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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18-20, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 392,602 A1 to Tanebe et al. (hereinafter Tanebe) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-20, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103554902 A to Dong et al. (hereinafter Dong) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-5, 7, 12-15, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,056,505 A to Taylor et al. (hereinafter Taylor).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 12-15, 19, Taylor teaches a mouldable thermoplastic material comprising 20-90 wt% of a polyamide, 10-80 wt% of a glass fibre, and 0.05-15 wt% of an additive of coupling with the glass (See abstract), wherein the polyamide is specifically polyamide 6 (i.e. polycaprolactam), (See Examples 11-12, and Table III), which meets the claimed polyamide having formula (II) wherein R3 is a C6 hydrocarbon, and the additive is pyromellitic anhydride (also known as 1,2,4,5-benzenetetracarboxylic dianhydride), (See Examples 7 and 8, Table II), which meets the claimed multifunctional compound. Taylor further teaches that the above additive is also specifically used in an amount of 2.0 wt%, (See Example 12, Table III), which meets the claimed wt% ranges. Taylor teaches the material is obtained by dry blending the polyamide, silane-treated glass fibre, and the additive, in a hopper and fed into a twin screw extruder, and melt mixing them together at a temperature of 230-265 deg C, and extruding the composition to obtain a mould, (col 1, ln 60 to col 3, ln 17), which meets the claimed melt-blending step. Taylor further teaches that the amount of additive is added to couple with the glass, is incapable of forming a homopolymer (col 1, ln 45-54), and increases the tensile, flexural and impact strength, (col 2, ln 9-13). Taylor also teaches that the additive is not reacted with the thermoplastic beforehand, such as prior to the supply thereof to the extruder. (col 2, ln 19-24).
Thus, one skilled in the art would at once envisage the claimed arrangement combination of melt blending polyamide 6, glass fibre and pyromellitic anhydride, because Taylor specifically teaches examples wherein the specific thermoplastic used is polyamide 6, the amount of additive used is specifically 2 wt%, and the additive used is specifically pyromellitic anhydride, which meets the claimed arrangement combination. (See MPEP 2131.02(III), "A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination").
Regarding the “no crosslinking or star configuration,” one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the moulding of Taylor to have the claimed properties of “no crosslinking” of the claimed invention because Taylor teaches a substantially identical polyamide composition obtained by substantially the same method of the claimed invention such as the same polyamide 6, silane-treated glass fibre, and 2 wt% of pyromellitic anhydride melt-blended in a twin-screw extruder at 230-265 deg C, and this is further evident because Taylor teaches that the additive is added to couple with the glass, is incapable of forming a homopolymer (col 1, ln 45-54), and also teaches that the additive is not reacted with the thermoplastic beforehand, (col 2, ln 19-24), and thus, the additive coupled to the glass fiber would leave less reactive groups to form crosslinks with the polyamide. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,998,503 A to Jacobson et al. (hereinafter Jacobson).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-20, Jacobson teaches a molded bar that is 0.16 cm thick (1.6 mm thick), (col 10, ln 13-20), molded from an extruded mixture of nylon 6-6, melamine 0.54 wt% of pyrophosphate (MPP), pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA), glass fibers, and Acrawax C (i.e. lubricant), (Table V, col14, ln 30-60). The above nylon 6-6 meets the claimed formula (I) of claim 4 and also meets claims 5 because formula (II) is an optional component. The above pyromellitic dianhydride (also known as 1,2,4,5-benzenetetracarboxylic dianhydride) meets the claimed multifunctional compound. The above glass fibers meets the fibrous filler material. Jacobson further teaches the composition is used for molded plastic and structural applications with electrical properties (col 1, ln 40-50 and col 2, ln 1-5). Jacobson also teaches the above additive used is the pyromellitic dianhydride (col 8, ln 28-35), and is used in an amount of 0.1 to 8 wt% (col 9, ln 50-55). Jacobson further teaches that the additives added to the polymer will increase extruder throughput, achieving faster extrusion when compared to the same polymer containing no additive. (col 9, ln 5-37 and col 9, ln 50 to col 10, ln 11).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the pyromellitic dianhydride in the examples of Jacobson in the amounts of 0.1 to 8 wt% because Jacobson further teaches that the additives added to the polymer will increase extruder throughput achieving faster extrusion when compared to the same polymer containing no additive. (col 9, ln 10-25).
Regarding the “no crosslinking or star configuration,” one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the molded mixture of Jacobson in the overlapping ranges of 1.5-3.0 wt% of pyromellitic dianhydride to have the claimed properties of “no crosslinking” of the claimed invention because Jacobson teaches a substantially identical molded polyamide composition obtained by substantially the same method of the claimed invention such as the same nylon 6-6, glass fibers, and 0.1-8 wt% of pyromellitic anhydride melt-blended in a twin-screw extruder, and the Applicant states that “crosslinking” is caused when there is larger residence time in the reactive extrusion and faster extrusion prevents crosslinking and star configuration, (See para 115 of US publication), and this is further evident because Jacobson teaches that the additives added to the polymer will increase extruder throughput, achieving faster extrusion when compared to the same polymer containing no additive, (col 9, ln 5-37 and col 9, ln 50 to col 10, ln 11), i.e. improved melt flow rate, which the Applicant similarly teaches. (See para 93-94 of US publication), and thus, the faster extrusion of Jacobson means lower residence time in the extruder and more evidence of no crosslinking. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part.
On page 1-2, the Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach the claimed “no crosslinking or star configuration.” This is not persuasive in regard to Jacobson because, as cited above, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the molded mixture of Jacobson in the overlapping ranges of 1.5-3.0 wt% of pyromellitic dianhydride to have the claimed properties of “no crosslinking” of the claimed invention because Jacobson teaches a substantially identical molded polyamide composition obtained by substantially the same method of the claimed invention such as the same nylon 6-6, glass fibers, and 0.1-8 wt% of pyromellitic anhydride melt-blended in a twin-screw extruder, and the Applicant states in their specification that “crosslinking” is caused when there is larger residence time in the reactive extrusion, and faster extrusion prevents crosslinking and star configuration, (See para 115 of US publication), and this is further evident in Jacobson which teaches that the additives added to the polymer will increase extruder throughput achieving faster extrusion when compared to the same polymer containing no additive, (col 9, ln 5-37 and col 9, ln 50 to col 10, ln 11), i.e. improved melt flow rate, which the Applicant similarly teaches. (See para 93-94 of US publication), and thus, the faster extrusion of Jacobson means lower residence time in the extruder and more evidence of no crosslinking. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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 at (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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766