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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2719729 to Lanxess in view of USPAP 2019/0153221 to Yang.
Claim 1, Lanxess discloses a composition comprising: (A) from 29 to 74% by weight of at least one semi-crystalline aliphatic polyamide, said semi-crystalline aliphatic polyamide resulting from the polycondensation: of at least one C6 to C18, amino acid; or of at least one C6 to C18 lactam; or of at least one C4-C36 diamine Ca with at least one C4-C36 diacid Cb; (B) from 25 to 70% by weight of glass fibers (C) from 1 to 20% by weight of at least one impact modifier, wherein the composition excludes core-shell impact modifiers; and (D) from 0 to 2% by weight of at least one additive, excluding copper chromite, zinc sulfide, titanium dioxide, calcium carbonate and a polyolefin-based colored masterbatch; the sum of the various constituents (A) to (D) being 100% by weight (see entire document including the abstract, [0010]-[0013] and [0045]-[0052]).
Lanxess does not appear to mention a specific glass fiber composition but does disclose the use of S glass fibers [0026]. Yang discloses that it is known in the art to include S glass fibers consisting essentially of silica dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and magnesium oxide (MgO); said glass fibers (B) consisting of the following composition: from 60 to 66% by weight of SiO2; from 23 to 25% by weight of Al2O3; from 6 to 11% by weight of MgO; from 0 to 9% by weight of calcium oxide (CaO); and from 0 to 1% by weight of other oxides, the total being equal to 100% by weight (see entire document including [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the glass fibers of Lanxess from any suitable glass fiber composition, such as disclosed by Yang, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 2, 15 and 16, Lanxess does not appear to mention the polyamide being selected from PA11, PA12, PA1010, PA1012, PA1210 and PA1212 but Yang discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide compositions with a variety of polyamides including those claimed ([0019]-[0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the polyamide from any suitable polyamide material, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 3, the impact modifier is selected from a polyolefin-based polymer inherently having a flexural modulus less than 100 MPa measured according to standard ISO 178:2010 (23° C RH50) and having a Tg below 0° C (measured according to standard 11357-2:2013 at the inflection point of the DSC thermogram) ([0036]-[0044]).
Claim 4, the impact modifier is a polyolefin, said polyolefin being functionalized or non-functionalized, or a mixture of both ([0036]-[0044]).
Claim 5, the polyolefin is selected from a functionalized polyolefin or a mixture of functionalized and non-functionalized polyolefins ([0036]-[0044]).
Claim 6, the functionalized polyolefin is a polyolefin bearing a function selected from carboxylic acid, maleic anhydride and epoxy functions ([0036]-[0044]).
Claim 7, the additives are selected from fluidifying agents, dyes, catalysts, stabilizers, especially thermal stabilizers, UV stabilizers, light stabilizers, surfactants, whitening agents, antioxidants, chain extenders, lubricants, nucleating agents, waxes, and mixtures thereof [0046].
Claim 8, the impact modifier (C) is present at from 1 to 15% by weight [0036].
Claim 14, the composition comprises from 45 to 70% by weight of glass fibers consisting essentially of silica dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al203) and magnesium oxide (MgO) [0010].
Claim 15, the at least one semi-crystalline aliphatic polyamide may exclude a polyamide comprising PA 6 [0010].
Claim 16, the at least one semi-crystalline aliphatic polyamide may exclude a polyamide comprising PA 6.6 [0010].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Lanxess discloses two polycondensation routes (a copolycondensation process) that proceed concurrently and produce a copolyamide. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does NOT exclude the claimed polyamide from being a copolyamide (a polyamide can be a copolyamide as copolyamides are specific types of polyamides made from multiple different monomers) and claim 1 does NOT exclude a copolycondensation process. Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim wherein the claimed product (a composition) is defined as comprising (open claim language) a specific polyamide (semi-crystalline aliphatic) resulting from the polycondensation of, for example, at least one C6 to C18 lactam. Lanxess discloses a composition comprising the claimed polyamide resulting from the polycondensation of at least one C6 to C18 lactam AND the polycondensation of hexamethylenediamine adipate. Claim 1 is written with open claim language, does not exclude the polyamide from being a copolyamide, and does not state that the claimed polycondensation route must be the only polycondensation route that occurs. In other words, applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current claims.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights