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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrasing “consists of” followed by “optionally” renders claim 7 indefinite because “consists of” is generally held as exclusive claim language, and the addition of “optionally” makes the intended scope of the claim unclear as it would allow other elements. For the sake of examination, the features following “optionally” will not be construed as part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berns et al. (U.S. Patent 5,114,767), in view of Clay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0147852). Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Berns et al., hereafter “Berns,” show that it is known to carry out a twin sheet thermoforming process for manufacturing a hollow body (Abstract), said process comprising: supplying two sheets comprising at least one face consisting of a pseudo- amorphous composition based on polyaryl ether ketone(s) (Column 2, lines 44-49); a step of softening the two sheets at a softening temperature, so as to form softened sheets (Column 2, lines 21-26), the softening temperature being greater than or equal to the glass transition temperature of each pseudo-amorphous composition (Column 2, lines 21-26); a step of forming the softened sheets so as to form thermoformed sheets (Column 2, lines 26-34), a step of contacting and coalescing at least one contact zone of said faces of the softened sheets (Column 2, lines 34-36), so as to form an intermediate body, the contact zones being heated to a contacting temperature, each contact zone remaining in an essentially amorphous state at least until contacting (Column 2, lines 26-34). Berns does not show a crystallization step. Clay et al., hereafter “Clay,” shows that it is known to carry out a PAEK thermoforming process including a step of crystallizing the composition at a mold temperature, to form a crystallized hollow body, the crystallization step being carried out essentially after the contacting and coalescing step (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Clay’s crystallization step as part of Berns’ thermoforming process in order to create an article having the desired physical and chemical makeup and structure.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 12, Berns shows the method of claim 1, including the required composition material, and it is held that the claimed composition properties would therefore be inherently taught by Berns.
Regarding Claims 4, and 7-8, Berns shows the method of claim 1, including one wherein the at least one polyaryl ether ketone is a polyether ketone (Column 2, lines 44-49).
Regarding Claim 9, Berns shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the two sheets have, independently or not of each other, a thickness of 200 microns to 20 millimeters (Column 8, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 10, Berns shows the method of claim 1, but he does not show a crystallization process. Clay shows that it is known to carry out a process wherein the crystallization step is carried out to an average degree of crystallinity in the thickness of strictly greater than 7%, as measured by WAXS, during the crystallization step (0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Clay’s crystallization step as part of Berns’ thermoforming process in order to create an article having the desired physical and chemical makeup and structure.
Regarding Claim 13, Berns shows the method of claim 1 above, including general softening and mold temperatures, but he does not show the specific relative temperatures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any appropriate temperatures, such as those claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 15, Berns shows a hollow body comprising at least one internal surface consisting of a crystallized composition based on polyaryl ether ketone(s) (Figure 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742