DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claim 1 is supported by the specification. The new claims 23 is supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 6 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites component C is selected from the group consisting of … b2) polyolefins selected from…, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Liu (CN101845185).
Liu teaches a composition comprising 20-60 wt% of a polyamide and 2-10 wt% of a processing regulator [0010]. The polyamide can be nylon 6, nylon 66 etc. [0007]. The processing regulator can be tetraethylene glycol [0009].
Liu does not expressly name a single embodiment having the claimed composition. However, each of the components of the composition is described in the reference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have made any of the compositions suggested by the reference, including the claimed composition, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 16-18, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Aulenta et al (US 2011/0098372) in view of Liu (CN101845185).
Claim 1, 3, 16-18, 23: Aulenta teaches a composition comprising 62.3 wt% of a polyamide and a plasticizer 7 wt% of triethylene glycol (table 1). The polyamide can be PA6 [0189]. The plasticizer also reads on component E.
Aulenta does not teach the plasticizer being a compound having a boiling point of at least 290C like claimed.
However, Liu discloses a composition comprising polyamide and teaches a plasticizer can be tetraethylene glycol, triethylene glycol [0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute tetraethylene glycol for triethylene glycol to obtain predictable results because Liu teaches both are plasticizers for a composition of polyamide.
Claim 6, 20: Aulenta teaches the composition further comprising impact modifiers such as ethylene propylene rubber [0153].
Aulenta does not teach the content of the impact modifier.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of the impact modifier through routine experimentation, because the amount of the impact modifier is a result effective variable where a too low amount would not provide the composition enough impact resistance and a too high amount would give the composition too much elasticity and thus lower the hardness. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 7, 21-22: Aulenta teaches the composition further comprising glass fiber in an amount of up to 40wt% [0122-0123].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that further components are excluded, the argument is not persuasive because 1) the claim recites the total wt% of components A to E is 100 wt% which indicates the wt% of each component is based on the total weight of components A to E, 2) additional components are allowed because the claim use transitional phrase “comprising”, 3) the claim does not recite the total wt% of components A to E is 100 wt% of the composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763