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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-10 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The claims still lack unity of invention as previously indicated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as being anticipated by Krijgsman (US 2016/0322738)
In ¶’s 18 and 30-33, Krijgsman teach a thermoplastic molding composition comprising a blend of a semi-crystalline polyamide (A) and polyamide (B), wherein polyamide (A) is exemplified by PA 6T/66 (¶ 20) and polyamide (B) is exemplified by PA 6 (¶ 21).
In ¶’s 30-31, Krijgsman teach that the polyamide (A) and polyamide (B) are preferably present in the ratios 90/10 to 60/40, i.e., polyamide (B), PA 6, (the present component A) is preferably from 10 to 40%, and PA 6T/66, (the present component B), is from 60 to 90%; wherein the combined amount of the polyamide is 30 to 80% of the composition, Thus, the present component A), PA 6, is preferably from 10x30% to 40x80%, or 3 to 32%, based on the weight of the whole composition. The present component B), PA 6T/66, is preferably from 60x30% to 90x80%, or 18 to 72%, based on the weight of the whole composition. This is a ratio for the present component A) and the present component B) of 3/72 to 32/18, or 0.04:1 to 1.7:1, which is 1:1 to 1.7:1 from the claims.
The composition comprises 5-50 wt% of the fibrous filler, as well as other additives such as flame retardants (See ¶ 33).
Regarding new claim 11, it is noted that the claim allows for up to 30% of further additives such as stabilizers, oxidation retarders and agents to counteract decomposition by heat, all of which could apply to the flame retardants in Krijgsman.
Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) are still met.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijgsman as applied to claims 1-3 and 6 above, and further in view of Buhler et al. (US 2004/0030023).
Krijgsman, above, does not recite the antioxidant additive of the present claims. However, it is known in the art to use antioxidants in polyamide molding compositions, for the purpose of stabilizing the polyamide molding composition, such as taught by Buhler et al. (See claim 5)
In ¶ 69 and claim 5, Buhler et al. teach a thermoplastic molding composition comprising a blend of polyamide polymers, comprising 0.5 to 5% wt % of antioxidant stabilizer additives.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to include antioxidant stabilizers in the thermoplastic polyamide blend molding composition of Krijgsman in order to obtain the advantages taught by Buhler et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of,” it limits the composition to the specified materials and other materials that do not materially destroy or diminish the basic and novel characteristics of the composition. It is noted that the present claims allows for up to 30% of further additives such as stabilizers, oxidation retarders and agents to counteract decomposition by heat, all of which could apply to the flame retardants in Krijgsman. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that flame retardants would destroy the basic characteristics of the composition. Thus, Krijgsman is not excluded by the amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
KCE