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 .
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.
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.
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, 7-11, and 13-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gareiss (U.S. 6,184,282) in view of Endtner (U.S. 20150274936) as evidenced by Spheriglass Products and About Titanium Dioxide.
Gareiss teaches polyamide compositions comprising melamine cyanurate, glass fibers and some amount of other processing aids to provide compositions with glow wire resistance. See Abstract and Example 1 for instance. Example 1 exemplifies 283 micron glass fibers (a d50 value according to the abstact).
Gareiss does not exemplify glass microspheres according Claim 1.
Endtner, working in the field of polyamide compositions with glow wire resistance similar to Applicant and Gareiss, suggests the use of glass microspheres (glass beads) in polyamide compositions along with melamine cyanurate, glass fibers and titanium dioxide have excellent properties in relation to heat resistance, flame retardancy in the glow wire test and isotropic shrinkage characteristics. (¶[0024])
Gareiss is also drawn to glow wire testing of polyamide compositions with good mechanical properties and good flame retardancy in the glow wire tests (Column 2 lines 5-15) by virtue of the short glass fibers used in Gareiss.
Comparing Gareiss to Endtner one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the heat resistance properties taught by Endtner are due mostly to the glass beads based on ¶[0024] of Endtner and the common components of Gareiss and Endtner such as polyamides and glass fiber compositions for glow wire testing. The titanium dioxide taught by Endtner can also be added as Gareiss is open to its addition. (Column 7 lines 5-15)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Gareiss by adding glass beads and titanium dioxide for the advantage of providing a final polyamide composition with excellent properties in relation to heat resistance, flame retardancy in the glow wire test and isotropic shrinkage characteristics as suggested by Endtner as discussed above. (¶[0024]) One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to choose the sized glass beads with 35 micron particle size because this size is exemplified by Endtner. (¶[0249) This is a d50 particles size as evidenced by Spheriglass Products. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use 10 to 40 wt% of the glass bead material as this is the preferred amount taught by Endtner in ¶[0169].
A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in the above combination because both Gareiss and Endtner are drawn to polyamide glass fiber filled compositions for glow wire testing. Note that both Gareiss and Endtner discuss wicking effect of putting glass fibers in the compositions (Gareiss (Column 1 lines 34-40) / Endtner ¶[0003]) and one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the use of short glass fibers compared to long glass fibers of Endtner (Column 2 lines 10-15) is an improvement on the teachings of Endtner with respect to the flame retardancy and glass fiber issue taught in both references.
Component E of the claims recites a total amount of 0.5 to 10 wt% of a lubricant, a stabilizer selected from a certain group and optionally a pigment. This means the total of the three components needs to add up to in a range that renders the recited range obvious.
Gariess does not specifically exemplify or teach amounts of the Component E as recited.
Gariss teaches lubricants, UV light stabilizers and pigments may be used in the compositions (Column 6 lines 45-55). In Column 6 lines 64-67 Gariess teaches up to 2 wt% of UV stabilizers. Light comprises UV and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the UV stabilizer is a light stabilizer.
Titanium dioxide is a pigment and is added to the compositions from Endtner as discussed above. Applicant’s as filed specification states that pigments are stabilizers (page 10 lines 1-10). Additionally, as evidenced by About Titanium Dioxide, TiO2 is reasonably suggested to be capable of being a light stabilizer. (See page 3 section of the included Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TMDA) About Titanium dioxide material.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it has both properties recited by the stabilizers of Claim 1.
Gariess also teaches up to 1wt% of the composition of lubricants such as stearamides. (Column 7 lines 1-5).
Endtner 0.01 % to 30 % by weight of titanium dioxide (¶[0039]) which overlaps the rane with TiO2 being a pigment and/or light stabilizer as discussed above.
Endter also teaches Component F as lubricants including EBS (ethylene bisstearylamide) ¶[0098] 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% preferred. ¶[0040]. (exemplified)
Endter also teaches various antioxidants, UV stabilizers, nucleating agents, pigments in ¶[0136] in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt% ¶[0044]. Endter prefers an antioxidant called Lowinox HD 98 (exemplified) In this section, lubricants (¶[0137]), pigments (including the recited nigrosine and carbon black and, also, titanium dioxide) ¶[0139], thermal stabilizers (including the recited phosphites), Nucleating agents (Applicant in the claim considers nucleating agents to be stabilizers) ¶[0141]. This range of additives and these additives is the same range as recited.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Gariess using the 0.1 wt % to 5 wt% of the above additives, including lubricants such as EBS, antioxidants and titanium dioxide (motivated above) as taught by Endtner for the advantage of using similar additives already taught by Gariess in similar applications end uses.
This reads over Component E of Claim 1 along with the TiO2 of Claim 7 and Claim 8
Regarding the rest of the amounts claimed, the above ranges of amounts of components of Gareiss and Endtner including average lengths in addition to amounts taught in the abstracts overlap the amounts of Claim 1, Claim 7, Claim 8, Claim 17, Claim 18, Claim 19, and Claim 20 which reads over these claims. Additionally, Claim 1 is read over by the combination of rejections of Claims 1 (70 to 200 micron glass fibers (a d50 value according to the abstract)) along with Claim 16 (1-50 wt% fibrous fillers from the abstract).
Glass fibers of Gareiss and Glass beads of Endtner are both sized which reads over Claim 9.
PA 6 is exemplified by both Gareiss and Endtner which reads over Claim 10.
Moldings are made from mixing and molding the compositions (see examples) which reads over Claim 11 (Gareiss column 7 lines 25-35), Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 14 (Gareiss Example where the compositions are mixed, extruded into pellet form and then the pellets are injection molded).
If Applicant intends to argue there is criticality which gives an unexpected result to the compositions in light of the teachings of the prior art, Applicant is reminded such arguments to unexpected results can only be properly considered when all the factors in MPEP §716.02 are properly taken into account. Overcoming a §103 rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope and the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant’s showing of allegedly unexpected results must satisfy ALL of these requirements. Additionally, MPEP §716.01(b) states a “nexus” between the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, must be present. The burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
While Applicant has demonstrations with and without glass beads and short fibers (Comp 6) of the as-filed specification, the GWFI results do not align with Gareiss’ results (which are to polyamide composition without glass beads). Furthermore, both Gareiss and Endtner reasonably suggest the improvement in flame retardancy and heat resistance through the combination of short glass fibers and glass beads, which reasonably suggests Applicant’s results are to be expected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and response filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered but are not sufficient to move the application to allowance. The rejections of record have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendment to place the limitations of previous Claim 2/15 and Claim 16.
Applicant’s remarks filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues the exemplification of Gareiss do not read on the 7-10 and 150-500 micron limitation of the claim.
Gariess abstract states:
C) from 1 to 50% by weight of a fibrous filler which is pretreated with a silane compound and whose arithmetic mean fiber length (d.sub.50) is from 70 to 200 microns, or of an acicular mineral filler or a mixture of these;
This reads over those limitations as put forth previously. Examples and preferred embodiments do not limit the broader disclosure of Gariess.
Endtner is used for the glass spheres of the claims and, for this reason Endtner’s teachings with respect to preferred amounts of fibers not used in modifying Gariess at this time are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments to impermissible hindsight are not persuasive as the Applicant has not pointed out what parts of the rejection have come solely from their disclosure. In other words, everything in the rejection comes from the teachings of the prior are and, therefore, hindsight arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766