DETAILED ACTION
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 with traverse of group III, claims 6, 19, 20 in the reply filed on 8/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there on the ground that unity of invention does exist between group I to VI because there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature, Group I to VI has no serious search burden.
This is not found persuasive because as provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The common technical feature among group I to VI is taught by Brun et al. (US20170058119) and JP2018104070 et al as discussed in the following office action rejection, thus the common technical feature is not special. Furthermore, searches in groups I-VI requires searches in different classes/fields.
The Restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Ground I Rejection
Claim(s) 6, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brun et al. (US20170058119), and further in view of Bhattacharjee et al. (US 20150353692)
As to claim 6, Brun et al. discloses a preform (see e.g. transesterified-blend composition for manufacturing films multilayered, or muti-layer blown bottles in Par. 160) for a bottle formed of a resin composition (see e.g. bottles in Par. 160), the resin composition comprising:
a polyester resin (A), comprising:
a structural unit (A-1) derived from terephthalic acid(see e.g. terephthalic acid in Par. 40): and
a structural unit (A-2) derived from an aliphatic diol(see e.g. aliphatic diol in Par. 40) ; and
a polyester resin (B), comprising:
a structural unit (B-1) derived from a 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid(see e.g. 2,5-furan dicarboxylic acid in Par. 39): and
a structural unit (B-2) derived from 1,2-ethanediol(see e.g. C.sub.2-C.sub.12 aliphatic diol in Par. 40, such as ethylene glycol in Par. 145 which is same as 1,2-ethanediol),
wherein a mass percentage of the polyester resin (B) relative to a total mass of the polyester resin (A) and the polyester resin (B), is 5 to 25 mass%(see e.g. the first polyester is presented 5-25 weight % on the total weight of the reaction mixture in par. 144, PEF as a and PET as b in Par. 110, PEF/PET blend composite in Par. 327, PEF as 25% in example 7.1),
wherein an intrinsic viscosity is 0.65 dl/g or more and 1.00 dl/g or less as determined by dissolving a 0.25 g sample, cut out from the preform, in a 50 ml mixed solvent of 50:50 mass ratio of phenol to 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (see e.g. PET/PEF sample in ,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in Par. 257) and measuring at 30°C using an Ubbelohde viscometer, wherein a Huggins constant is set to 0.32(see e.g. 0.67 dL/g in par. 287), and
Brun et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein a haze, measured in accordance with JIS K 7136: 2000 "Plastics- Determination of haze for transparent materials" except that a light flux is focused on a 7.0 mm-square, is 0.1 to 8%”
Regards to claim limitation “wherein a haze, measured in accordance with JIS K 7136: 2000 "Plastics- Determination of haze for transparent materials" except that a light flux is focused on a 7.0 mm-square, is 0.1 to 8%”, haze formation can be due to inherent polymer properties, however Bhattacharjee et al. is still introduced to teaching choose materials based on lower haze for transparent property is desired in package industry.
Bhattacharjee et al. (US 20150353692) discloses articles made of PET, or PEF, or similar polyesters are preferably to be clear or transparent (haze of 1% or less (ASTM D1003)) packaging films, which may be used, for example, for the packaging of fresh produce (fresh fruits and vegetable) or pharmaceutical products in Par. 60.
Both Brun et al. and Bhattacharjee et al are analogous in the field of PET/PEF based bottle, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify the PET/PEF polymer blend materials of Brun et al. so that the formed PET/PEF can have a desirable haze such as haze of 1% or less as taught by Bhattacharjee et al. as the packaging or bottle is desired to have low haze being transparent for packaging purpose as suggested by Bhattacharjee et al..
Claim 19. Brun et al. discloses the preform of claim 6, wherein the aliphatic diol is at least one selected from the group consisting of 2,2'-oxydiethanol, 2,2'-(ethylenedioxy)diethanol, 1,3- propanediol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,5-pentanediol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,4- cyclohexanediol, 1,4-cyclohexane dimethanol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, and isosorbide(see e.g. ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3-propanediol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,5-pentanediol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, and 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol in Par. 145).
Claim 20. Brun et al. discloses the preform of claim 19, wherein the aliphatic diol is ethylene glycol(see e.g. see e.g. ethylene glycol in Par. 145).
Ground II Rejection
Claim(s) 6, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018104070 et al. (cited in IDS), and further in view of Bhattacharjee et al. (US 20150353692)
As to claim 6, JP2018104070 et al. discloses a preform (see e.g. preform under manufacturing method of container) for a bottle formed of a resin composition (see e.g. bottle under shape, physical properties and usage), the resin composition comprising:
a polyester resin (A), comprising:
a structural unit (A-1) derived from terephthalic acid(see e.g. terephthalic acid under Terephthalate polyester resin): and
a structural unit (A-2) derived from an aliphatic diol(see e.g. ethylene glycol under terephthalate polyester resin) ; and
a polyester resin (B), comprising:
a structural unit (B-1) derived from a 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid(see e.g. 2,5-furan dicarboxylic acid under polyethylene furanoate): and
a structural unit (B-2) derived from 1,2-ethanediol(see e.g. monoethylene glycol under polyethylene furanoate),
wherein a mass percentage of the polyester resin (B) relative to a total mass of the polyester resin (A) and the polyester resin (B), is 5 to 25 mass%(see e.g. proportion of the polyethylene furanoate is 2 to 25% by mass relative to 100% by mass of the total of the terephthalate polyester resin and the polyethylene furanoate in abstract),
wherein an intrinsic viscosity is 0.65 dl/g or more and 1.00 dl/g or less as determined by dissolving a 0.25 g sample, cut out from the preform, in a 50 ml mixed solvent of 50:50 mass ratio of phenol to 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (see e.g. PET/PEF sample in ,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in Par. 257) and measuring at 30°C using an Ubbelohde viscometer, wherein a Huggins constant is set to 0.32(see e.g. 0.83 dL/g in example 1), and
JP2018104070 et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein a haze, measured in accordance with JIS K 7136: 2000 "Plastics- Determination of haze for transparent materials" except that a light flux is focused on a 7.0 mm-square, is 0.1 to 8%”
Regards to claim limitation “wherein a haze, measured in accordance with JIS K 7136: 2000 "Plastics- Determination of haze for transparent materials" except that a light flux is focused on a 7.0 mm-square, is 0.1 to 8%”, haze formation can be due to inherent polymer properties, however Bhattacharjee et al. is still introduced to teaching choose materials based on lower haze for transparent property is desired in package industry.
Bhattacharjee et al. (US 20150353692) discloses articles made of PET, or PEF, or similar polyesters are preferably to be clear or transparent (haze of 1% or less (ASTM D1003)) packaging films, which may be used, for example, for the packaging of fresh produce (fresh fruits and vegetable) or pharmaceutical products in Par. 60.
Both JP2018104070 et al. and Bhattacharjee et al are analogous in the field of PET/PEF based bottle, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify the PET/PEF polymer blend materials of JP2018104070 et al. so that the formed PET/PEF can have a desirable haze such as haze of 1% or less as taught by Bhattacharjee et al. as the packaging or bottle is desired to have low haze being transparent for packaging purpose as suggested by Bhattacharjee et al..
Claim 19. JP2018104070 et al. discloses the preform of claim 6, wherein the aliphatic diol is at least one selected from the group consisting of 2,2'-oxydiethanol, 2,2'-(ethylenedioxy)diethanol, 1,3- propanediol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,5-pentanediol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,4- cyclohexanediol, 1,4-cyclohexane dimethanol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, and isosorbide(see e.g. ethylene glycol under terephthalate polyester resin).
Claim 20. JP2018104070 et al. discloses the preform of claim 19, wherein the aliphatic diol is ethylene glycol(see e.g. ethylene glycol under terephthalate polyester resin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US20190112419) discloses PET/PEF blend that can be used for packaging such as bottle (see e.g. Par. 30, Par. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONG GUO whose telephone number is (571)272-3066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/TONG GUO/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights