CTFR 18/589,656 CTFR 81867 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Intrinsic viscosity of PET, background: PNG media_image1.png 426 882 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US Pub No 2017/0267436) . With respect to claim 1, Yamamoto shows a stretch blow-molded article (paragraph 210) comprising: a first polyester (1); and a second polyester (3) having a structure different from a structure of the first polyester (layers determined by need, but disclosed as different structure and composition in each layer based on end user’s needs), wherein an intrinsic viscosity value of the first polyester is 0.60 to 0.74 dL/g, (paragraph 72, .5 - 2 dL/g) and the second polyester has a structure corresponding to terephthalic acid and a structure corresponding (very broad term) to bisphenol A (paragraph 39). With respect to claim 2, Yamamoto shows wherein the first polyester comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (disclosed paragraph 3) and polyethylene naphthalate. With respect to claim 3, Yamamoto shows 3. The stretch blow-molded article according to claim 1, wherein a content of the second polyester is 0.005 to 1.00 mass% (.01-3% mass, disclosed in paragraph 25), relative to a total of the first polyester and the second polyester. With respect to claim 4, Yamamoto shows wherein the first polyester is recycled polyester (paragraph 5). With respect to claim 5, Yamamoto shows wherein the stretch blow-molded article is a toner bottle. (this limitation is interpreted as an intended use, and the reference is capable of holding toner, yet it is not disclosed) (see MPEP 2173.05(g) copied below) PNG media_image2.png 244 624 media_image2.png Greyscale With respect to claim 6, Yamamoto shows wherein the stretch blow-molded article comprises carbon black. (this limitation is interpreted as an intended use, and the reference is capable of holding carbon black, yet it is not disclosed) (see MPEP 2173.05(g) copied above) Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument starting on Page 6, paragraph 2: the claim language in question is “a first polyester and second polyester having a structure different from a structure of the first polyester” (Paragraph 17 and 20, of Yamamoto copied below) clearly states one on the polyester layers’ containers oxygen absorbers and the other polyester layer contain oxygen blockers. This is clear evidence that the first and second polyester layers have a different structure. Paragraph 17 “A multilayer plastic container having at least one oxygen-absorbing layer and at least one oxygen-blocking layer, wherein [0017] the oxygen-absorbing layer is a layer formed from a thermoplastic polyester resin composition comprising a thermoplastic polyester resin and an oxygen absorber, “ Paragraph 20 “the oxygen-blocking layer(s) comprised in the multilayer plastic container of the present invention are substantially transition metal-free, generation of burnt deposits during molding and the yellowing of the thermoplastic polyester resin caused by the mixing of a polyamide resin upon recycling can be suppressed”. Next applicant argues the limitation “the second polyester has a structure corresponding to terephthalic acid and a structure corresponding to bisphenol A.” Applicant has supplied no further clarification of the term -corresponding-. Copied below is a plain interpretation of the very broad term. PNG media_image3.png 192 496 media_image3.png Greyscale Applicant specification in paragraph (21) states that polyester is used or compatible with the terephthalic acid” Proof that polyester and terephthalic acid are analogous to polyester additives. All three chemicals are corresponding chemicals used in forming plastic. The term is so broad that the polyesters, terephthalic acid and bisphenol A are all corresponding to chemical that you do not want to find in your drinking water. No specific relationship or -correspondence- is defined in the claim or the specification. Applicant has not invented these chemicals and their use in the claimed invention has not been defined. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SHAWN M BRADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Orlando E Aviles-Bosques can be reached at 571 270-5531. 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. /SHAWN M BRADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/589,656 Page 2 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/589,656 Page 3 Art Unit: 3736
Prosecution Insights