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
This is a final Office Action in response to a non-final Office Action reply filed 3/17/26 in which claims 1-3 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a wear loss (H-22 wheel, load 1kg, 2000 times) of the polyester material is less than 300 mg" and it is unclear what exactly is meant by this because the parameters in parentheses seem compromised by the parentheses and there is no explanation of how they are used to determine the metes and bounds of the wear loss.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al (US 2022/0348735) in view of Treece et al (WO 98/41375).
For claim 1, Liao et al teach a preparation method of a polyester material ([Abstract]), which is a continuous process ([0050]), comprising: crushing, compacting and drying ([0032]-[0033]) a recycled release film ([0023] & [0029], Examiner notes that since the recycled film includes a release agent or layer, it would be a release film), and then melting, extruding and degassing the recycled release film; after filtration, using a liquid viscosifying system for thickening; and performing melting and kneading, and adding modifiers for modification and extruding, and then pelletizing and dehydrating to make the polyester material ([0036]-[0043]).
Liao et al do not teach the modifiers include nucleating agents, lubricants and antioxidants.
However, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to a process for producing polyester, Treece et al (WO 98/41375) teach the modifiers include nucleating agents, lubricants and antioxidants (pg 9 lns 12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Treece et al with those of Liao et al by having the modifiers include nucleating agents, lubricants and antioxidants in order to provide desired properties in the product material as suggested by Treece et al (pg 9 lns 12-13).
For claim 3, Liao et al teach scraping to remove the surface material ([0028]) before the recycled release film is crushed, compacted and dried.
For claim 4, though the previous combination does not teach the liquid viscosifying system is used to increase an intrinsic viscosity (IV) from a viscosity range of 0.5 dl/g to 0.62 dl/g to a viscosity range of 0.7 dl/g to 0.92 dl/g, Liao et al do teach the IV of the fragmented recycled material is less than or equal to 0.6 dL/g and IV of the polyester may be greater than or equal to 0.63dL/g ([0034]) and less than or equal to 1.2 dL/g ([0040]), and since the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
For claim 5, though the previous combination does not teach a temperature at which the recycled release film is crushed, compacted and dried is 100°C to 160°C, Liao et al teach the film fragmenting treatment includes heating ([0033]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a temperature at which the recycled release film is crushed, compacted and dried be 100°C to 160°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the temperature in order to obtain the desired degree of drying. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
For claims 6-8, though the previous combination does not teach a temperature of melting, extruding and degassing is 240°C to 280°C; a temperature of melting and kneading is 230°C to 275°C; and a temperature of modification and extruding is 230°C to 280°C, Liao et al do teach the recycled chipped material in the extruding apparatus may be heated to about 230 to 300 C ([0040]), and since the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
For claims 9-13, further regarding the modifiers taught as obvious by Treece et al above, Treece et al also teach the nucleating agents include organic nucleating agents; the organic nucleating agents include organic sodium salts, the organic sodium salts include sodium benzoate (pg 12 ln 19 to pg 13 ln 1); the inorganic nucleating agents include inorganic micro-nano powders, the inorganic micro-nano powders include talc, titanium dioxide, silica or calcium carbonate (pg 12 lns 11-12); the antioxidants include hindered phenolic antioxidants and phenolic antioxidants (pg 12 ln 1); and the lubricant comprises stearates (pg 13 lns 1-3).
For claim 14, though the previous combination does not teach based on a total weight of the polyester material, an added amount of the nucleating agents is 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%, an added amount of the antioxidants is 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%, and an added amount of the lubricant is 0.05 wt% to 1 wt%, further regarding the modifiers taught as obvious by Treece et al above, Treece et al also teach the polyester modifiers are typically blended with the polyester in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 15 weight percent based on the total weight of the modified polyester (pg 13 lns 7-9) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, based on a total weight of the polyester material, an added amount of the nucleating agents be 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%, an added amount of the antioxidants be 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%, and an added amount of the lubricant be 0.05 wt% to 1 wt%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the amounts of modifiers in order to provide desired properties in the product material. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the technical feature of "using a liquid viscosifying system for thickening" recited in claim 1 of the present application obtains unexpected effects.
Examiner suggests that to further prosecution and to demonstrate unexpected results, Applicant should submit an affidavit showing why the claimed subject matter would be unexpected.
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 extension fee 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 JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. 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.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights