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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Feb. 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-12 remain pending in the application. Claims 13-14 are withdrawn
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 1-3, 5, 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hironaka et al. (US 2010/0227963), further in view of Kusano et al. (US 2002/0102113).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, Hironaka discloses that, in [0305], the blow molded article refers to a hollow molded article such as a bottle obtained by orientation-blowing a container or preform obtained by injection molding (lines 1-3). It is noticed that, obtaining the preform is one step and then blowing molding from the preform to obtain the bottle is another step.
Hironaka discloses that, in [0097], specific examples of polymers or copolymers include aromatic polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate (lines 1-7) (related to claim 2). Hironaka discloses that, in [0171] (for terminal blocking agent), the terminal blocking agent (component E) reacts with some or all of carboxyl group terminals of the polylactic acid (component B) (PLA) in the resin composition of the present invention to block them. Illustrative examples thereof include addition-reaction-type compounds such as carbodiimide compounds (lines 1-7).
Hironaka discloses that, in [0151] (for crystal nucleating agent: component C), Illustrative examples thereof include montan wax ester salt (lines 6-7) (related o claim3).
However, Hironaka does not disclose the detailed process of blowing molding for making a toner bottle. In the same field of endeavor, toner bottle, Kusano discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 15B or 18, a sequence of steps for forming a toner bottle is demonstrated ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hironaka to have the blowing molding process as Kusano teaches that it is known to have the blowing molding process to make the toner bottle made of PET (e.g., [0088]). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 5, 6, Hironaka does not disclose the detailed process of blowing molding for making a toner bottle. Kusano discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 15B or 18 or 23, the stretch pin SP (i.e., a stretching rod) is implemented as a hollow rod whose tip is closed. Holes 75 are formed in the tip portion of the stretch pin SP and preferably located at equally spaced positions along the circumference. Alternatively, the holes 75 may be formed in the intermediate portion of the stretch pin SP and located at equally spaced positions along the axis. During blow molding, auxiliary compressed air is blown into the toner bottle 13 via a passage 76 formed in the stretch pin SP and holes 75. Such auxiliary compressed air allows the bottom of the toner bottle 13 having a sophisticated configuration to be molded with high accuracy ([0116]). It is noticed that, the toner bottle made by Kusano includes PET ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hironaka to have the blowing molding process as Kusano teaches that it is known to have the blowing molding process having the stretch rod and compressed air for stretching and making the toner bottle. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Hironaka discloses that, in [0226], the resin composition can be produced by melt-kneading 100 parts by weight of the thermoplastic resin (component A) and 1 to 200 parts by weight of the polylactic acid (component B (PLA)). The resin composition is generally formed into pellets (lines 1-5).
Hironaka discloses that, in [0305], the blow molded article refers to a hollow molded article such as a bottle obtained by orientation-blowing a container or preform obtained by injection molding (lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Hironaka discloses that, in [0305], the blow molded article refers to a hollow molded article such as a bottle obtained by orientation-blowing a container or preform obtained by injection molding (lines 1-3).
Hironaka discloses that, in [0234], the resin composition of the present invention is generally obtained as pellets and molded articles can be produced by various molding methods such as injection molding and extrusion using the pellets as raw materials.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hironaka et al. (US 2010/0227963) and Kusano et al. (US 2002/0102113) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 9, 10, Hironaka discloses that, in [0230], the thermoplastic resin (component A) is as have been described above (e.g., see in [0065]). The components C, D, and E may be present at the time of the melt-kneading (lines 1-3). Here, as mentioned above (for claim 1), the component C may include montan wax ester salt ([0150]; [0151], lines 6-7). The component E (i.e., the terminal blocking agent) reacts with some or all of carboxyl group terminals of the polylactic acid (component B) (PLA) in the resin composition of the present invention to block them. Illustrative examples thereof include addition-reaction-type compounds such as carbodiimide compounds ([0171], lines 1-7).
Hironaka discloses that, in [0234], the resin composition of the present invention is generally obtained as pellets and molded articles can be produced by various molding methods such as injection molding and extrusion using the pellets as raw materials (related to claim 10).
Thus, Hironaka discloses that, the step of producing a preform includes: a step of melt-kneading the wax and the thermoplastic polyester to form first pellets; a step of melt-kneading the carbodiimide compound and other thermoplastic polyesters to form second pellets; and a preform molding process to mold a pellet mixture of the first pellets and the second pellets into the preform. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to spilt the steps in the method of Hironaka thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that at least the a preform molding process to mold a pellet mixture of the first pellets and the second pellets into the preform.
In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Regarding claims 11, 12, Hironaka discloses that, in [0230], the melt-kneading is preferably carried out in the presence of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight of the crystal nucleating agent (component C (for wax)) (lines 5-7). The melt-kneading is preferably carried out in the presence of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight of the terminal blocking agent (component E (for carbodiimide compounds)) (lines 1-4 from bottom).
If 0.01 parts by weights of the crystal nucleating agent (component C (for wax)) is selected, the corresponding terminal blocking agent (component E (for carbodiimide compounds)) is still about 0.01 to 5 parts by weight. In other words, 100 (or 0.01X10000) parts by weights of the crystal nucleating agent (component C (for wax)) is corresponding to the terminal blocking agent (component E (for carbodiimide compounds)) of 100 (or 0.01X10000) to 50000 (or 5X10000) parts by weight (overlapping the claimed range of 227 to 9096 parts by mass of the carbodiimide compound for claim 11 and the claimed range of 1364 to 9096 parts by mass of the carbodiimide compound for claim 12).
Hironaka and the claims differ in that Hironaka do not teach the exact same range for the carbodiimide compound in the resin mixture being 227 to 996 or 1364 to 9096 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the wax as recited in the instant claims 11, and 12.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Hironaka (100 to 50000) overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Hironaka does not have a composition that includes both a wax as component C and a carbodiimide as component E, it is not persuasive.
Hironaka discloses that, in [0097], specific examples of polymers or copolymers include aromatic polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate (lines 1-7). Hironaka discloses that, in [0171] (for terminal blocking agent), the terminal blocking agent (component E) reacts with some or all of carboxyl group terminals of the polylactic acid (component B) (PLA) in the resin composition of the present invention to block them. Illustrative examples thereof include addition-reaction-type compounds such as carbodiimide compounds (lines 1-7).
Hironaka discloses that, in [0151] (for crystal nucleating agent: component C), Illustrative examples thereof include montan wax ester salt (lines 6-7).
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Hironaka does not use a thermoplastic polyester instead of an aromatic polycarbonate, it is not persuasive. In the teachings of Hironaka, the working samples are not limiting of the disclosure to the invention. Specifically, from [0093] to [0101], Hironaka discloses polyester resin in the invention.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Hironaka does not appreciate the chemical attack that deforms the surface of toner particles when a toner bottle is formed using wax and a thermoplastic polyester. It is not persuasive.
As mentioned above, the base reference Hironaka is capable of providing a composition that includes both a wax as component C and a carbodiimide as component E. Thus, by using a wax as component C and a carbodiimide as component E, the molded part is capable of providing the similar anti-chemical attack to the toner particles if necessary.
Examiner is relied on the teachings of Kusano to disclose that, as illustrated in Fig. 15B or 18, a sequence of steps for forming a toner bottle is demonstrated ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hironaka to have the blowing molding process as Kusano teaches that it is known to have the blowing molding process having the stretch rod and compressed air for stretching and making the toner bottle. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. 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).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741