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 .
This communication is responsive to the claim set filed on 09/14/2023 and Response to Restriction filed on 06/05/2026.
Claims 7-12 are currently pending. The elected claims 7-10 are under consideration in this Office Action. The non-elected claims 11-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 7-10 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 7-10 in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “and 3 parts by weight to 25 parts by weight of an olefinic elastomer resin
(B), which are mixed with each other, wherein the melt viscosity at the temperature of 320°C, the ratio LID of the orifice length L to the orifice diameter D of 40 and the shear rate of 4,700/s is 120 Pa·s or more and 200 Pa·s or less, and a weight loss on heating is 0.8% by weight or less when heated in an air atmosphere at the temperature of 320°C for 2 hours.”
It is confusing if melt viscosity of 120 Pa·s or more and 200 Pa·s or less and the weight loss on heat are referring to the polyphenylene sulfide resin composition or the olefinic elastomer resin (B). In accordance with the US Application publication para. [0098] –[0099], the melt viscosity and weight loss on heating are interpreted as the melt viscosity and weight loss on heating of a polyphenylene sulfide resin composition.
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 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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchiyama et al. (US2014/0343215 A1), as evidenced by Hisataka (EP3660375 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Ouchiyama teaches a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resin composition comprising PPS resin (A) and PPS resin (B) (claim 1), and 1 to 70 parts by weight of a functional group-containing olefin copolymer (E) relative to 100 parts by weight of a total of PPS (A) and PPS (B) (claim 5). Attention is drawn to Examples 10-16, wherein each PPS composition contains 10 or 20 parts of an olefin copolymer per 100 parts of the PPS resins. And wherein the preferred olefin copolymers are Bondfast E of Sumitomo which is one of the preferred olefinic elastomer resin of the instant application. Another preferred olefin copolymer of Ouchiyama is TAFMER TX-610 manufactured by Mitsui Chemicals, according to Hisataka, TAFMER TX-610 is an olefinic elastomer resin ([0047]).
Ouchiyama further teaches the suitable PPS resin (A) has a melt viscosity from 1 to 1,000 Pa·s (300° C., shear rate: 1000/s) ([0042]) and the suitable PPS resin (B) has a melt viscosity from 5 to 10,000 Pa ·s (300° C., shear rate: 1000/s ) ([0105]). Although the malt viscosities are not measured at 310° C. and shear rate: 1,216/s, the temperature and shear rate are close to those of the instant application, and Ouchiyama discloses such broad range, one ordinary skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred that the melt viscosities of PPS resins of Ouchiyama overlap the claimed 200 Pa·s or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected PPS reins having melt viscosities in the range of the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ouchiyama, before the effective filing date of the instant application. (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Ouchiyama furthermore teaches the PPS composition has weight loss (3200C X 2hr) less than 0.8% (Examples 10-16).
The Office realizes that Ouchiyama is silent on the melt viscosity of the PPS composition. However, Ouchiyama teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed mount. Therefore, the melt viscosity would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Ouchiyama teaches the PPS resin (B-1) was detected only 70 ppm Na content, no other alkali metals were detected. According to the instant specification para. [0112], the ash content was calculated as a percentage of the weight of the residue per unit weight of the PPS resin (A) before firing, and PPS resin was fired at 5500C for 6 hours. It implies that the ash content is equivalent to content of metals. Therefore, the PPS resin (B-1) has an ash content of 70 ppm, falling within the claimed 0.1 wt.% or less.
Ouchiyama further teaches that alkali metal hydrosulfide and alkali metal acetate are used in producing PPS (A) ([0052] and [0065]). Ouchiyama furthermore teaches adding alkali metal acetate into purified PPS resin (A) for post polymerization treatment ([0094]). Moreover, Ouchiyama discloses that different purification methods resulting different metal contents contained in the final PPS resins. For example, the Reference Example 1 reaction contains 93.1 mol sodium, the sodium content is 120 ppm in PPS resin (A) after purification including filtration with 80 wire mesh; whereas, Reference Example 3 reaction contains 70 mol sodium, the sodium content is 976 ppm in PPS resin (A) after purification including filtration with glass filter. In light of alkali metal acetate is need for PPS resin (A) post-polymerization treatment and different filtration methods cost differently, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the instant application, to would have optimized the content of metal in the PPS resin (A) to the amount falling within or overlapping the claimed amounts, without unexpected results, by routine experimentation, for balancing the amount of alkali metal acetate for post polymerization treatment and costs of purification. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding Claim 9, Ouchiyama teaches producing PPS resin (A) from a polyhalogenated aromatic compound having three or more halogen substituents per one molecule, such as 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene, etc. ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ouchiyama teaches a PPS composition further comprising an alkoxysilane compound having one or more groups including an amino group (claim 4). Ouchiyama exemplifies the alkoxysilane compound being used at 0.5 parts per 100 parts of PPS resin (A) and PPS resin (B) (Ex6). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the PPS composition containing olefin elastomer and the PPS composition containing the alkoxysilane compound to form a third PPS composition contain both olefin elastomer and the alkoxysilane compound because Ouchiyama discloses the PPS compositions are suitable for making a molded product ([0017]). Case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” See MPEP 2144.06 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/HUIHONG QIAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights