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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 6 as well as the addition of claims 18-21. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 15-21 are pending with claims 4, 7-8, 11, and 16-17 withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 15, and 18-21 will be examined.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 20130172488).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 15,
Chou teaches a composition that contains from about 35 to about 65% by weight polyamide (Paragraph 33) which is preferred to be polyamide 6.10, polyamide 6.12, polyamide 10.10, polyamide 11, or polyamide 12 (Paragraph 95), a compatibilizer made from ethylene and methacrylic acid (Paragraph 103, 110) which is present in amounts of about 30% by weight of the combined weight of the polyamide and compatibilizer which overlaps with the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Chou further teaches that the composition can contain fillers such as glass fibers (Paragraph 123) and stabilizers (Paragraph 123) in amounts of between 0.001 and 30% by weight (Paragraph 123), which overlaps with the ranges for these components. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Finally, Chou teaches that additional thermoplastic polymers may be added in amounts from 1% up to 20% by weight (Paragraph 129) and that polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene can be used (Paragraph 130), with the range being identical to the range of the instant claims.
With regard to the C/CONH ratio, the preferred polyamides listed all have a C/CONH ratio of between 6 and 12 based upon their structures and it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected one of the preferred polyamides taught by Chou.
Regarding Claim 10,
Chou teaches that the composition is used to make molded articles (Paragraph 40).
Regarding Claims 18-19,
Chou teaches the use of polyolefins that are thermoplastics (Paragraphs 129 and 130). While Chou does not teach that the polyolefin is semicrystalline, Chou does teach the use of semicrystalline polyamides (Paragraph 99) and further notes that additional thermoplastic materials can be used to modify the properties of the composition or to substitute for part of another component to reduce cost (Paragraph 129). As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used a semicrystalline polyolefin in the composition to reduce cost or to adjust the material properties.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 20130172488) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 15, and 18-19 above and as evidenced by Odaka (EP 3395902).
Regarding Claims 20-21,
Chou teaches the use of additional thermoplastic polymers (Paragraph 129), but does not explicitly teach the use of polyphenylene ethers. However, because Chou teaches the use of additional thermoplastic polymers, other thermoplastics such as polyphenylene ethers can be used as evidenced by Odaka, which teaches the use of polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene as well as polyphenylene ethers (Paragraphs 34 and 35). Because Odaka teaches these polymers to be useful for the same purpose, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used them in combination for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
To the extent to which the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection, they are not found to be persuasive for the following reasons.
On page 7, the applicant argues unexpected results as removing the finding of obviousness. The examiner does not disagree that the applicant has found an unexpected improvement in the resistance to oxidation presented in the examples. However, the examiner notes that in order for unexpected results to be found persuasive, they must be commensurate in scope with the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d). The applicant has only presented a single example in which only a single polyamide (PA 6.10) is used at the low end of the incorporation range in combination with high density polyethylene (HDPE). It is unclear on the basis of this single data point that the unexpected results would be obtained when utilizing other polyamides or in greater amounts that the example, nor whether these results would extend to linear low density polyethylene or polypropylene polyolefins. As such, this argument is not persuasive based upon the limited presentation of results that do not represent the range of polyamide incorporation, polyamide species, nor the polyolefin species of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
