DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed July 13th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 11, and 21 have been amended.
The Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections made in the Office action mailed April 16th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 102/103 rejections made in the Office action mailed April 16th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the plastic bottle chips of Roosen are not evidentiary and would not make obvious the claimed range. The Examiner disagrees.
The primary reference Biemueller teaches including providing an injection molded PET/PBT blend resin, wherein the PET is derived from a recycled PET resin including sodium within the claimed amount, being 1 ppm to 50 ppm, due to improved crystallization [0004], wherein an exemplary comprises 20 ppm of sodium or an alternative comprising 9 ppm [0112-0113], wherein the type of PET with sodium content > 1 ppm is produced via bottles after the removal of caps and labels (and other foreign bodies) [0115], wherein Roosen teaches PET (food grade) bottles having reduced metal impurity content for the bottle without the cap and label (for each metal impurity), wherein the post-shredded measurements for iron comprise a sodium content for the entire bottle is 42.7 ppm and without the cap and label being 16.2 ppm (38% of the total) and an iron content for the entire bottle is 11.9 ppm and without the cap and label being 5.95 ppm (50% of the total), wherein as set forth within the supplementary information metals measured in PET bottles with food contact regulation comprise an amount of 25.1 ± 29.0 ppm (pg. S28), wherein based on a sample size of 24 bottles (S19), one can calculate a standard error (
σ
n
), wherein σ is the standard deviation and n is the sample size, of 5.92, wherein the standard error taken in relation with the value of 5.95 ppm gives a standard error of about 1.4, giving a estimated approximated range of the measured value of 4.55 to 7.35 ppm (5.95 ± 1.4 ppm), which overlaps with the claimed range, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide shredded PET bottle flakes comprising a sodium value within a desired range and approximate or close to a desired value, which inherently comprises iron within or close enough to the claimed range.
Furthermore, Applicant in both the disclosure and cited examples only proves criticality at a lower boundary of the claimed range. While the exemplary embodiments are slightly below the inherent/overlapping range set forth for the iron content in the recycled plastic bottles of Bienmueller/Roosen, there is not evidence proving that this would provide any unexpected results to values even slightly outside the claimed range, wherein a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, in view of Fernando Franco/Romao and Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0183991 A1), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further reduce any added iron as a result of processing, which would include recyclate shredding as taught by Romão, but still remaining within the claimed lower limit in terms of productivity and economic efficiency [Yamamoto, 0165], wherein Yamamoto teaches a flame-retardant thermoplastic polyester composition usable in injection molding an automobile component or electronic components [0005], wherein silver streaks/discoloration are prevented via the reduction of elemental iron [0014-0020], which is less than 50 ppm, preferably less than 30 ppm, and most preferably less than 25 ppm, but also preferably 1 ppm or more in terms of productivity and economic efficiency [0165].
Applicant further argues that none of the prior art teaches including iron as claimed as it relates to crystallization of the PET.
There is nothing in the claim requiring crystallization of the PET. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e. crystallization/crystallinity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Furthermore, while not explicitly related to the included Fe content, the crystallization rates in Biemueller are emphasized as an important feature that one would have altered and optimized trace metal elements to increase.
Lastly, “obviousness under 103 is not negated because the motivation to arrive at the claimed invention as disclosed by the prior art does not agree with Appellant’s motivation”, In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Tomlinson, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, the Examiner believes based on the discovered prior art that the iron content would have been overlapping and/or close enough to the claimed range wherein the prior art values would have been both obvious and inherent to the PET recyclate included in the primary reference, and furthermore, would have been obvious and motivated for additional reasons within the discovered prior art as recited below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, & 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienmueller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0163156 A1) (hereinafter “Bienmueller”) in view of Roosen et al. (Detailed Analysis of the Composition of Selected Plastic Packaging Waste Products and Its Implications for Mechanical and Thermochemical Recycling) (hereinafter “Roosen”),
optionally further in view of Romão et al. (Analysing metals in bottle-grade poly(ethylene terephthalate) by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry), Fernando Franco et al. (Prescence of iron in polymers extruded with corrosive contaminants or abrasive fillers) (hereinafter “Fernando Franco”), and Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0183991 A1) (hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-16, Bienmueller teaches a polyester resin composition based on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) with optimized processing behavior in an injection molding process [0001], further comprising additives in 0.01 to 60 parts based on 100 parts of the resin composition [0040, claims 5-6], wherein the additives comprise flame retardants [0069] and fillers and/or reinforcing materials in particular being glass fibers [0070-0075], and non-fibrous fillers, preferably acicular mineral fillers, such as wollastonites, in addition to or partially to entirely replacing the glass fibers [0076-0080], wherein the PBT to PET ratio is from 5:1-0.2:1 (83/16 to 16/83), preferably 2.2:1 to 0.5:1 (69/31 to 33/67), most preferably 1.5:1 to 0.8:1 (60/40 to 44/56) [0006-0007, 0031, 0081], wherein the PET comprises an intrinsic viscosity of about 0.3 to 1.5 cm3/g (dL/g), particularly preferably 0.5 to 1.0 cm3/g (dL/g) [0021] and comprises mostly terephthalic acid units and up to 20 mol% of units derived from other dicarboxylic acids such as isophthalic acid [0017-0018] comprises recycled PET (rPET) that has been washed and treated such that the (elemental) sodium content is about 1 to 100 ppm (0.001 to 0.1 µg/g), most preferably 9 to 20 ppm (0.009 to 0.02 µg/g) [0028-0037, 0081], wherein the type of rPET comprising sodium within the most desired range is obtained from PET bottles after the removal of labels, caps, and foreign bodies following cleaning followed by pelletization and comprises isophthalic acid units of about 1-3 mol% [0112-00117], or one comprising even less sodium (<1 ppm, <0.001 µg/g) from a solid-phase polycondensation process that further removes residual contaminants [0028-0036, 0116-0018], wherein while none of the ranges disclosed anticipate the claimed ranges, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Further regarding claims 1, 5, 7, and 12-13 and regarding claim 8, the presence and content range of elemental iron, elemental titanium, elemental calcium, elemental magnesium, and elemental phosphorus are not taught.
Roosen evidences the content range for variety of metals in PET bottles, not including any caps or labels as desired by Bienmueller, wherein titanium (Ti) is about 1.19 mg/kg (µg/g), magnesium (Mg) is about 3.29 mg/kg (µg/g), iron (Fe) is about 5.95 mg/kg (µg/g), sodium (Na) is 16.23 mg/kg (µg/g), and calcium (Ca) is 26.72 mg/kg (µg/g), such that the combination of titanium, iron, and sodium is about 23.37 mg/kg (µg/g), wherein the post-shredded measurements for iron comprise a sodium content for the entire bottle is 42.7 ppm and without the cap and label being 16.2 ppm (38% of the total) and an iron content for the entire bottle is 11.9 ppm and without the cap and label being 5.95 ppm (50% of the total), wherein as set forth within the supplementary information metals measured in PET bottles with food contact regulation comprise an amount of 25.1 ± 29.0 ppm (pg. S28), wherein based on a sample size of 24 bottles (S19), one can calculate a standard error (
σ
n
), wherein σ is the standard deviation and n is the sample size, of 5.92, wherein the standard error taken in relation with the value of 5.95 ppm gives a standard error of about 1.4, giving a estimated approximated range of the measured value of 4.55 to 7.35 ppm (5.95 ± 1.4 ppm), which overlaps with the claimed range, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide shredded PET bottle flakes comprising a sodium value within a desired range and approximate or close to a desired value, which inherently comprises iron in an amount that is prima facie overlapping or prima facie close enough to the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a PET resin to a PET/PBT injection moldable blend comprising sodium content and inherently iron content within or close enough to the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a preferred source of Bienmueller shredded PET bottles without caps and labels comprising a sodium content within the preferred range of Biemueller and within claimed range of the current invention.
Furthermore, Romão teaches that an primary difference between virgin PET and recycled food-grade PET, such as from bottles, is primarily demonstrated through an increase in iron (Fe) content, likely appearing due a cleaning process (steel and abrasion with mineral brushes) and/or during a mechanical processing from the machinery, wherein the values of iron in the virgin bottle (17 µg/g) is about half that of the milled and recycled bottles (29-38 µg/g) (Table 1), wherein Fernando Franco further teaches that iron in general is often removed from machinery during processing of polymers including PET, which can, along with other transition metal impurities, demonstrate a pronounced effect on the degradation of a polymer, especially recycled PET, wherein the tracking of iron in polymers is important to the extent of required metal deactivators needed to compensate its pro-degradant effect and improve the lifetime of a processed polymer (pgs. 1-3).
Yamamoto teaches a flame-retardant thermoplastic polyester composition usable in injection molding an automobile component or electronic components [0005], wherein silver streaks/discoloration are prevented via the reduction of elemental iron [0014-0020], which is less than 50 ppm, preferably less than 30 ppm, and most preferably less than 25 ppm, but also preferably 1 ppm or more in terms of productivity and economic efficiency [0165].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a PET resin to a PET/PBT injection moldable blend comprising an iron content within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce iron within a PET recyclate, which increases as a result of the shredding process [Romão], to prevent degradation of the processed polymer [Fernando Franco], wherein the iron content would be provided within or close enough within an injection molded blend in a balanced amount such that silver streaks/discoloration were not formed but productivity and economic efficiency are maintained [Yamamoto].
Claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienmueller in view of Roosen, optionally further in view of Romão/Fernando Franco and Yamamoto, as applied to claims 1-2 & 6 above, (further) in view of Shibano et al. (JP 2000-000873 A) (hereinafter “Shibano”), and optionally Nozawa (JP 2014-181303 A) (hereinafter “Nozawa”) as applied to claims 5, 7-8, and 11-13.
Regarding claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, Bienmueller teaches an injection moldable PBT/PET blend, wherein the PET can be virgin but preferably substantially recycled PET that has been washed and cleaned, such that a content of elemental Na, Fe, and Ti are inherently within or obviously modified in view of Romão/Fernando Franco to be within the claimed ranges and a content of elemental Ca, Mg, and P are each inherently within or prima facie close enough to the claimed ranges, wherein the melting and mixing, following the washing/cleaning of PET, may optionally comprise an applied vacuum with or without stripping for removal of volatile contaminants and further optionally a solid-phase polycondensation process, in particular acetaldehyde and oligomers [0028-0036]. However, an oligomer content range for cyclic trimer is not taught.
Shibano teaches a recycled PET derived from PET bottles that unfortunately generate a large about of cyclic trimer oligomers, wherein the trimers often adhere to and contaminate processing molds or nozzles during spinning, extrusion molding, and injection molding, which degrades the quality of the final product [0007-0008], which can be controlled by reaction rates and catalyst deactivation during a solid-phase condensation polymerization process [0050, 0060, 0074], such that a cyclic trimer oligomer content is 0.5 to 4.0 wt%, preferably reducing the amount by solid-phase polymerization from about 0.2 to 1.0 wt%, such that the content of cyclic trimers is 1 wt% or less [0059, 0062, 0071] with examples comprising amounts of 0.7 wt% and 0.36 wt% [0082-0083], and an intrinsic viscosity of most preferably 0.7 dL/g or higher for a solid-phase polymerization reaction [0062].
Further regarding claims 5, 7-8, and 11-13, Nozawa teaches a PET composition, wherein the amount of cyclic trimer is an issue, wherein cyclic trimer content in the examples is ranges from 3000 to 8500 ppm (0.3 to 0.85 wt%) [0057-0061], wherein the amount of cyclic trimer is controlled in the prior art by specifying the amounts of elemental calcium and phosphorus [0004], wherein the amount of phosphorus is controlled within a range of 30 ppm or less (0.03 µg/g), with a lower limit around 3 ppm (0.003 µg/g) to limit the number of terminal carboxyl groups which lowers the amount of cyclic trimers [0014, 0017], having a titanium content of 20 ppm or less (0.02 µg/g), with a lower limit of around 2 ppm (0.002 µg/g) in order to prevent the generation of cyclic trimers [0013], wherein it is also beneficial to contain as few metal compounds as possible that can act as catalysts, such as magnesium, calcium, lithium, and manganese in amounts of 300 ppm or less (0.3 µg/g) [0022], and wherein an intrinsic viscosity of greater than 0.66 dL/g or more also leads to fewer cyclic trimers [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to minimize the cyclic trimer content in recycled PET used for injection molding [Shibano], wherein minimizing the titanium and phosphorus content in PET also minimizes the formation of cyclic trimer [Nozawa], and minimizing the amount of magnesium and calcium among other metals that can act as catalysts also reduces polymerization rate also reducing the formation of cyclic trimers as desired by Shibano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide recycled PET that is less likely to adhere to molds and/or nozzles increasing product quality and improving productivity [Shibano, 0074] via the control of the content of titanium, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium contained in the PET and the intrinsic viscosity thereof [Nozawa & Shibano].
Claims 4 & 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienmueller in view of Roosen, optionally further in view of Romão/Fernando Franco and Yamamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, (further) in view of Yu (CN 109504040 A) (hereinafter “Yu”) and optionally Cao et al. (CN 104845297 A) (hereinafter “Cao”).
Regarding claims 4 and 18-21, Bienmueller teaches an injection moldable PBT/PET blend, in a ratio of about 83/16 to 16/84, preferably about 60/40 to 44/56, wherein the PET, preferably recycled PET that has been washed and cleaned, 0.01 to 60 parts based on 100 parts of the resin composition [0040, claims 5-6], wherein the additives comprise flame retardants [0069] and fillers and/or reinforcing materials in particular being glass fibers [0070-0075], and non-fibrous fillers, preferably acicular mineral fillers, such as wollastonites, in addition to or partially to entirely replacing the glass fibers [0076-0080], such that a content of at least elemental Na, Fe, and Ti are obviously modified by Roosen to inherently to be overlapping or close enough to or optimized further in view of Romão/Fernando Franco/Yamamoto to be within the claimed ranges and a content of elemental Ca, Mg, and P are each inherently within or prima facie close enough to the claimed ranges.
Further regarding claim 4, while a preferred pigment can be carbon black [0042], a particular range for specifically carbon black as claimed is not taught.
Yu teaches a glass fiber reinforced polyester resin, specifically PBT [0045, 0079] composition for injection molding having an amount of carbon black pigment that overcomes problems of insufficient fluidity and toughness [0009], wherein the carbon black pigment is 0.1-1 wt% (0.1 to 1 parts per 100 parts resin composition) [0014].
Furthermore, Cao teaches a glass-fiber reinforced PBT injection moldable engineering plastic, wherein the PBT is blended with PET [0024], wherein PET generally has a lower intrinsic viscosity than PBT [0048-0049, 0090, 0096], wherein an optional colorant such as carbon black is included in 0 to 5 parts [0027, 0075, 0078, 0131].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a carbon black colorant in an amount within the claimed range to a PBT-based injection molded resin composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for specific ranges for exemplary colorants, specifically an amount that would not decrease fluidity and toughness [Yu; 0009] and prevents the agglomeration thereof [0040].
Further regarding claim 18, a metal resin composite comprising a metal member having a surface containing irregularities, wherein a resin member comprising the resin composition is in contact with the metal member surface containing irregularities.
Yu further teaches the injection molded composition is used to prepare a metal-resin composite, wherein a metal member having a treated metal surface forming nanopores (irregularities) is brought into contact with the resin composition via injection molding [0024-0027], wherein the amount of carbon black and other additives does not prevent the resin from entering the nanopores [0030, 0039], which allows for an enhancement of strength and improved bonding force of the resin and the metal member [0056-0058].
Furthermore, Cao teaches that while metallic materials are highly polar and PBT and PET are relatively weakly polar polymer materials and have largely differing shrinkage rates, which can lead to a lowering of bonding force and/or breakage, wherein forming nanoscale pits allows for plastic to be directly injected onto a metal surface to achieve a perfect and strong bond allowing for a light, thin, and small/short single-piece product, especially for many types of electronic products [0004-0007, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a known-use for an injection moldable PBT-based resin, wherein the metal surface is treated for increased bond strength [Yu], that counteracts differing polarity and shrinkage rates [Cao].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Togawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0297752 A1) teaches an injection moldable blend of a first polyester resin (1), which comprises PET, and a second polyester resin (2), which may comprise PET or PBT, wherein the first polyester resin (1) contains Fe (iron) element in an amount of less than or equal to 30 ppm, preferably 5 ppm or lower in order to control the formation of cyclic trimers, increase in haze, and decrease in crystallinity [0059-0061], wherein at least one example F is within the claimed range (1.6 ppm) [Table 4].
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 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 JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 22nd, 2025
Prosecution Insights