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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 and their dependent claims recite “where in a mass ratio of the polybutylene terephthalate resin and the polyethylene terephthalate resin with respect to a total of 100 parts by mass of the polybutylene terephthalate resin and the polyethylene terephthalate is from 10/90 to 90/10.” This limitation recites a ratio of polybutylene terephthalate resin and polyethylene terephthalate to 100 parts of itself, so it is unclear how it can range from 10/90 to 90/10. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is considered to refer to the ratio of polybutylene terephthalate to polyethylene terephthalate (due to the symmetry of the range, any composition meeting this limitation will also have a ratio of polybutylene terephthalate to polyethylene terephthalate within the claimed range).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12-14, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mutou (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2017/0190906).
In Table 2, Mutou discloses numerous compositions comprising polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in ratios within the ranges recited in claims 1-3 and 12. While the PET used in the examples of Mutou is Novapet PBK1, which the current specification indicates is an isophthalic acid-free PET that does not meet the claim limitation regarding heat of crystallization, Mutou discloses more broadly in paragraphs 124-127 and 81-82 (paragraphs 124-127 state that component A3 in the compositions of Mutou can be the same PET as those which can be used for component A2, which is addressed in paragraphs 81-82) that the PET present in the composition can be prepared using an acid other than terephthalic acid as an additional starting material, where the additional acid can be isophthalic acid. The data provided in the current specification indicates that PET comprising isophthalic acid possesses the properties recited in claims 1-3. In paragraph 85 Mutou additionally discloses that the PET preferably has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.6 to 1.5 dL/g, within the range recited in claim 5. Claims 1-3, 5, and 12 are therefore anticipated by Mutou.
Since Mutou discloses in paragraphs 74 and 81-89 that the component A2 of the composition can be PET instead of PET, and replacing the PBT used for component A2 in examples 1 and 5-6 of Table 2 of Mutou would lead to a composition comprising more PET than PBT, claim 13 is met by Mutou as well.
The examples in Table 2 of Mutou also comprise a calcium carbonate in amounts within the range recited for the non-fibrous filler of claim 7. Table 1 of Mutou indicates that the calcium carbonate is a particulate, as recited in claim 8. The examples in Table 2 also comprise carbon black and a stabilizer in amounts within the ranges recited in claims 14 and 17 respectively.
In paragraphs 278-279 Mutou discloses that the compositions are molded into a light-reflecting base body, meeting the limitations of the molded article of claim 19 and the light reflector of claim 21. In paragraphs 36, 257-258, and 298 Mutou discloses that the light reflecting bodies can be used in various vehicle exterior components, meeting the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0296403).
In paragraphs 8-10 Ota discloses a polyester resin composition comprising PET and PBT in a ratio ranging from 14/86 to 45/55, within the ranges recited in claims 1-3 and 12, and molded articles formed therefrom, as recited in claim 19. In paragraph 16 Ota discloses that the PET can comprise some isophthalic acid in the acid component. The data provided in the current specification indicates that PET comprising isophthalic acid possesses the properties recited in claims 1-3. Claims 1-3, 12, and 19 are therefore anticipated by Ota.
In paragraph 52 Ota discloses the use of PET having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.65 dL/g, within the range recited in claim 5. The compositions of Ota also comprise glass fibers, meeting the limitations of the fibrous inorganic filler of claim 6.
In paragraph 43 (starting in line 18 of the paragraph), Ota discloses that the molded articles can be used as vehicle exterior components, as recited in claim 20, including as a light reflector, as recited in claim 21.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutou.
The discussion of Mutou in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Mutou discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, where the PET can comprise at least some units derived from isophthalic acid but does not disclose a specific amount of isophthalic acid-derived units within the range recited in claim 4.
In paragraph 74 Mutou discloses that the polyalkylene terephthalate such as polyethylene terephthalate which can be used for components A2 and A3 of the compositions of Mutou preferably use at least 95 mol% of terephthalic acid as the acid component, leaving a range of up to 5 mol% for isophthalic acid, overlapping the range recited in claim 4. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious by Mutou.
Claims 4, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota in view of Mutou.
The discussions of Ota in paragraph 7 above and Mutou in paragraphs 6 and 12 above are incorporated here by reference. Ota discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, where the PET can comprise at least some units derived from isophthalic acid. Ota does not specifically disclose a suitable amount of isophthalic acid units. Ota discloses in paragraphs 32 and 36 that the composition can comprise stabilizing agents, as recited in claim 17, but again does not disclose a suitable concentration. Ota discloses in paragraph 27 that the composition can comprise an inorganic pigment but does not disclose carbon black.
As discussed in paragraphs 6 and 12 above, Mutou discloses a composition similar to that of Ota. Mutou discloses that the PET in the composition can comprise isophthalic acid-derived units in an amount overlapping the range recited in claim 4, stabilizers in amounts within the range recited in claim 17 and carbon black in an amount within the range recited in claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use PET having an amount of isophthalic acid-derived units in a range overlapping the range taught by Mutou, stabilizer in the amount disclosed by Mutou, and carbon black as the inorganic pigment in the composition of Ota, since Mutou discloses that they are suitable amounts and additives for a similar PBT/PET-based composition used for similar applications.
Claims 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota in view of Nakao (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2005/0004390).
The discussion of Ota in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference. Ota discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1 and molded articles made therefrom but does not specifically disclose the use of recycled PET having a specific cyclic trimer content.
In paragraphs 1 and 14-31 Nakao discloses a process for obtaining PET by recycling PET-containing bottles. In the reference’s claim 19 Nakao discloses that the recycled PET has a cyclic trimer content of 0.50% or less. The recycled PET therefore meets the limitations of claims 9-10. Nakao also indicates in paragraph 135 that the dimethyl terephthalate used to prepare the PET contains some isophthalate as well. Nakao discloses that the PET is useful for making bottles. Ota discloses in paragraph 43 that the composition of Ota is useful for making food bottles, as well as other packaging materials. Using the recycled PET of Nakao as the PET in the composition of Ota meets the limitations of claims 9-10 and 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recycled PET of Nakao as the PET in the composition of Ota, in order to effectively reuse the PET bottle feedstock, as desired in paragraphs 2 and 143 of Nakao.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota in view of Berti (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0168371).
The discussion of Ota in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference. Ota discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose the use of PET where at least a portion of a raw material is bioderived.
In paragraphs 8-28 Berti discloses a bio-based terephthalic acid which can be used to prepare polyethylene terephthalate. The use of this bio-based terephthalic acid as the terephthalic acid used in the preparation of the PET of Ota meets the limitations of claim 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bio-based terephthalic acid as the terephthalic acid used in the preparation of the PET of Ota, since Berti teaches in paragraphs 1-7 that there is a need for bio-based polyesters produced from a biomass source.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota in view of Ayabe (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2016/0237241).
The discussion of Ota in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference. Ota discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, and in paragraphs 27-28 Ota discloses that the composition can comprise a bromine flame retardant which can be an epoxy compound, meeting the limitations of the reactive compound of claims 15-16. Ota does not disclose the concentration of the bromine flame retardant.
Ayabe, in paragraph , discloses a light stabilizer composition useful in vehicle parts. In paragraph 51 Ayabe discloses that the composition which can be stabilized can be based on polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate. In paragraph 64 Ayabe discloses that the composition can comprise a bromine flame retardant similar to that of Ota, and in paragraph 72 Ayabe discloses that the flame retardant can be present in the composition in an amount overlapping the range recited for the reactive compound of claims 15-16. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the bromine flame retardant of Ota in the composition of Ota in the amount taught by Ayabe, since Ayabe teaches that it is a suitable concentration range for the bromine flame retardant in a similar composition used for similar applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights