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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-12 in the reply filed on 16 July 2016 is acknowledged. Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of preparing a polyester and a catalyst system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “wherein: the polymer matrix includes at least one polyester repeating unit” in lines 1 and 2. However, claim 1 recites “comprising: a polymer matrix containing a polyester repeating unit” in lines 1 and 2. As such, claim 12 fails to further narrow the scope of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuo et al., US 5,516,879 (“Yuo”). Arai et al., US 2019/0111617 (“Arai”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, You discloses a polybutylene terephthalate resin (PBT) (i.e., a polyester) formed using a catalyst system comprising (a) a titanium compound primary catalyst and (b) one or more of an alkali metal phosphate (abstract, col. 2 lines 7-36). The alkali metal phosphate component (b) may comprise, inter alia, trisodium phosphate and sodium dihydrogen phosphate (col. 2 lines 26-29). The trisodium phosphate corresponds to the claimed multi-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid. The sodium dihydrogen phosphate corresponds to the claimed mono-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid. Yuo does not teach or suggest that the catalyst system is removed from the PBT resin after polymerization. As such, Yuo reasonably teaches a polyester polymer comprising trisodium phosphate and sodium dihydrogen phosphate.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yuo is silent regarding the melting point and crystallization temperature of the PBT resin. However, Arai serves as evidence that the PBT resin has a melting point of 225 ˚C and a crystallization temperature of 153 ˚C [0046].
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the phosphate of the trisodium phosphate and sodium dihydrogen phosphate reads on the phosphoric acid of claim 5. The sodium of the trisodium phosphate and sodium dihydrogen phosphate reads on the alkali metal of claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, PBT has a chemical formula which meets the claimed Chemical formula 1 wherein R1 is C6 arylene group and R2 is a C4 alkylene group.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schellekens et al., US 2007/0282056 (“Schellekens”). Arai is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Schellekens discloses a polyester resin composition comprising a PBT resin component and second polyester resin component [abstract, 0012, claim 1]. The PBT resin component and second polyester resin component corresponds to the claimed polymer matrix containing a polyester repeating unit. The PBT resin component may comprise additives including a nucleating agent and a transesterification inhibitor [0078]. As a nucleating agent, Schellekens teaches barium sulfate [0092]. As a transesterification inhibitor, Schellekens teaches, inter alia, sodium triphosphate [0091]. In light of the teachings of Schellekens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have selected barium sulfate as the nucleating agent and sodium triphosphate as the transesterification inhibitor in the composition disclosed by Schellekens because they are disclosed as being suitable for the purpose. The barium sulfate would have corresponded to the claimed mono-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid, and the sodium triphosphate would have corresponded to the claimed multi-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Schellekens is silent regarding the melting point and crystallization temperature of the PBT resin. However, Arai serves as evidence that PBT resin has a melting point of 225 ˚C and a crystallization temperature of 153 ˚C [0046].
Regarding claim 5, the sulfate of the barium sulfate nucleating agent corresponds to the claimed inorganic acid including sulfuric acid. Additionally, the phosphate of the trisodium phosphate transesterification inhibitor corresponds to the claimed inorganic acid including phosphoric acid.
Regarding claim 6, the sodium of the trisodium phosphate transesterification inhibitor corresponds to the claimed alkali metal.
Regarding claim 8, Schellekens teaches that the amount of nucleating agent (i.e., barium sulfate) in the composition is preferably less than 0.1 wt% relative to the total weight of the composition [0093] and the amount of transesterification inhibitor (i.e., trisodium phosphate) in the composition is 0 to 0.2 wt% based on the total weight of the composition [0096-0106]. As such, the teachings of Schellekens include a ratio range of trisodium phosphate to barium sulfate which overlaps, and therefore renders obvious, the claimed ratio range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Schellekens teaches that the composition comprises from 0 to 0.2 wt% (i.e., from 0 to 2,000 ppm) of the transesterification inhibitor (i.e., trisodium phosphate) [0106] which renders obvious the claimed range of amounts of multi-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid.
Regarding claim 10, Schellekens teaches that the composition comprises less than 0.1 wt% (i.e., less than 1,000 ppm) of the nucleating agent (i.e., barium sulfate) [0093] which encompasses, and therefore renders obvious, the claimed range of amounts of mono-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid.
Regarding claim 11, PBT has a chemical formula which meets the claimed Chemical formula 1 wherein R1 is a C6 arylene group and R2 is a C4 alkylene group.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goshima et al., EP 3 327 085 B1 (“Goshima”)(copy provided herewith). Arai is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 1 and 12, Goshima discloses a resin composition comprising a PBT resin (i.e., a polymer matrix containing a polyester repeat unit) and an alkali compound [abstract, 0001, 0012, 0042, 0043]. The alkali compound may be, inter alia, sodium sulfate or sodium hydrogen sulfate (i.e., sodium bisulfite) [0043]. Goshima is silent regarding the composition comprising both a mono-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid and a multi-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid. However, as is set forth in MPEP 2144.06 it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions known for the same purpose. Given that Goshima discloses that the alkali compound may be sodium sulfate or sodium hydrogen sulfate (i.e., sodium bisulfite) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilized both compounds. In the resulting composition, the sodium sulfate and sodium hydrogen sulfate would have respectively read on the claimed mono-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid and multi-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid.
Regarding claim 2, Goshima teaches that the disclosed composition has an index of yellowness that is 4 or less [0056].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Goshima is silent regarding the melting point and crystallization temperature of the PBT resin. However, Arai serves as evidence that PBT resin has a melting point of 225 ˚C and a crystallization temperature of 153 ˚C [0046].
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the sulfate and sodium of the sodium sulfate would have respectively read on the sulfuric acid of claim 5 and the alkali metal of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the sodium sulfate and sodium hydrogen sulfate of the above described obvious embodiment of the composition of Goshima would have respectively read on the claimed sodium sulfate and sodium bisulfate.
Regarding claim 11, PBT has a chemical formula which meets the claimed Chemical formula 1 wherein R1 is a C6 arylene group and R2 is a C4 alkylene group.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al., US 2009/0082499 (“Nishida”) in view of Shimoma et al., JP H07-331047A (“Shimoma”)(machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Nishida discloses a film formed from a polyester-based resin composition comprising a polyester-based resin and a fine powder filler [abstract, 0008]. The polyester-based resin corresponds to the claimed polymer matrix containing a repeating unit. Nishida teaches that the fine powder filler may be barium sulfate [abstract, 0046] which corresponds to the claimed mono-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid. Nishida further teaches that the polyester-based resin composition may additionally comprise additives including various stabilizers [0078].
Nishida is silent regarding the polyester-based resin composition comprising a multi-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid.
Shimoma discloses a film formed from a polyester-based resin composition [abstract, 0001, 0002]. Shimoma teaches that the polyester-based resin composition of the film may additionally comprise a stabilizer which prevents chemical changes in the polymer [0025]. As a stabilizer Shimoma teaches sodium hydrogen phosphate [0025].
Nishida and Shimoma are both directed towards films formed from a polyester-based resin composition. In light of the teachings of Shimoma it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have incorporated sodium hydrogen phosphate into the polyester-based resin composition of the film of Nishida with the expectation of preventing chemical changes in the polyester polymer of the film. The sodium hydrogen phosphate in the polyester-based resin composition of the resulting film would have corresponded to the claimed multi-metallic salt of a polyvalent inorganic acid.
Regarding claim 2, Nishida teaches that the disclosed film has a yellowness index of less than 3.6 [abstract].
Regarding claim 5, the phosphate of the sodium hydrogen phosphate in the polyester-based resin film would have corresponded to the claimed phosphoric acid. Alternatively, the sulfate of the barium sulfate would have corresponded to the claimed sulfuric acid.
Regarding claim 6, the sodium of the sodium hydrogen phosphate would have corresponded to the claimed alkali metal.
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are rejected. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM.
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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/LEE E SANDERSON/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights