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 .
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.
Priority
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/009899 07/08/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2021-0100356 07/30/2021 filed on 01/18/24.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 01/18/24 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahoon-Brister (US 2010/0168321).
Regarding claims 1, 5, Cahoon-Brister discloses a thermoplastic resin composition (para [0018]) comprising a polybutylene terephthalate resin having inorganic residue such as titanium catalyst residue in an amount of 0 to 1000 ppm (para [0062]-[0063]), encompassing claimed range of less than about 50 ppm; polycarbonate resin (para [0077]), glass fibers (para [0094]), epoxy-modified olefin polymer such as copolymer of ethylene and glycidyl methacrylate (para [0115]), and zinc phosphate (para [0100]).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the thermoplastic resin, wherein Cahoon-Brister discloses inorganic residue such as titanium catalyst residue in an amount of 0 to 1000 ppm, encompassing the requirement of claim 1. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 2, claimed parts by weight is converted to wt% for computing lower range total 187.1 parts by weight and higher range total 302 parts by weight. Cahoon-Brister discloses polybutylene terephthalate resin in amount of 5 to 90 wt% (para [0005]), encompassing claimed range of 100 parts by weight (53 to 33 wt%), polycarbonate in the range of 0 to 50 wt% (para [0088]), encompassing claimed range of 5 to 45 parts by weight (2.67 to 14.9 wt%), glass fiber in an amount of 0 to 90 wt% (para [0094]), encompassing claimed range of 80 to 130 parts by weight (42.75 to 43.04 wt%), epoxy-modified olefin in an amount of 3 wt% (table 17), fall into claimed range of 2 to 25 parts by weight (1.06 to 8.27 wt%), and zinc phosphate in an amount of 0 to 5000 ppm (0.5 wt%) (para [0100]), overlapping claimed range of 0.1 to 2 parts by weight (0.05 to 0.66 wt%).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the thermoplastic resin, wherein Cahoon-Brister discloses polybutylene terephthalate resin in amount of 5 to 90 wt%, polycarbonate in the range of 0 to 50 wt%, and glass fiber in an amount of 0 to 90 wt%, encompassing the requirement of claim 2, and zinc phosphate in an amount of 0 to 5000 ppm, overlapping the requirement of claim 2. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 3, Cahoon-Brister discloses the polycarbonates can have a weight average molecular weight of about 10,000 to about 200,000 Daltons (para [0081]), encompassing claimed range of about 10,000 g/mol to about 50,000 g/mol.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the thermoplastic resin, wherein Cahoon-Brister discloses the polycarbonates can have a weight average molecular weight of about 10,000 to about 200,000 Daltons, encompassing the requirement of claim 3. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 6, Cahoon-Brister discloses the zinc phosphate in an amount of 50 to 500 ppm (para [0100]) and epoxy modified olefin in an amount of 3 wt% (tables 17, 22), encompassing claimed range of the epoxy-modified olefin polymer and the zinc phosphate are present in a weight ratio of about 10:1 to about 30:1.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the thermoplastic resin, wherein Cahoon-Brister discloses zinc phosphate in an amount of 50 to 500 ppm and epoxy modified olefin in an amount of 3 wt%, encompassing the requirement of claim 6. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 7, 9-10, it has been noted that the specification para [0010]-[0020] contents are in the dependent claims 2-10, wherein the so called embodiments 1 is claim 2, embodiment 2 is claim 3, embodiment 5 is claim 5, embodiment 6 is claim 6. The embodiment 7 states ‘In embodiments 1 to 6,’ wherein the embodiment 7 features are in claim 7. The embodiment 9 states ‘In embodiments 1 to 8’ wherein the embodiment 9 features are in claim 9. The embodiment 10 states ‘In embodiments 1 to 9’ wherein the embodiment 10 features are in claim 10. Since, claims 1-3, 5-6 are obvious over Cahoon-Brister, the properties such as metal bonding strength, tensile strength retention rate, and melt-flow index increase rate would necessarily be the same as claimed. If there is any difference between the product of Cahoon-Brister and the product of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious. “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. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Regarding claim 8, Cahoon-Brister discloses the tensile strength of at least 30 MPa (para [0124]), encompassing claimed range of about 1500 kgf/cm2 to about 1600 kgf/cm2.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the thermoplastic resin, wherein Cahoon-Brister discloses the tensile strength of at least 30 MPa, encompassing the requirement of claim 8. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 11, Cahoon-Brister includes the feature of claim 1, Further Cahoon-Brister discloses the molded article formed from the thermoplastic resin of claim 1 (para [0015]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahoon-Brister (US 2010/0168321) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee (US 2017/0088707).
Cahoon-Brister includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Cahoon-Brister does not disclose the glass fibers have a rectangular or elliptical cross-section, a cross-sectional aspect ratio (cross-sectional major diameter/cross-sectional minor diameter) of about 1.5 to about 10, and a minor diameter of about 2 μm to about 10 μm.
However, Lee discloses a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a polybutylene terephthalate resin and glass fibers, wherein the glass fibers have a rectangular or elliptical cross-section, a cross-sectional aspect ratio (cross-sectional major diameter/cross-sectional minor diameter) of about 1.5 to about 10, and a minor diameter of about 5 μm to about 20 μm (overlapping claimed range of about 2 μm to about 10 μm), wherein the resin composition can exhibit excellent balance between stiffness, flexural strength, and impact resistance (para [0003], [0026], [0050]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Cahoon-Brister with the glass fiber having a minor diameter of about 5 μm to about 20 μm, as taught by Lee. The rationale to do so would exhibit excellent balance between stiffness, flexural strength, and impact resistance.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the thermoplastic resin, wherein Lee discloses the glass fiber having a minor diameter of about 5 μm to about 20 μm, overlapping the requirement of claim 4. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru (JP 2012201857) in view of Cahoon-Brister (US 2010/0168321).
Regarding claims 12-14, Masaru discloses a composite material comprising a plastic member comprising a molded article formed of the thermoplastic resin composition and a metal member adjoining the plastic member, wherein the metal member directly adjoins the plastic member without a bonding agent interposed there between, wherein the metal member comprises at least one of aluminum, and iron, wherein the thermoplastic resin composition comprises polybutylene terephthalate resin, glass fibers, epoxy-modified polymer (page 5, lines 35-37, page 7, lines 3-14, claims 1-3). Masaru does not disclose the thermoplastic resin as disclosed in instant claim 1.
However, Cahoon-Brister discloses a thermoplastic resin composition (para [0018]) comprising a polybutylene terephthalate resin having inorganic residue such as titanium catalyst residue in an amount of 0 to 1000 ppm (para [0062]-[0063]), encompassing claimed range of less than about 50 ppm; polycarbonate resin (para [0077]), glass fibers (para [0094]), epoxy-modified olefin polymer such as copolymer of ethylene and glycidyl methacrylate (para [0115]), and zinc phosphate (para [0100]), wherein the thermoplastic resin composition is prepared from the recycled components such as recycled polyethylene terephthalate which conserve non-renewable resources and reduce the formation of greenhouse gases, e.g. CO2 (para [0002]-[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Masaru with the thermoplastic resin composition made from the recycled components, as taught by Cahoon-Brister. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Cahoon-Brister that to do so would help conserve non-renewable resources and reduce the formation of greenhouse gases, e.g. CO2.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the thermoplastic resin, wherein Cahoon-Brister discloses inorganic residue such as titanium catalyst residue in an amount of 0 to 1000 ppm, encompassing the requirement of claim 1. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
References Jung (KR 970006164) and Gallucci (US 5411999) were cumulative in nature to the above rejection and thus not set forth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 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 P 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights