 relied for citations).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 5 of Office action mailed on 5/5/2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 108485265, machine translation) in view of Goto (JP 2013-249562, machine translation) and further in view of Akiyama (US 8,044,142).
The discussion with respect to Guo and Goto in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Guo does not disclose that the polyarylene sulfide resin is a blend of polyarylene sulfide having a linear structure and a polyarylene sulfide having a crosslinked structure in a 1:3 to 3:1 ratio.
Akiyama discloses a polyphenylene sulfide resin composition comprising polyphenylene sulfide comprising 0-96 wt % of linear polyphenylene sulfide and 4-100 wt % of a crosslinking-type polyphenylene sulfide resin (abstract). Akiyama teaches that utilizing a blend of the linear crosslinking-type allows for improved combination of properties including mechanical strength, heat resistance, and toughness (col. 2, lines 26-46). Preferred ratio of linear to crosslinking-type are 1:9 to 9:1 and 15-80:85-20 (col. 12, lines 12-28).
Given that Akiyama teaches the known advantages of selecting a blend of linear and crosslinking-type polyphenylene sulfide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the same blend in the molding composition taught by Guo and Goto.
Claims 1, 6, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 108485265, machine translation) in view of Mikami (JP 2016-196711, machine translation).
Guo discloses a polyphenylthioether (i.e, polyphenylene sulfide resin) composite material (blended) with fast crystallization performance comprising 20-60 wt % polyphenylene sulfide, 20-40 wt % glass fiber, and 10-40 wt % inorganic mineral filling materials (abstract).
Guo fails to disclose (i) isothermal crystallization time of 9 seconds or less or (ii) a sizing agent on the surface of the glass fibers.
With respect to (i), Guo teaches that the aim of the invention is to prepare polyphenylene sulfide composite materials with “fast crystallization rates, low mold temperature requirements, and short molding cycles” (paragraphs 0007 and 0009).
While it does not explicitly teach the isothermal crystallization time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a polyarylene sulfide composition having an isothermal crystallization time of 9 seconds or shorter to obtain desired fast crystallization rates and short molding cycles.
With respect to (ii), Mikami discloses a fiber sizing agent for glass fibers to provide adhesion at the interface with a matrix resin and thereby significantly improving strength to a molded article (abstract; paragraph 0078) comprising a polyphenylene sulfide as a thermoplastic matrix resin (paragraph 0079). The sizing agent comprises a urethane resin having an epoxy group (i.e., epoxy resin) and a polyether resin of formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
36
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where A is an alkylene other than ethylene, E is ethylene, m = 0-200 and n = 1-350 (abstract) such as polyethylene glycol (i.e., polyoxyethylene glycol).
Given that both Gao and Mikami disclose glass-reinforced polyphenylene sulfide compositions and further given that Mikami teaches that adding a sizing agent to the glass fibers imparts improved interfacial adhesion and strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the surface of the glass fibers with a sizing agent comprising epoxy resin, a polyether resin such as polyoxyethylene glycol, and a silane coupling agent having a functional group.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 108485265, machine translation) in view of Mikami (JP 2016-196711, machine translation) and further in view of Akiyama (US 8,044,142).
The discussion with respect to Guo and Mikami in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Guo does not disclose that the polyarylene sulfide resin is a blend of polyarylene sulfide having a linear structure and a polyarylene sulfide having a crosslinked structure in a 1:3 to 3:1 ratio.
Akiyama discloses a polyphenylene sulfide resin composition comprising polyphenylene sulfide comprising 0-96 wt % of linear polyphenylene sulfide and 4-100 wt % of a crosslinking-type polyphenylene sulfide resin (abstract). Akiyama teaches that utilizing a blend of the linear crosslinking-type allows for improved combination of properties including mechanical strength, heat resistance, and toughness (col. 2, lines 26-46). Preferred ratio of linear to crosslinking-type are 1:9 to 9:1 and 15-80:85-20 (col. 12, lines 12-28).
Given that Akiyama teaches the known advantages of selecting a blend of linear and crosslinking-type polyphenylene sulfide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the same blend in the molding composition taught by Guo and Mikami.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Goto does not disclose a polyether resin.
In claims 1 and 6, the composition includes “a polyether resin.” Goto discloses a urethane resin having “alkoxypolyoxyethylene structure,” i.e., a polyether resin. The examiner agrees that the specific compounds of claims 21 and 22 are not met by Goto.
Applicant argues that Goto does not fairly disclose that sizing agent includes at least 65 mass % of epoxy resin and polyether.
Goto teaches that the fiber sizing agent includes up to 80 mass % of solid content (paragraph 0080) and teaches that the solids content contains 80-85 mass % of epoxy resin and 10-65 mass % of the urethane resin with polyether groups (paragraphs 0016-0017). Also, in the claimed polyarylene sulfide resin composition, the sizing agent is previously applied to the glass fibers, i.e., “having been subjected to surface treatment,” i.e., the sizing agent composition is part of a process limitation in a product claim. Case law holds that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As such, the aqueous solvent in Goto’s sizing agent is not present in the final treated and dried treated glass fibers of the claims. Therefore, Goto clearly suggests using at least 65 mass % of epoxy resin and polyether urethane resin.
Applicant argues that the data of the specification as originally filed establish unexpected results for a sizing agent comprising at least 65 mass % of epoxy resin and polyether resin.
The data has been fully considered, however, it is insufficient to establish unexpected results because the data is not a proper comparison to the closest prior art. Case law holds that comparative showings must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979). Specifically, Comparative Example 1 does not include a polyether resin, and Comparative Example 2 includes “42% of other components” without specifying what those other components are or if they are even taught by Goto. Also, the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Specifically, the inventive examples only include glass fibers treated with “epoxy resin” and “polyether resin,” neither of which is specified or capable of being representative of claimed epoxy resin and polyether resin.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights