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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claim 1 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 6/23/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the last sentence of claim 1 is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 21-22 recite “comprises” which broadens the scope of claim 1.
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 consisting of 45wt% of polyvinyl alcohol, 50 wt% of a polyamide and 5wt% of a mixture including a processing regulator which can be in an amount of 2-10wt% [0010, 0032]. The polyamide can be nylon 6, nylon 66 etc. [0007]. The processing regulator can be tetraethylene glycol [0009]. Polyvinyl alcohol reads on the claimed component C.
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.
It is noted that instant specification exemplifies elastomeric polymer component C including PE grafted with MA, PP grafted with MA, copolymer of ethylene and (meth)acrylic acid, copolymer ethylene and maleic anhydride, polyethylene, and polypropylene. All of above listed are thermoplastic rather than an elastomer. Although applicant does not define the term “elastomeric polymer”, the examples in the specification indicates it includes both thermoplastic polymers and elastomers.
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, 7, 16-18, 21-23: Aulenta teaches a composition consisting of 60-85wt% of a polyamide, a component B and a component C of a plasticizer and a filler (examples). The polyamide can be PA6 [0189]. The component B such as methyl methacrylate/itaconic acid copolymer, n-butyl acrylate/itaconic acid copolymer reads on the claimed component C [0047-0053, 0193-0197]. The plasticizer triethylene glycol can be used in an amount of 7wt% (table 1). Filler such as glass fiber can be used in an amount of up to 40wt% [0122-0123].
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 1, 3, 6-7, 16-18, 20-22: Aulenta teaches a composition consisting of 60-85wt% of a polyamide, 0.1-50wt% of a component B and a component C (abstract, examples). The polyamide can be PA6 [0189]. The component C includes lubricant, stabilizer, fillers, impact modifier, plasticizer etc [0097-0165]. The plasticizer triethylene glycol can be used in an amount of 7wt% (table 1). Filler such as glass fiber can be used in an amount of up to 40wt% [0122-0123]. Impact modifiers such as ethylene propylene rubber reads on the claimed component C. Component B of Aulenta and the rest of component C of Aulenta read on the claimed 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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights