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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are pending in the current application.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JPH 07102155 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Hara et al. (US 2020/0362099 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawakami teaches a composition for injection molding comprising a colored thermoplastic masterbatch pellet Wb with a colorant (i.e., a second pellet) and an uncolored thermoplastic resin pellet Wa (i.e., a first pellet) (Kawakami, [0001], [0005]-[0008], [0015]-[0016]). Kawakami teaches the thermoplastic resin in both pellets includes polyester resin (Kawakami, [0009]-[0011]). Kawakami teaches the colorant is a dye or a pigment (Kawakami, [0017]). Kawakami teaches the shape of the pellets of the masterbatch pellet Wb is preferably cylindrical, and the Wb pellets are preferably the same shape as the thermoplastic resin pellets Wa (Kawakami, [0015], [0018]). Kawakami teaches the cylindrical pellets have a diameter of about 2 to 4 mm, a length of about 2.4 to 4 mm, and the average pellet weight of Wb is smaller than Wa, where a ratio of Wb/Wa is 0.45 to 0.95 (Kawakami, [0007], [0015], [0019]-[0021]).
Kawakami remains silent regarding a liquid crystal polyester, a colorant of carbon black, and a volume ratio of Wb(second pellet)/Wa(first pellet) being 2.3 or less.
Hara, however, teaches a liquid crystal polyester pellet having a diameter of 1 to 3 mm, a length of 1 to 5 mm, and a volume of 7.5x108 μm3 to 4.0x1010 μm3 (Hara, Abstract, [0027]-[0029], [0036]-[0042], [0047]-[0048], [0100]-[0101]). Hara teaches the liquid crystal polyester pellet can comprise colorants such as dyes or pigments that include carbon black (Hara, [0233]-[0240]).
Since Kawakami and Hara both disclose polyester-based pellets comprising colorants having similar shape and dimensions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Kawakami’s two thermoplastic resin pellets with Hara’s liquid crystal polyester thermoplastic resin, with Hara’s carbon black colorant, and in accordance with Hara’s pellet sizing and volume guidance to yield pellets that improve suppression of blisters, exhibit improved physical properties, exhibit excellent heat resistance, exhibit excellent strength and rigidity, and can be produced with satisfactory operability as taught by Hara (Hara, [0011]-[0013], [0154]).
Although modified Kawakami remains silent regarding a volume ratio of Wb(second pellet)/Wa(first pellet), one skilled in the art would understand that having two different compositional pellets with the same shape, length and diameter within the aforementioned ranges, and average pellet weight of Wb being smaller than Wa would yield a Wb(second pellet)/Wa(first pellet) volume ratio of about 1 or less with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143). Modified Kawakami’s volume ratio of about 1 or less falls within the claimed range of 2.3 or less, and therefore, satisfies the claimed ratio (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kawakami teaches a content of the carbon black colorant is in a range of 0.1 to 2.5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the liquid crystal polyester (Hara, [0238]-[0240]). Modified Kawakami’s carbon black content overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 40 parts by mass, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kawakami teaches an injection molded article produced by using the pellet composition discussed above for claim 1 (Kawakami, [0001], [0009], [0011], [0022]; Hara, [0283]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JPH 07102155 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Hara et al. (US 2020/0362099 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nakane et al. (WO 2013129094 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kawakami teaches the composition for injection molding comprising the colored thermoplastic masterbatch pellet Wb with a colorant (second pellet) and the uncolored thermoplastic resin pellet Wa (first pellet) as discussed above for claim 1.
Modified Kawakami remains silent regarding a content of the second pellet being 1 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the first pellet.
Nakane, however, teaches a thermoplastic pellet mixture comprising a first pellet and a second pellet in a ratio of 80:1 to 9:1 in terms of mass, where the thermoplastic resin includes polyester resins (Nakane, Abstract, Pgs 2-4, 6). Nakane’s ratio normalized relative to 100 parts by mass of the first pellet yields: 80/1=100/x, x=100/80=1.25; 9/1=100/x, x=100/9=11.11; a range of 1.25 to 11.11 parts by weight of a second pellet with respect to 100 parts by mass of a first pellet. Nakane’s second pellet content overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 10 parts by mass, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Since modified Kawakami and Nakane both disclose polyester-based pellet compositions comprising two different pellets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed modified Kawakami’s composition to have the second pellet within a range that renders obvious the claimed range in accordance with Nakane’s guidance to yield a pellet composition that exhibits uniform dispersibility as taught by Nakane (Nakane, Abstract, Pg 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights