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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 1. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 15-17 are pending with claims 4, 7-8, 11, and 16-17 being withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, and 15 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, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottschalk (EP 0586985).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 6,
Gottschalk teaches a composition that includes 15-84% by weight of a polyamide, 15-84% by weight polyphenylene ether, 0-30% by weight impact modifier and 0-50% by weight of a fibrous filler (Paragraph 1). Gottschalk further teaches that the polyamide can be polyamide 6.10, 6.12, 11, or 12 (Paragraph 14), meeting the requirements of the instant claims. While Gottschalk is silent on the ratio of total carbons to amide carbons, all of the polyamides taught by Gottschalk have a value for this ratio between 6 and 12 and as such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have chosen polyamides with a value in this range. Gottschalk also teaches that the impact modifier can be any commonly used modifier (Paragraph 52), but specifically teaches copolymers of ethylene, an alkyl acrylate, and acrylic acid as particularly suitable (Paragraph 61). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the value in using impact modifiers that are particularly suitable and would thus be motivated to use such compounds in preference to other options. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected a modifier that is a copolymer containing ethylene and acrylic acid based upon the disclosure of Gottschalk that such compounds are particularly suitable. Gottschalk further teaches that thermal stabilizers such as hindered phenols can be used in amounts of up to 1% by weight of the composition (Paragraph 86). The ranges for the inclusion of the polyamide, polyphenylene ether, compatibilizer, thermal stabilizer, and filler all overlap with the ranges of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would select amounts of these components to meet the material requirements of the final cured component. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portions 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.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15,
Gottschalk teaches that fibrous fillers are preferred, with glass fibers especially preferred (Paragraph 69).
Regarding Claim 10,
Gottschalk teaches that the composition provides molded bodies with excellent mechanical properties and good resistance to heat aging (Paragraph 95), which reads upon an article comprising the composition.
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, specifically the required use of polyamide 6.6/6.T, which is not a limitation to the reference in the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights