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
Election/Restrictions
The applicant has elected Group I (claims 1-5) without indicating traverse, and no argument has been submitted. Applicant’s election in the reply is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
This restriction is made FINAL. See previous action for the reasons of applying restriction.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 20080260979) in view of Mamino et al. (JP 2015218309), both listed on IDS, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 20200239683).Murayama and Ono is/are silent on the claimed small molecule HTL.
As to claims 1-5, Yokoyama (abs., claims, examples, figures) discloses a manufacturing process of modifying a polyester composition (reducing trimers) for producing molded articles (beverage bottles or like) (1, 87) comprising heating at 275 °C (159, 232-233) an intermediate polyethylene terephthalate (PET) comprising cyclic trimers (155) having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.44-0.6 dl/g (152, overlapping with the claimed range). The resultant PET has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.2-2.5 dl/g (claim 16, overlapping with the claimed range) and crystallinity of 55% or less (overlapping with the claimed range) . Yokoyama further discloses using pressure reducing apparatus (0191, claims 9 and 17) and volatile elimination (234) in the process. In light of this, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize to use pressure reducing apparatus in the process for decompression. Yokoyama (264) discloses using 2,3-methylenebis(4,6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate as a nucleating agent and antioxidant (261).
Yokoyama is silent on the claimed loading of nucleating agent and the claimed fillers.
In the same area of endeavor of producing a PET mold ((abs., claims, examples 8), Mamino (62-69, 12, 36) disclosing using a combination of 2,3-methylenebis(4,6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate and sodium benzoate at a loading of 0.5-5 wt% (overlapping with the claimed range) as the nucleating agent to obtain high efficacy as a nucleator on crystalline polyester resins. Mamino (113) further teaches adding 0.1-5 wt% of carbon fiber for resin reinforcement.
In the same area of endeavor of producing a crystalline PET mold (abs., claims, examples, 7), Liao teaching a 0.1-0.5 wt% of loading of antioxidant to prevent the composite material from being oxidized during processing.
Therefore, as to claims 1-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Yokoyama and replaced 2,3-methylenebis(4,6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate with a combination of 2,3-methylenebis(4,6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate and sodium benzoate at a loading of 0.5-5 wt%, added 0.1-5 wt% of carbon fiber for resin reinforcement in view of Mamino, and further utilized the antioxidant loading in view of Liao, because the resultant process would yield improved high efficacy of crystallization, resin reinforcement, and oxidation resistance. Furthermore, It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05 I. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have created/selected the claimed compositional elements from the composition disclosed in the references since it discloses all applicants' components, values and methods of making.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill in the art would have expected the process (and the resulting product) disclosed by the references to feature the crystallinity, because the references a process using the claimed steps, claimed processing conditions, and the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. crystallinity, would necessarily flow from a process employing the claimed steps, claimed processing conditions, and the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP § 2112.01(I)-(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) applicant must provide evidence to support the applicant’s position, and (2) it would be the examiner’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure on how to obtain the claimed effects or properties with only the claimed steps, claimed processing conditions, and the claimed components in the claimed amounts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. 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.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights