DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (8-11 and 13-17) is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
A composite of metal and a resin wherein the resin composition is
Element
Parts
Description
A
100
polyarylene sulfide resin
B
5-25
modified ethylene copolymer
C
10-120
glass fiber
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 8-11, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20150225567 A1)
In reference to claim 8, Miller discloses a metal member-polyarylene sulfide resin member composite which comprises a metal member and a polyarylene sulfide resin member and is obtained by injection molded direct joining, wherein the polyarylene sulfide resin member is formed by injection molding of a polyarylene sulfide composition which satisfies all of the following (1) to (3): (“the polymer may also be integrated with or laminated to a metal component to form a composite structure. This may be accomplished using a variety of techniques, such as by nanomolding the polymer composition onto a portion or the entire surface of the metal component.” [P0057] and see title)
Miller further discloses “wherein inorganic fibers constitute from about 20 wt. % to about 70 wt. % of the polymer composition, impact modifiers constitutes from about 1 wt. % to about 40 wt. % of the polymer composition, and/or polyarylene sulfides constitute from about 25 wt. % to about 95 wt. % of the polymer composition” (claim 4) which reads on the claimed composition. Impact modifiers include modified ethylene copolymer; see “polyethylene-co-butylene as the soft segment” at P0223.
Element
Parts
Description
A
25-95
polyarylene sulfide resin; claim 4
B
1-40
impact modifier (modified ethylene copolymer P0223); claim 4
C
20-70
glass fiber; claim 4
Which overlaps with the claimed composition of
Element
Parts
Description
A
100
polyarylene sulfide resin
B
5-25
modified ethylene copolymer
C
10-120
glass fiber
Miller provides their parts as a percentages whereas the claim provides parts on a direct mass basis, however, when the ranges are normalized, the overlap. For example. Element A in Miller is (25–95%) and Element A in claim is (100 parts). Both allow for a high concentration, but the 100 parts must be converted to a percentage based on total parts (100+5+10 = 115 minimum / 100+25+120=245 maximum) and ranges from 40-87%. 40-87%. Overlaps with 25–95% of Miller.
A (parts)
B (parts)
C (parts)
Total
A%
B%
C%
Claim
100
5
10
115
86.96%
4.35%
8.69%
100
25
120
245
40.82%
10.20%
48.98%
Miller
25.0%
1.0%
20.0%
90.0%
40.0%
70.0%
Miller does not disclose that the composition has a melt flow rate or a melt crystallization peak temperature, however, these are properties of a chemical composition; Miller discloses a substantially similar composition; and, thus, Miller’s composition is presumed to have the same properties which are enabled by the same composition in the present application.
In reference to claim 9 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Miller at paragraph 41.
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Miller at paragraph 33 and 21.
In reference to claim 11 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Miller at paragraph 57.
In reference to claim 13, Miller discloses a metal member-polyarylene sulfide resin member composite which comprises a metal member and a polyarylene sulfide resin member and is obtained by injection molded direct joining, wherein the polyarylene sulfide resin member is formed by injection molding of a polyarylene sulfide composition which satisfies all of the following (1) to (3): (“the polymer may also be integrated with or laminated to a metal component to form a composite structure. This may be accomplished using a variety of techniques, such as by nanomolding the polymer composition onto a portion or the entire surface of the metal component.” [P0057] and see title)
Miller further discloses “wherein inorganic fibers constitute from about 20 wt. % to about 70 wt. % of the polymer composition, impact modifiers constitutes from about 1 wt. % to about 40 wt. % of the polymer composition, and/or polyarylene sulfides constitute from about 25 wt. % to about 95 wt. % of the polymer composition” (claim 4) which reads on the claimed composition. Impact modifiers include modified ethylene copolymer; see “polyethylene-co-butylene as the soft segment” at P0223.
Element
Parts
Description
A
25-95
polyarylene sulfide resin; claim 4
B
1-40
impact modifier (modified ethylene copolymer P0223); claim 4
C
20-70
glass fiber; claim 4
Which overlaps with the claimed composition of
Element
Parts
Description
A
100
polyarylene sulfide resin
B
5-25
modified ethylene copolymer
C
10-120
glass fiber
Miller provides their parts as a percentages whereas the claim provides parts on a direct mass basis, however, when the ranges are normalized, the overlap. For example. Element A in Miller is (25–95%) and Element A in claim is (100 parts). Both allow for a high concentration, but the 100 parts must be converted to a percentage based on total parts (100+5+10 = 115 minimum / 100+25+120=245 maximum) and ranges from 40-87%. 40-87%. Overlaps with 25–95% of Miller.
A (parts)
B (parts)
C (parts)
Total
A%
B%
C%
Claim
100
5
10
115
86.96%
4.35%
8.69%
100
25
120
245
40.82%
10.20%
48.98%
Miller
25.0%
1.0%
20.0%
90.0%
40.0%
70.0%
Miller does not disclose that the composition has a melt flow rate or a melt crystallization peak temperature, however, these are properties of a chemical composition; Miller discloses a substantially similar composition; and, thus, Miller’s composition is presumed to have the same properties which are enabled by the same composition in the present application.
Miller further disclose the glass may be a flake (“inorganic fibers may have any desired cross-sectional shape, such as circular, flat” [P0026]). Flat glass fiber reads on glass plate.
The claim is rejected as a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on overlapping ranges as it is asserted that the claimed range is close to or overlaps with prior art, making it prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
In reference to claim 15 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Miller at paragraph 41.
In reference to claim 16 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Miller at paragraph 33 and 21.
In reference to claim 17 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Miller at paragraph 57.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20150225567 A1) in view of Kanematsu (US 20230111598 A1)
In reference to claim 14 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Miller further discloses the glass may be a flake (“inorganic fibers may have any desired cross-sectional shape, such as circular, flat” [P0026]), but does not disclose their use in a specific proportion of fiber and flake.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, metal member-polyarylene sulfide member composite and method for its production (P0005), Kanematsu discloses a similar composition comprising “a plate-like filler having an aspect ratio of 10 to 500 (A), a polyarylene sulfide resin (B), a thermoplastic resin having a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 20° C. or lower (C), and glass fibers (D)” (Abstract)
and teaches that “glass” (P0045) is useful as the plate-like filler;
and that the combination of chopped glass fiber and plate results that “mechanical strength can be synergistically improved due to specific orientations in the molded product based on the shapes of the glass fibers (D) and the filler (A)” (P0043).
and that “the plate-like filler (A) being contained in an amount of 30 to 70 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the sum of the plate-like filler (A), the polyarylene sulfide resin (B), the thermoplastic resin (C), and the glass fibers (D),” (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add glass flake in the amount claimed in order to result in the mechanical strength can be synergistically improved due to specific orientations in the molded product based on the shapes of the glass fibers (D) and the filler (A) as taught by Kanematsu (NOTE, this is the same purpose as the glass flake as disclosed in the present application).
Claim 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20240010901 A1)
In reference to claim 8, Yu discloses a metal member-polyarylene sulfide resin member composite which comprises a metal member and a polyarylene sulfide resin member and is obtained by injection molded direct joining, wherein the polyarylene sulfide resin member is formed by injection molding of a polyarylene sulfide composition which satisfies all of the following (1) to (3): (“the polymer composition may be employed in a composite structure that contains a metal component that is integrally formed and in contact with a resinous component that includes the polymer composition of the present invention. This may be accomplished using a variety of techniques, such as by an insert molding process” [P0090] and see title)
Yu further discloses “the polymer composition may contain an impact modifier. When employed, the impact modifier(s) may constitute from about 1 to about 20 parts, in some embodiments from about 2 to about 15 parts, and in some embodiments, from about 5 to about 10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyarylene sulfide(s)… poly(ethylene-co-butylacrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate),” (P0038-0040); or, also see “carrier resin may, for instance, constitute from about 0.05 wt. % to about 15 wt. %, in some embodiments from about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. %, and in some embodiments, from about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % of the polymer composition. … ethylene polymer may be a copolymer of ethylene and an α-olefin,” (P0057)
And, “20 to about 75 parts, and in some embodiments, from about 25 to about 60 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyarylene sulfide(s).” (P0043)
element
parts
description
A
100
polyarylene sulfide resin; P0038-0040, P0043
B
1-20
impact modifier or carrier resin (modified ethylene copolymer)
P0038-0040
C
20-75
glass fiber; P0043
Which overlaps with the claimed composition of
element
parts
description
A
100
polyarylene sulfide resin
B
5-25
modified ethylene copolymer
C
10-120
glass fiber
Yu does not disclose that the composition has a melt flow rate or a melt crystallization peak temperature, however, these are properties of a chemical composition; Yu discloses a substantially similar composition; and, thus, Yu’s composition is presumed to have the same properties which are enabled by the same composition in the present application.
The claim is rejected as a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on overlapping ranges as it is asserted that the claimed range is close to or overlaps with prior art, making it prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
In reference to claim 9 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Yu at paragraph 57 (“polyethylene”) or paragraph 85 (“lubricants”).
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Yu at paragraph 39-42, 50, and 71.
In reference to claim 11 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Yu at paragraph 90.
Claim 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20240010901 A1) in view of Kanematsu (US 20230111598 A1)
In reference to claim 13-14, Yu discloses a metal member-polyarylene sulfide resin member composite which comprises a metal member and a polyarylene sulfide resin member and is obtained by injection molded direct joining, wherein the polyarylene sulfide resin member is formed by injection molding of a polyarylene sulfide composition which satisfies all of the following (1) to (3): (“the polymer composition may be employed in a composite structure that contains a metal component that is integrally formed and in contact with a resinous component that includes the polymer composition of the present invention. This may be accomplished using a variety of techniques, such as by an insert molding process” [P0090] and see title)
Yu further discloses “the polymer composition may contain an impact modifier. When employed, the impact modifier(s) may constitute from about 1 to about 20 parts, in some embodiments from about 2 to about 15 parts, and in some embodiments, from about 5 to about 10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyarylene sulfide(s)… poly(ethylene-co-butylacrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate),” (P0038-0040); or, also see “carrier resin may, for instance, constitute from about 0.05 wt. % to about 15 wt. %, in some embodiments from about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. %, and in some embodiments, from about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % of the polymer composition. … ethylene polymer may be a copolymer of ethylene and an α-olefin,” (P0057)
And, “20 to about 75 parts, and in some embodiments, from about 25 to about 60 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyarylene sulfide(s).” (P0043)
element
parts
description
A
100
polyarylene sulfide resin; P0038-0040, P0043
B
1-20
impact modifier or carrier resin (modified ethylene copolymer)
P0038-0040
C
20-75
glass fiber; P0043
Which overlaps with the claimed composition of
element
parts
description
A
100
polyarylene sulfide resin
B
5-25
modified ethylene copolymer
C
10-120
glass fiber
Yu does not disclose that the composition has a melt flow rate or a melt crystallization peak temperature, however, these are properties of a chemical composition; Yu discloses a substantially similar composition; and, thus, Yu’s composition is presumed to have the same properties which are enabled by the same composition in the present application.
Yu does not disclose that glass flake is added.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, metal member-polyarylene sulfide member composite and method for its production (P0005), Kanematsu discloses a similar composition comprising “a plate-like filler having an aspect ratio of 10 to 500 (A), a polyarylene sulfide resin (B), a thermoplastic resin having a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 20° C. or lower (C), and glass fibers (D)” (Abstract)
and teaches that “glass” (P0045) is useful as the plate-like filler;
and that the combination of chopped glass fiber and plate results that “mechanical strength can be synergistically improved due to specific orientations in the molded product based on the shapes of the glass fibers (D) and the filler (A)” (P0043).
and that “the plate-like filler (A) being contained in an amount of 30 to 70 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the sum of the plate-like filler (A), the polyarylene sulfide resin (B), the thermoplastic resin (C), and the glass fibers (D),” (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add glass flake in the amount claimed in order to result in the mechanical strength can be synergistically improved due to specific orientations in the molded product based on the shapes of the glass fibers (D) and the filler (A) as taught by Kanematsu (NOTE, this is the same purpose as the glass flake as disclosed in the present application).
In reference to claim 15 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Yu at paragraph 57 (“polyethylene”) or paragraph 85 (“lubricants”).
In reference to claim 16 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Yu at paragraph 39-42, 50, and 71.
In reference to claim 17 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Yu at paragraph 90.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao (NPL 2019) focuses on developing high-performance polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) composites reinforced with ultra-high contents of glass fiber (GF) fabrics to improve mechanical properties. Zuo likewise provides relevant contemporary investigation of similar subject matter.
Rashed (NPL 2016) describes that “To fill the gap and address the limitations in the literature, this thesis projected is intended to form a polymer-metal composite system using a twin-screw extruder that blends both the matrix and the filler metal in their molten states.” and provides general background information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights