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 .
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 – 14, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Doi Kumiko (EP 2,653,498A1)
In regards to claim 7, Kumiko teaches a composition comprising polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) A), 0.01 to 5 parts by mass of a saturated (i.e., 100% esterification) fatty acid ester of polyglycerol B) based on the polybutylene terephthalate, and other optional additive C) and optional filler D) [abstract, 0016 and 0017]. The polyglycerol ester comprises C19-30 saturated aliphatic acyl groups and has at least 3 repeating glycerol units when n is 1 or more [0010]. The polybutylene terephthalate resin can be used in combination with another thermoplastic resin A’) such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polytrimethylene terephthalate etc. or mixtures which can be present at 100 parts by mass or less [0025 – 0026]. Since the claimed polymer, i.e., the PBT and/or PET etc., is taught, and the claimed polyglycerol fatty acid ester in the claimed amounts, the claimed limitations and properties will be expected which makes the claim obvious.
In regards to claim 8, Kumiko teaches the composition having fatty acid chain length that is close but does not overlap the claimed range. 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 them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In regards to claims 9 – 12, Kumiko teaches the composition having the polymer such as PET and poly trimethylene terephthalate.
In regards to claim 13, Kumiko teaches the composition having fully saturated esters which provides 100% of saturation.
In regards to claim 14, Kumiko teaches the composition having the claimed limitations and would be expected to have the same properties.
In regards to claims 17 – 20, Kumiko teaches the composition having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771