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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/146624 (hereinafter, GARLICH) in view LA CAMERA et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0194907, LA CAMERA).
Regarding claim 1, the components of GARLICH are in weight percent therefore examiner has converted the components of the present invention (i.e., polyamide resin, red phosphorus flame retardant, and trimethallyl isocyanurate) from parts to weight percentage. The total amount of polyamide is 21.01 parts (20 parts of polyamide resin + 1 part of red phosphorus flame retardant + 0.01 part of trimethallyl isocyanurate + 0 parts of glass fiber + 0 parts of an additive) to 180 parts (80 parts of polyamide resin + 30 parts of red phosphorus flame retardant + 10 parts of trimethallyl isocyanurate + 50 parts of a glass fiber + 10 parts of an additive). The total parts of the components in the composition is 21.01 parts (low end) and 180 parts (high end) which will be used to calculate each component.
The amount of polyamide resin is from 95 wt% (20 parts/21.01 parts x 100 wt%) to 44 wt% (80 parts/180 total parts x 100 wt%), red phosphorus flame retardant is from 4.8 wt% (1 part/21.01 total parts x 100 wt%) to 16.7 wt% (30 parts/180 total parts x 100 wt%), trimethallyl isocyanurate is from 0.05 wt% (0.01 part/21.01 total parts x 100 wt%) to 5.5 wt% (10 parts/180 total parts x 100 wt%), glass fiber is from 0 wt% to 27.7 wt% (50 parts/180 total parts x 100 wt%), and additive is from 0 wt% to 5.5 wt% (10 parts/180 total parts x 100 wt%).
GARLICH teaches thermoplastic molding materials (p. 6) containing A) 10 to 99.4 wt% of at least one thermoplastic polyamide (which is within the range of 44 wt% to 95 wt% when the components of the present are converted from parts to weight percent), C) 0.1 to 60 wt% of red phosphorus (flame retardant) (which is within the range of 4.8 wt% to 16.7 wt% when converted from parts to weight percent), and D) 0 to 60 wt% of further additives (Abstract; pp. 3-4). The additives include glass fibers in the amount of 1 to 50 wt% (p. 9) (which is within the claimed range of 0 wt% to 27.7 wt% (0 to 50 parts of a glass fiber as claimed). The additives also include processing aids, antioxidants and colorants.
The processing aids include grafted EPM or EPDM rubbers with maleic anhydride (p. 4) (which reads on a flexibilizer as claimed).
The pigments include inorganic pigments such as titanium dioxide ultramarine blue, iron oxide, and carbon black; organic pigments such as phthalocyanines, quinacridones, perylenes; dyes such as anthraquinones as colorants (pp. 15-16). The antioxidants are used in the amount of 0.05 to 3 wt% (p. 15) (which is within the claimed range of 0 wt% to 5.5 wt% (0 to 10 parts of an additive as claimed).
The thermoplastic molding compositions are suitable for the production of fibers, films, and moldings including head covers, engine covers, intake pipes, intercooler caps, connectors, gears, fan wheels, car interior, and etc. (p.16).
However, GARLICH does not teach a polyamide composite comprising 0.01 to 10 parts of trimethallyl isocyanurate (trimethallyl isocyanurate is from 0.05 wt% to 5.5 wt%).
In the same field of endeavor of thermoplastic formulations and articles [0002], LA CAMERA teaches the composition comprising (i) from about 40 wt% to about 99.95 wt% of a polymer based resin (polyamide) [0013] and (iv) from about 0.05 wt% to about 10 wt% of a cross-linking agent (Abstract; [0010 and 0011]). The cross-linking agent includes trimethallyl isocyanurate [0032]. The addition of cross-linkers exhibit good tensile fatigue at least 20% higher than a composition without cross-linking agent, when measured at 23oC., under a stress of 50% of the tensile strength of the control composition, a stress ratio of 0.1, and a frequency of 5 Hz. In some embodiments, the improvement is 50%, 60%, 100%, 1000%, 2000%, or 5000% higher than a corresponding composition without a cross-linker [0011]. The compositions are shaped, formed, or molded articles [0042-0043].
Given GARLICH teaches thermoplastic molding materials comprises D) 0 to 60 wt% of further additives, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the cross-linking agent (i.e., trimethallyl isocyanurate) of LA CAMERA with the thermoplastic molding composition of GARLICH for the benefit of obtaining excellent mechanical properties (i.e., tensile fatigue, tensile strength, frequency, and etc.) as taught by LA CAMERA. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to the claim limitations, “A polyamide composite, being composed of,” the examiner takes the position that the phrase “composed of” is open language absent any unexpected results and/or explanation of how any additional components would be critical to the present invention.
With regard to the claim limitations, “the polyamide composite has a cross-linked structure between polyamide molecules,” as discussed above, GARLICH teaches thermoplastic molding materials containing A) 10 to 99.4 wt% of at least one thermoplastic polyamide and LA CAMERA teaches thermoplastic formulations comprising (iv) from about 0.05 wt% to about 10 wt% of a cross-linking agent wherein the cross-linking agent includes trimethallyl isocyanurate. The examiner takes the position that the thermoplastic moldings would intrinsically possess a cross-linked structure between polyamide molecules. The burden is upon the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, GARLICH teaches the thermoplastic molding materials comprising polyamide including PA 6 and PA 66 (pp. 6-7). It is well-known PA 6 is a polyamide obtained by ring-opening polymerization of lactam units and PA 66 is a polyamide obtained by polycondensation of diamine units (hexamethylenediamine) and dicarboxylic acid units (adipic acid).
Regarding claim 3, GARLICH teaches the thermoplastic molding materials comprising a flame retardant C) is elemental red phosphorus (p. 4). It is well-known elemental red phosphorus is a fine powder.
Regarding claim 4, GARLICH teaches the thermoplastic molding materials comprises red phosphorus flame retardant wherein the phosphorus is coated with phenolic resins and the content of component C) red phosphorus is 0.1 to 60 based on the sum of components A) to D) (p. 4).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 10, GARLICH teaches thermoplastic molding materials further comprises D) 0 to 60 wt% of additives which includes fibrous or particulate fillers such as powdered quartz and glass fibers, more specifically E glass fibers, C-glass fibers, D-glass fibers, and etc. (pp. 9-10). The glass fibers have a diameter of 6 to 20 µm (p. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office Action mailed 08/14/2025 has been modified in view of the amendments. Despite the applicant’s arguments in view of the teachings of the prior art, the position is maintained.
The applicant argues the close-ended transitional phrase “composed of” is used which the polyamide composite of 20 to 80 parts of a polyamide resin; 1 to 30 parts of red phosphorus flame retardant; 0.01 to 10 parts of trimethyallyl isocyanurate; 0 to 50 parts of a glass fiber; and 0 to 10 parts of an additive. The present claims do not claim melam compound, andtriallyl cyanurate (TAC) crosslinking agent, and triallyl isocyanurate (TAIC) crosslinking agent in the polyamide composite of the amended claim 1. In contrast, GARLICH disclosed the thermoplastic molding material includes 0.5%-20% of melam compound and 0.1 to 60 wt% of red phosphorus flame retardant. When considering how to improve the GWT of the thermoplastic molding material, those skilled in the art would have no motivation to exclude the melam compound from the thermoplastic molding material based on the teachings of GARLICH. In summary, the polyamide composite of the amended claim 1 does not contain the melam compound as compared to the corresponding composition disclosed by GARLICH, and GARLICH provided a counterexample of decreased GWIT when the corresponding composition only includes the red phosphorus flame retardant. LA CAMERA failed to disclose the corresponding composition includes a red phosphorus flame retardant.
The examiner has considered the applicant’s arguments, however, the examiner disagrees. As discussed above (paragraph 10), the phrase “composed of” language is open language because there is no showing of unexpected results and/or absent of any explanation/criticality of other components in the polyamide composite. In order to exclude other components in the polyamide composite, the examiner suggest amending independent claim 1 to recite, “A polyamide composite consisting of the following components.” As discussed in the MPEP 2111.03(II), the transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specifically in the claim, In re Gray.
With regard to the argument of LA CAMERA, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, EST.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763