DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on August 4, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejection over JP ‘155 in view of JP ‘635 is withdrawn, as applicants have amended to limit the acid value of the polyester, which was not previously required by claim 1.
However, the remaining rejection over JP ‘000 is deemed proper and is therefore maintained for the reasons set forth below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
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
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-094000; however, for convenience, the machine translation will be cited below.
JP ‘000 teaches a composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer, a reactive compound (a) and polycarbodiimide compound (a), as shown below, as translated by Google:
PNG
media_image1.png
396
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thermoplastic polyester elastomer is prepared from the reaction of polybutylene terephthalate, which meets applicants’ hard segment as it is made of a polyester constituted of terephthalic acid, an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and butanediol, an aliphatic diol, and a polycarbonate diol, which meets applicants’ soft segment as it is made from a hexanediol type carbonate diol (p. 17). The thermoplastic elastomer is then reacted with a polycarbodiimide (a) in Example 1.
ΔMFR is described as the difference between MFR35-MFR5 (p. 16).
JP ‘000 teaches the acid value of the elastomer after reaction with the polycarbodiimide as 10 eq/ton or less (p. 10).
JP ‘000 teaches that flame retardants can be added and include inorganic and organic phosphorus compounds (p. 13), teaching that the additives can be added within a range that does not greatly inhibit the reaction between the polyester and the reactive compound.
While JP ‘000 does not teach or suggest the amount of flame retardant that can be added, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine the optimum amount of flame retardant necessary to render the above composition flame retardant by way of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
JP ‘000 is prima facie obvious over instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, JP ‘000 teaches the melting point difference Tm1-Tm3 of the elastomer is 0-50°C (p. 14).
As to claims 4-5, JP ‘000 teaches the composition as having improved extrusion moldability, and teaches the molded articles to include air ducts (p. 21), which are known in the art as a type of hose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the MFR value and the ΔMFR value do not fall within the claimed ranges because JP ‘000 does not contain any flame retardant, arguing that the addition of flame retardant affects the MFR value and ΔMFR value.
The examiner agrees; however, JP ‘000 teaches that the elastomer composition has a MFR of 3 g/10 min or less at 230C and a load of 2.16 kg, and the ΔMFR value is preferably -3.0 to 2.0.
These ranges at least overlap with the claimed ranges of MFR= 2-5 g/10 min and ΔMFR = 0-20 g/min. JP ‘000 teaches that additives can be added within a range that does not greatly inhibit the reaction between the polyester and the reactive compound. Therefore, regardless of whether or not a flame retardant is added, the composition must still meet the required MFR and ΔMFR.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 4, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection based upon JP ‘000 as set forth in the last Office action because: applicants showing is not convincing.
Applicants describe A-1 of the instant invention as being the same as the polyester in JP ‘000. The examiner disagrees, as A-1 is prepared by reacting 43 parts polycarbonate diol and 57 parts PBT, whereas that in JP ‘000 is prepared by reacting 43 parts polycarbonate diol and 100 parts PBT.
Additionally, every example shown in the instant disclosure and the declaration include a blend of 15 phr brominated polystyrene and 4 phr antimony trioxide, or 20 phr aluminum diethylphosphinate. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the inclusion of a flame retardant affects the MFR and ΔMFR, as reasoned by applicants.
Even further, JP ‘000 does not teach brominated polystyrene as a possible flame retardant and the claimed invention does not limit the type of flame retardant either.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights