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. DETAILED ACTION 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . Claim s 1-4 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al (WO 2020/196598, English equivalent US 2022/0186022, of record, ‘022 hereafter) in view of Yoshida et al (US 4,737,540, ‘ 540 hereafter) and Shim et al (US2008 0167410, of record, ‘410 hereafter) . Regarding claim s 1-4, ‘022 discloses a polyester resin composition and a molded article formed from the composition ([0017]-[0025] , [0061]-[0063], Examples ) ; wherein the composition compris es 20 to 35 parts by mass of a polybutylene terephthalate resin (A , PBT ) ([0028]- [ 0030]) , 1 to 10 parts by mass of a polyethylene terephthalate resin (B , PET ) ([0031]-[0032]) , 6 to 22 parts by mass of a copolymerized polyester resin (C) ([0036], [0042], PBT-based copolyester plus PET-based copolyester) , 1 to 6 parts by mass of a polycarbonate-based resin (D) ([0045]) , and 22.5 to 5 4 parts by mass of a carbon fiber-based reinforcement (E) ([0048], [0053], 50% carbon fiber in total fiber reinforcing material, 45% x 50%=22.5%) , with respect to total amount of (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) being 1 00 parts by mass . ‘022 fails to name an embodiment having each of the aforementioned components in mass amounts within the presently claimed range; h owever, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the amount ranges of each compo nent taught by ‘022 overlap the instantly claimed ranges; therefore , i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any amount in the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference including the instantly claimed ranges, particularly in view of the fact that : "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages", In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Mala,qari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. ‘022 also discloses that the polyester resin composition has 0.15 parts by mass of an transesterification inhibitor with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of polyester resin composition ([0104], Table 1), and bending modulus (reading upon flexural modulus) more than 30 GPa ([0057]) . ‘022 does not disclose that the molded article has a surface roughness as presently claimed, which can be decorated with a hot-stamping foil as claimed ; however, as discussed above, ‘022 fairly suggest a polyester resin composition having polybutylene terephthalate resin , polyethylene terephthalate resin , copolyester resin and carbo n fiber ; which is substantially identical to the polyester resin composition as presently claimed ; thus it is reasonable to expect that the polyester composition of ’022 can be used to form a molded article having surface roughness in the instantly claimed range and is capable of being decorated by hot-stamping foil , in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112). Claim s 1-4 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schellekens et al; (US 2020/0190316, ‘316 hereafter) in view of Shimizu et al (WO 2020/196598, English equivalent US 2022/0186022, of record, ‘022 hereafter) . Regarding claims 1-4, ‘316 discloses a polyester resin composition and a molded article formed from the composition ([0002]-[0007], [0031]-[0037]) , wherein the composition comprises 40 to 70 wt% of a polybutylene terephthalate resin (A , PBT ) respect to total weight of the composition ([0003], [0012], [0032] ) , 10 to 40 wt% of a polyethylene terephthalate resin (B , PET ) respect to total weight of the composition ([0004], [0014], [0033]) , and 2 to 10 wt% of a carbon fiber respect to total weight of the composition ([0006], [0019], [0035]) . ‘316 does not disclose that the composition further includes a copolyester being PET-based copolymer ester or PBT-based copolyester with a content range of 3 to 20 parts per 100 parts of the composition; however, in the same field of endeavor, ‘022 discloses a polyester resin composition ([0017]-[0025], [0061]-[0063], Examples) comprising a PBT ([0028]-[0030]) , a PET ([0031]-[0032]) , 6 to 22 parts by mass of a copolymerized polyester resin being PBT-based copolyester and/or PET-based copolyester per 100 parts of the composition ([0036], [0042]), a polycarbonate-based resin ([0045]) , and a carbon fiber ([0048], [0053]) ; wherein the copolymer is added to improve the appearance of the molded article ([0036], [0042]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the copolyester as taught by ‘022, to modify the polyester resin composition of ‘316, in order to render a polyester resin composition being capable of forming an article with better appearance. Modified ‘316 does not name an embodiment having each of the aforementioned components in amounts within the presently claimed range; h owever, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the amount ranges of each compo nent taught by modified ‘316 significantly overlap the instantly claimed ranges; therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any amount in the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference s including the instantly claimed ranges, particularly in view of the fact that : "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages", In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Mala,qari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. ‘022 also discloses that the composition further includes 0.15 parts of an transesterification inhibitor with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of polyester resin composition ([0104], Table 1), and a bending modulus (reading upon flexural modulus) more than 30 GPa ([0057]). Modified ‘316 does not disclose that the molded article has a surface roughness as presently claimed which can be decorated with a hot-stamping foil ; however, as discussed above, ‘ 316 fairly suggest s a polyester resin composition having polybutylene terephthalate resin , polyethylene terephthalate resin , copolyester resin and carbo n fiber ; which is substantially identical to the polyester resin composition as presently claimed ; thus it is reasonable to expect that the polyester composition of modified ’ 316 can be used to form a molded article having surface roughness in the instantly claimed range and is capable of being decorated by hot-stamping foil, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7934 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00-5:00 PM . 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, Arron Austin can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8935 . 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. /RUIYUN ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782