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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference “Office Action issued in Taiwan Patent Application No. 112112445 dated December 04, 2023” in the information disclosure statement filed March 28, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 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, 3-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al (US 20220306801) in view of Na et al (KR 101008928 B1, see machine translation for citations).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-4, and 6: Hung teaches a polyether-ester material/copolyester (abstract) wherein the polyether-ester material is comprised of recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (para 41), a hydroxyalkane/diol (para 43) and a hydroxyalkane oligomer/polyalkylene ether glycol (para 48). Hung further teaches a polyether-ester containing PET and hydroxyalkane at a weight ratio of 1:1.172 (250g:293g) and PET and hydroxyalkane oligomer in a weight ratio of 1:0.76 (250g:190g) (para 61) wherein the hydroxyalkane is 1,4-butanediol (para 61) and the hydroxyalkane oligomer is poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol with a number average molecular weight of 1000 g/mol (table 1).
However, Hung is silent on a copolyester comprising 100 parts by weigh of a polyester elastomer and 0.01 to 0.29 parts by weight of a compound having multi-functional groups wherein the compound having multi-functional groups comprises trimesic acid, 1,1,1-trimethylolpropane, pentaerythritol, sorbitol or a combination thereof.
Na teaches a copolyester ether elastomer composition wherein a thermoplastic polyester elastomer includes a branching agent of pentaerythritol in an amount of 0.05 to 0.1% by weight (Page 4, lines 21-29). Na and Hung are analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor namely copolyesters formed from PET and poly(alkylene ether) glycol. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the polyester elastomer of Hung with the pentaerythritol branching agent and weight ratio of Na. Na teaches that branching agents may be added to increase the melt tension of the elastomer melt viscosity. When the content of the branching agent is less than 0.05% by weight, it is difficult to expect an increase in the melt viscosity. When the content of the branching agent is more than 0.1% by weight, the melt viscosity of the TPEE is excessively increased, making it difficult to control the intrinsic viscosity during melt polymerization (Page 4, lines 26-29). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the polyester elastomer with 0.05-0.1% weight of pentaerythritol to obtain a favorable melt viscosity.
Regarding Claim 5: Modified Hung teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, as seen above. Hung further teaches a polyether-ester material with an intrinsic viscosity of 1.45 dL/g (Table 1).
Regarding Claim 9: Modified Hung teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, as seen above. Hung further teaches a molded article formed by foaming the polyether-ester (para 56).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al (US 20220306801 A1) in view of Na et al (KR 101008928 B1) as evidenced by Mikkelsen et al (US 20200391133 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: Modified Hung teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, as seen above. Hung does not explicitly teach the intrinsic viscosity of PET. However, Hung teaches a copolyester wherein the PET is Model CB-602R, from Far Eastern New Century Corporation (para 60) , which Mikkelsen teaches has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.82 dL/g (para 144).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al (US 20220306801 A1) in view of Na et al (KR 101008928 B1) in further view of Ou et al (US 20150284508 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Modified Hung teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, as seen above. However, Hung is silent on a copolyester wherein the diol is a recycled material, a biomass material, or a petrochemical material.
Ou teaches a copolyester-ether with a diol derived from biomass resources (para 30). Hung and Ou are analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor namely copolyesters formed from PET, diol, and polyalkylene ether glycol. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the polyester elastomer of Hung with the biomass diol of Ou. Ou discloses that a diol derived from biomass resources is made from plants to replace traditional petrochemical raw materials, which is beneficial to reduce the demand for petroleum energy (para 30). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify the copolyester to be less reliant on petroleum and more environmentally friendly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al (US 20220306801 A1) in view of Na et al (KR 101008928 B1) in further view of Teasley et al (US 201301158168 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Modified Hung teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, as seen above. However, Hung is silent on a copolyester wherein the poly(alkylene ether) glycol is a recycled material, a biomass material, or a petrochemical material.
Teasley teaches a copolyetherester with polyalkylene ether glycols derived from a renewable biological source (para 41). Hung and Teasley are analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor namely aliphatic-aromatic polyester-ether materials. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the copolyester of Hung with the biomass polyalkylene ether glycol of Teasley. Teasley teaches that when the copolyetheresters are biodegradable the films made therefrom are typically compostable (para 28). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify the copolyester to have a biomass polyalkylene ether glycol so that the products formed from the copolyester would be compostable and therefore more environmentally friendly.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kondratowicz et al (PL 212329B1) teaches an aliphatic-aromatic copolyester made from the glycolysis of waste PET and containing chain branching compounds comprising pentaerythritol, sorbitol or mixtures thereof.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J BELUNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571) 272-1197. 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.
/T.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights