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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 15-17 are pending, with claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, and 15 being 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, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberts (US 20160102202).
Regarding Claims 1-2,
Lamberts teaches a composition that contains 29-89% by weight of a polyamide (Paragraph 27). Lamberts also teaches that the diacid component of the polyamide is selected from a group containing terephthalic acid (8 carbons), and adipic acid (6 carbons) (Paragraph 62) and that diamines can include 1,4-butanediamine, 1,6-hexanediamine, 1,10-decanediamine, 1,12-dodecanediamine, and 1,18-ocadecanediamine (Paragraph 63) with a preference for 1,6-hexanediamine, and 1,10-decanediamine (Paragraph 63). While Lamberts does not explicitly disclose polyamide 6.6/6.T, Lamberts does teach the use of the monomers that constitute this copolymer as listed above. As Lamberts only requires that the polyamide include 25% terephthalic acid in the copolymer (Paragraph 31), this would allow for the use of a polymer such as polyamide 6.6/6.T and it would have been obvious to do so on the basis of the disclosure of the required monomers in amounts that would be needed to make this copolymer. Also, while Lamberts does not specifically mention the C/CONH ratio, Lamberts also allows for the addition of an additional polyamide that does not require inclusion of an aromatic component, such as polyamides 11, 12, 6.10, and 6.12 (Paragraph 131) in amounts up to 20% by weight (Paragraph 131). As such, a combination of these polymers as allowed in the instant claim can be combined to meet the C/CONH requirement and as Lamberts describes, the addition of these polymers can be useful as an additional impact modifier (Paragraph 131), which would motivate the ordinarily skilled artisan to adjust its amount to obtain the desired final material properties. Lamberts also teaches that may contain 0 to 20% of other polymers (Paragraph 130) that includes polyolefins and polyphenylene ether (Paragraph 131) as well as carboxyl functionalized polymers such as poly(ethylene-co-methacrylic acid) (Paragraph 131). The range of incorporation of these polymers overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Lamberts describes polymers in this class to serve as impact modifiers (Paragraph 131). While Lamberts does not explicitly state that the olefin-methacrylate polymer is a compatibilizer, Lamberts describes the incorporation of acid groups for improving attachment to the polyamide component (Paragraph 136), which would read on a compatibilizer. Based upon these two material properties, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have adjusted their incorporation amounts to obtain the desired composition homogeneity and strength and it would further have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because selection of the overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Lamberts also teaches the use of additives in amounts of 0 to 4% by weight (Paragraph 145) with the suggested additives including heat stabilizers (Paragraph 146). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the incorporation amount of a heat/thermal stabilizer to meet the requirements of the intended application. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because selection of the overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Finally, Lamberts teaches the use of fillers, preferably in the amount of 15 to 65% by weight (Paragraphs 113-114). Lamberts teaches these fillers for reinforcement (Paragraph 114) and the ordinarily skilled artisan would naturally adjust their use to tailor the strength of the material to the desired application. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized fillers in the overlapping portion of the ranges because selection of the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15,
Lamberts teaches that the filler may be fibrous (Paragraph 114) and that it is preferable to use only fibrous additives (Paragraph 115) and even more preferable for that filler to be glass fibers (Paragraph 116).
Regarding Claim 6,
Lamberts teaches the use of polymers other than the polyamide to include polyphenylene ethers, polyphenylene oxide, and polyolefins (Paragraph 131) with high density polyethylene and polypropylene explicitly enumerated among the polyolefins (Paragraph 139).
Regarding Claim 10,
Lamberts teaches that the invention is a polyamide molding composition (Paragraph 7) and is used to make molded parts (Paragraph 1), meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons. On page 8, the applicant states that polyamide 6.6/6.T differs from polyamide 6.T/6.6 in that the amount of adipic acid to terephthalic acid is greater in the former and therefore Lamberts does not teach the required polymer. The examiner has amended the rejection to include the requirements that Lamberts states for the semicrystalline polyamide to clarify that while these polymers may in fact be different, polyamide 6.6/6.T would still be contained within the materials disclosed by Lamberts and thus its use would be obvious. Further, Lamberts lists polyamide 6.T/6.6 as an example in a non-exhaustive list.
Also on page 8, the applicant states that Lamberts does not teach the C/CONH ratio. While the examiner agrees that Lamberts does not explicitly teach this ratio, as the claim only requires that the ratio of C/CONH be for the polyamides in total, and not in the individual, Lamberts provides for the use of mixtures of polyamides that would meet this requirement and as mentioned in the above rejection, would be motivated to include the non-aromatic containing polyamide to further provide impact modification. The examiner also notes that while the applicant contends on page 8 and 9 the importance of this ratio, only one example is provided with a value of 7.5, which does not demonstrate the effect of this value across the claimed range.
On page 8, the applicant also refers to the improved resistance to oxidizing agents and to the decrease of released substances, however these requirements to do not appear in the currently pending claims.
Finally, on page 8, the applicant states that Lamberts does not teach the combination of the polyolefin/polyphenyl ether and the poly(ethylene-co-methacrylic acid) polymer. However, as these components are all taught by Lamberts and listed under the category of additional impact modifiers, it would have been obvious to have combined them for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.I. Additionally, Lamberts also indicates that these may be used as a mixture (Paragraph 130).
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