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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim no longer requires the amounts/ratios for the red phosphorous and magnesium hydroxide. These amounts/ratios appear to be required by applicant’s specification (eg page 2 lines 27-30). The claim is broader (in terms of amounts/ratios) than originally filed. Omission of limitation(s) raise the issue whether applicant had possession of the broader invention (MPEP 2163 I.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9,11,12,14,16-19 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer 2013/0338290.
Kramer exemplifies (#9V) a blend of 41.1% Nylon6 (ie applicant’s “a”), 13% of a 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate in Nylon6, 10% styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer, 6% of a ethylene/butylacrylate/acrylic acid/maleic anhydride copolymer (ie applicant’s “d”), 2.5% Mg(OH)2 (ie applicant’s “ii”), 26% glass fibers (ie applicant’s “b”), 0.35% Irganox1098 (ie applicant’s “e”), 0.35% Ca stearate (ie applicant’s “f”) and 0.7% F4.
The Nylon6 (paragraph 189) has a viscosity number of 124mlg. The 13% of the 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate provides 6.5% red phosphorous and 6.5% of additional Nylon6 – meeting applicant’s “i”.
Whether (i) and (ii) are pre-mixed or provided individually would not be expected to affect the final composition.
Kramer does not report the composition’s overall viscosity number. However, given the Nylon’s viscosity is within applicant’s teachings and the remaining components conform to applicant’s amounts, it assumed Kramer’s overall viscosity would meet applicant’s requirements.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
F4 is left unidentified, but can be considered an additive for applicant’s claim 14.
Presumably, Kramer’s composition meets applicant’s flame retardancy of claim 16 given all of applicant’s material requirements are met.
The components are mixed at 2800C (paragraph 216) – meeting applicant’s claims 17 and 18.
The blend is molded into test parts (paragraph 217) – meeting applicant’s claim 19.
Claims 9,11-14,16-19 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer 2013/0338290.
Kramer exemplifies (#10V) a blend of 38.6% Nylon6 (ie applicant’s “a”), 13% of a 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate in Nylon6, 10% styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer, 6% of a ethylene/butylacrylate/acrylic acid/maleic anhydride copolymer (ie applicant’s “d”), 5% Mg(OH)2 (ie applicant’s “ii”), 26% glass fibers (ie applicant’s “b”), 0.35% Irganox1098 (ie applicant’s “e”), 0.35% Ca stearate (ie applicant’s “f”) and 0.7% F4.
The Nylon6 (paragraph 189) has a viscosity number of 124mlg. The 13% of the 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate provides 6.5% red phosphorous and 6.5% of additional Nylon6 – meeting applicant’s “i”.
Whether (i) and (ii) are pre-mixed or provided individually would not be expected to affect the final composition.
Kramer does not report the composition’s overall viscosity number. However, given the Nylon’s viscosity is within applicant’s teachings and the remaining components conform to applicant’s amounts, it assumed Kramer’s overall viscosity would meet applicant’s requirements.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
F4 is left unidentified, but can be considered an additive for applicant’s claim 14.
Presumably, Kramer’s composition meets applicant’s flame retardancy of claim 16 given all of applicant’s material requirements are met.
The components are mixed at 2800C (paragraph 216) – meeting applicant’s claims 17 and 18.
The blend is molded into test parts (paragraph 217) – meeting applicant’s claim 19.
Claims 9,11-19 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer 2013/0338290.
Kramer exemplifies (#6) a blend of 38.6% Nylon6 (ie applicant’s “a”), 13% of a 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate in Nylon6, 5% polyacrylonitrile, 6% of a ethylene/butylacrylate/acrylic acid/maleic anhydride copolymer (ie applicant’s “d”), 10% Mg(OH)2 (ie applicant’s “ii”), 26% glass fibers (ie applicant’s “b”), 0.35% Irganox1098 (ie applicant’s “e”), 0.35% Ca stearate (ie applicant’s “f”) and 0.7% F4.
The Nylon6 (paragraph 189) has a viscosity number of 124mlg. The 13% of the 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate provides 6.5% red phosphorous and 6.5% of additional Nylon6 – meeting applicant’s “i”.
Whether (i) and (ii) are pre-mixed or provided individually would not be expected to affect the final composition.
Kramer does not report the composition’s overall viscosity number. However, given the Nylon’s viscosity is within applicant’s teachings and the remaining components conform to applicant’s amounts, it assumed Kramer’s overall viscosity would meet applicant’s requirements.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Dyes and pigments (paragraph 177) can be included – meeting applicant’s claims 14 and 15.
Presumably, Kramer’s composition meets applicant’s flame retardancy of claim 16 given all of applicant’s material requirements are met.
The components are mixed at 2800C (paragraph 216) – meeting applicant’s claims 17 and 18.
The blend is useful as molding of any type (paragraph 184) – meeting applicant’s claim 19.
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.
Claims 9,11-19 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer 2013/0338290.
Kramer exemplifies (#6) a blend of 38.6% Nylon6 (ie applicant’s “a”), 13% of a 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate in Nylon6, 5% polyacrylonitrile, 6% of a ethylene/butylacrylate/acrylic acid/maleic anhydride copolymer (ie applicant’s “d”), 10% Mg(OH)2 (ie applicant’s “ii”), 26% glass fibers (ie applicant’s “b”), 0.35% Irganox1098 (ie applicant’s “e”), 0.35% Ca stearate (ie applicant’s “f”) and 0.7% F4.
The Nylon6 (paragraph 189) has a viscosity number of 124mlg. The 13% of the 50/50 red phosphorous concentrate provides 6.5% red phosphorous and 6.5% of additional Nylon6 – meeting applicant’s “i”.
Whether (i) and (ii) are pre-mixed or provided individually would not be expected to affect the final composition. Kramer (paragraph 182) does suggest premixing individual components in general.
Kramer does not report the composition’s overall viscosity number. However, given the Nylon’s viscosity is within applicant’s teachings and the remaining components conform to applicant’s amounts, it assumed Kramer’s overall viscosity would meet applicant’s requirements. Even if the cited example is below applicant’s overall viscosity, Kramer (paragraph 18) teaches the polyamide itself can have a viscosity up to 350ml/g. These high viscosities undoubtedly raise the overall viscosity above 114ml/g.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Dyes and pigments (paragraph 177) can be included – meeting applicant’s claims 14 and 15.
Presumably, Kramer’s composition meets applicant’s flame retardancy of claim 16 given all of applicant’s material requirements are met.
The components are mixed at 2800C (paragraph 216) – meeting applicant’s claims 17 and 18. If these claims are interpreted as requiring a pre-mixing step of (i) and (ii), such a step would have been obvious. Kramer (paragraph 182) does suggest premixing individual components in general. Any mixing sequence is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
The blend is useful as molding of any type (paragraph 184) – meeting applicant’s claim 19.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer 2013/0338290.
Kramer applies as explained above.
The cited example employs a Nylon6 of 124ml/g. Kramer (paragraph 18) teaches the polyamide itself can have a viscosity of 110-240ml/g.
Any value within this range would have been obvious.
Claims 20 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer 2013/0338290 in view of CN103102677.
Kramer applies as explained above.
Kramer suggests his blend is useful as molding of any type (paragraph 184), but does not teach fans.
CN103102677 teaches flame retarded, glass reinforced Nylon6 compositions are useful as fan blades.
It would have been obvious to mold Kramer’s Nylon6 composition into any common object including fan blades.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kramer requires the presence of polyacrylonitrile which is excluded by “does not contain other flame retardants”.
This is not convincing. Kramer never labels his polyacrylonitrile as a “flame retardant”. Polyacrylonitrile is in fact known to be easy to ignite. See the introduction of the Ren article in RSC Advances. Moreover, applicant’s original specification never points out polyacrylonitrile is to be considered a flame retardant. Applicant never mention polyacrylonitrile at all. One of ordinary skill reading applicant’s original specification would not have considered polyacrylonitrile a flame retardant and therefore could be excluded. For these reasons, applicant’s negative limitation does not successfully exclude polyacrylonitrile.
Applicant’s response did not consider Kramer’s comparison examples that lack polyacrylonitrile – instead employing styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer. Applicant advances no reasoning that styrene/acrylonitrile copolymers are excluded by the “does not contain other flame retardants” language.
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 DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 3/16/26