RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 04/22/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/16/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/16/2026.
Second Non-Final Rejection
The present office action includes a rejection of the claims that was not necessitated by the amendment filed on 07/16/2026. As such, the present office action is a non-final rejection
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (JPH10-130502) (cited in the IDS filed on 04/08/2024) in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP H06-345965),
Citations to Ishikawa and Kobayashi et al. refer to the machine translation documents in the record or provided with the office action.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa et al. disclose a polyphenylene sulfide resin composition including 70-95 wt% polyphenylene sulfide having a melt viscosity in the range of 10-50,000 poise, 5-30 wt% of at least one crystalline polyamide, 0.1-5 wt% of at least one kind of particle filler and 25-100 wt% of a fibrous filler material. (Abstract). Relative to the content of polyphenylene sulfide, the polyamide is included in an amount in the range of about 5% (5/95) to 43% (30/70), thereby overlapping with the presently claimed range. The disclosed ranges overlap with the presently claimed ranges and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
With respect to the limitation “under conditions of a measuring temperature of 315oC and a load of 10 kg using a capillary rheometer flow tester fitted with a 1-mm diameter and a 2-mm long die”, Ishikawa et al. discloses that the viscosity is measured under the same claimed conditions. (par. [0023]).
With respect to the limitation “post-consumer recycled polyamide”, Ishikawa et al. does not disclose that the polyamide is “post-consumer recycled polyamide” as presently claimed. However, the term “post-consumer recycled” does not impart distinct chemical or structural features to the claimed polyamide material that would be patentably distinct from the crystalline polyamide material disclosed in Ishikawa et al. Essentially, the term refers to how the polyamide is made and is therefore being interpreted similar to a product by process limitation. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Given that the claimed post-consumer recycled polyamide would not be distinct in composition from the crystalline polyamide disclosed in Ishikawa et al., the limitation post-consumer recycled does not patentably define over the disclosure of Ishikawa et al.
Ishikawa et al. does not disclose that the polyphenylene sulfide resin composition includes a thermoplastic elastomer.
Kobayashi et al. teaches polyphenylene sulfide composition which has high mechanical strength, impact and heat resistance (Abstract) which may include 1-40% of a thermoplastic elastomer material (par. [0004], page 2) for improving the mechanical/physical properties of the polyphenylene resin containing composition including impact resistance, heat resistance and rigidity. (page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a thermoplastic elastomer in the polyphenylene sulfide composition of Ishikawa et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a thermoplastic elastomer in the polyphenylene sulfide composition of Ishikawa et al. in order to improve the material properties thereof such as impact resistance, heat resistance and rigidity, as taught by Kobayashi et al.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “recycled” does not patentably define over the teachings of Ishikawa et al. for substantially the same reasons as the limitation “post-consumer recycled polyamide” in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “obtained by collecting and/or recycling at least one member selected from a fishing net, a rope, a carpet and a mat” refer product by process limitations which define how the polyamide was obtained. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa et al. further discloses including a silane coupling agent (i.e. a compatibilizer) with the fiber materials. (par. [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa et al. discloses the use of a non-fibrous filler material in the form of silica, talc and kaolin. (Abstract and par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa et al. discloses a melt viscosity in the range of 10-50,000 poise (par. [0009]) and that the fibers are made of glass (par. [0035]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (JPH10-130502) (cited in the IDS filed on 04/08/2024) in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP H06-345965), further in view of ‘227 (JP-4700227)
Ishikawa and Kobayashi et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Ishikawa et al. discloses pelletizing the polyphenylene sulfide resin composition (par. [0048]-[0049]) but does not disclose the shape or diameters thereof.
‘227 teaches a thermoplastic pellet composition and a method of sorting the pellets for using the pellets in a hot runner molding process. (Abstract). ‘227 teaches that the resin material for the pellet may be polyphenylene sulfide (par. [0016]) and that the pellets may have a columnar or spherical shape with a diameter preferably in the range of 2-6 mm. (par. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make spherical or columnar pellets with the polyphenylene sulfide resin of Ishilawa et al. having diameters in the range of 2-6 mm as taught in ‘227 which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make pellets having diameters in the range of 2-6 mm as taught in ‘227 as one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that pellets having diameters in the range of 2-6 mm would be suitable for use as the materials in a molded product. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make similar shaped and size pellets in order to be able to process them to make a molded product.
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa et al. does not teach that the pellets are of a brown or light brown color. Ishikawa et al. does disclose the use of colorants which would affect the color of the resin and pellet. (par. [0038]). The selection of a particular color for the resin and pellet would therefore amount to an aesthetic design choice (see MPEP 2144.04) to one of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious which would have been controlled by the selection of appropriate colorant.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “cold-cut” refers to the process by which the claimed pellets are made. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 07/16/2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the previous office action have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides unexpectedly superior results with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 executed by Hiroki Inoue.
In order to traverse a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on allegations of unexpected results, the evidence provided must be of probative value, commensurate in scope with the claims and show that the results are unexpected. MPEP 716.02. The evidence must further be weighed against the evidence supporting a prima facie case obviousness. Id. When making allegations of unexpected results, the Applicant bears the burden to demonstrate whether the differences between the prior art and claimed invention differ to such an extent that the difference is unexpected. (MPEP 716.02 and 716.02(b)). The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance”. (MPEP 716.02(b), citing Ex Parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1318, Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). It should be noted that mere allegation of improved properties alone is no sufficient to serve as the basis of unexpected results if they do not show a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties. (see MPEP 716.02(c) I). Furthermore, the unexpected results relied upon by the Applicant for patentability must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. MPEP 716.02(d).
The data provided in the table of the declaration is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as the type and content of the material narrower in scope than the limitations in the independent claim. Furthermore, the prior art as disclosed in Kobayashi et al. discloses the inclusion of elastomer materials in polyphenylene sulfide compositions improve the material properties thereof such as mechanical, heat and chemical resistance. Therefore, the superior results presently being argues to not appear to be unexpected as required under MPEP 716.02(c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 08/24/2026
Prosecution Insights