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
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollenberg (US 8158710 B2) in view of Morizur et al (US 20150232614 A1).
Regarding claims 1-19, Vollenberg teaches a polyester blend composition comprising a polyester including a poly(butylene terephthalate) (Valox 195) [Table 1B], a poly(ester-ether)copolymer including Ecdel 9966 [col. 6, lines 28-33], an antioxidant including tetrakis[methylene(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate)]methane (Irganox 1010) [col. 10, lines 4-12] and bis(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphate (Ultranox 626) [col.10 lines 4-7], a polyfunctional epoxide including Joncryl ADR 4368 [col. 7, lines 24-25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Valox 195 (poly(butylene terephthalate)) as the polyester, Ecdel 9966 as the poly(ester-ether)copolymer, Irganox 1010 and Ultranox 626 as the antioxidants, and Joncryl ADR 4368 as the polyfunctional epoxide in Vollenberg’s composition, as these are expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Vollenberg is silent about the claimed rigid polyester having a Tg of greater than 60° C as specified in claim 6.
Morizur teaches a polymer blend composition comprising a polyester resin including Valox 195 and Tritan TX1000 [0213 and 0305].
Morizur and Vollenberg are in the same field of endeavor as both are dealing with using the composition to make injection molded articles such as consumer goods and automotive parts (Morizur [0227-0230], Vollenburg [col. 12, lines 24-49]).
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Morizur recognized Valox 195 and Tritan TX1000 are equivalent as the polyester for the same purpose, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute Valox 195 with Tritan TX1000 in Vollenburg’s composition.
Tritan TX1000 reads on the claimed (a) rigid polyester, as specified in claims 6-8, as evidenced by the applicant [000243-000242 spec.].
Ecdel 9966 is identical to the claimed (b) polyester elastomer, as evidenced by the applicant [00099 and 000241 spec.], meeting all the limitations in claims 9-15.
Irganox 1010 is identical to the claimed (c) primary antioxidant, as evidenced by the applicant [00094 spec.], meeting the limitation in claim 16, and reading on the (1) at least one hindered phenolic antioxidant in claim 19.
Ultranox 626 is bis(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphite [Table 1B], meeting the claimed (d) secondary antioxidant as specified in claim 17, and reading on the (2) at least one phosphite in claim 19, as evidenced by the applicant [000120 spec.].
Joncryl ADR 4368 is a multifunctional epoxide chain extension agent as evidenced by Rosmmi et al (“Impact Strength and Morphology of Sustainably Sourced Recycling Polyethylene Terephthalate Blends”, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 83, 2021) [P266 section 2.1 and Figure 1 (c)], reading on the claimed (d) chain extending additive as specified in claim 18, and the (3) at least one chain extending agent that is a copolymer of glycidyl methacrylate and styrene in claim 19.
The recited enthalpy of melting of 3 cal/gm or less in claim 1, melting at 240° C or less in claim 2, blister size of 6 or greater as determined by ASTM D714 in claim 3, scribe rust value of 6 or greater as determined by ASTM D1654 in claim 4, impact resistance of 160 ft-lbs or greater as measured by ASTM D2794 when applied to metal panels in claim 5 are properties of the product. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited properties are expected to be present.
Regarding claim 20, Vollenburg teaches the claimed rigid polyester and polyester elastomer as stated above. Vollenburg teaches 0.2 wt% of Irganox 1010 [Table 7], falling within the claimed range of about 0.1 to about 2% by weight of at least one hindered phenol primary antioxidant. Vollenburg teaches 0.3 wt% of Ultranox 626 [Table 7], falling within the claimed range of about 0.01 to about 0.5% by weight of at least one phosphite secondary antioxidant. Vollenburg teaches 0.5 wt% of Joncryl ADR 4368 [Table 7], falling within the claimed range of about 0.01 to about 2.0% by weight of at least one styrene-acrylate copolymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights