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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, and 14-15 are pending as amended on December 22, 2025. Support for amended claims 1 and 14 is found in original claim 13 and specification [112]. Claims 4, 12, and 13 are cancelled.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 the action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (page 8, paragraph 1) that Won (KR-20200043797-A), Chen (CN-109777099-A), and Aepli (US 2019/0055405 A1) do not disclose a thermoplastic composition having an aromatic resin with a glass transition temperature (Tg) in the range of 117-120 °C. Won teaches that the aromatic polyamide resin preferably has a glass transition temperature (Tg) higher than 110 °C (Won, [0029]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 117-120 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Applicant further argues (page 8, paragraph 2) that the claimed Tg is not an inherent property that can be simply inferred. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on inherency for satisfying the claimed Tg limitation and instead relies on overlapping ranges. Won teaches that the aromatic polyamide resin preferably has a glass transition temperature (Tg) higher than 110 °C (Won, [0029]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 117-120 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is also noted that Applicant points to the use of the aromatic resin C-1 in the examples and aromatic resin C-2 in the comparative examples in support of the statement that the Tg in not an inherent property. Applicant states that C-1 has a Tg of 117-120 °C and C-2 has a Tg of 125 °C, but these Tg values conflict with those stated in the specification. According to [183-184] of the specification C-1 has a Tg of 106-150 °C and C-2 has a Tg of 115 °C or higher. Both of these Tg ranges encompass both the claimed Tg range of 117-120 °C.
Applicant argues that the high temperature tensile strength at 90 °C is not an inherent property of Won, Chen, and Aepli (page 9). MPEP 2112 (IV) states, "In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). In this case, modified Won teaches a substantially similar composition prepared by a substantially similar method as instant Examples 7 and 8 and instant Examples 7 and 8 meet the claimed physical property degradation rate and, by extension, the limitations on the high temperature tensile strength. Examples 7-8 comprise 31-37 wt% PA66, 55-65 wt% glass fibers, and 4-8% PA6,I (instant specification, Table 3). Modified Won teaches 31-35 wt% PA66, 55-65 wt% glass fibers, and 6-23 wt% PA6,I. The PA66 of Examples 7-8 has a Tg of 50-60 °C and a Tm of 263 °C (instant specification, [167]) while modified Won has a Tg of 55-58 °C and a Tm of 265 °C. The PA6,I of the Examples 7-8 has a Tg of 106-150 °C (instant specification, [183]) while modified Won has a Tg of 117-120 °C. Examples 7-8 are prepared in a twin-screw extruder (instant specification, [189]) and Won also teaches preparing the composition in a twin-screw extruder (Won, [0060]). Examples 7-8 and Won teach a room temperature tensile strength of 300 MPa or greater (instant specification, Table 3; Won, [0053]). There is reasonable basis to conclude, therefore, that the composition of modified Won has approximately the same properties as Examples 7-8, including a physical property degradation rate of about 40-43.75. Consequently, the composition of modified Won would be expected to satisfy the relationship 34 ≤ 100 - (high temperature measurement value/room temperature measurement value x 100) ≤ 44 ( 34 ≤ 40-43.75 ≤ 44) and, by extension, satisfy the claimed limitations on the high temperature tensile strength.
Applicant argues (page 8, paragraph 3 through page 9) that there is no basis to conclude that the undisclosed high-temperature tensile strength up to 90 °C is an inherent property of Won, Chen, and Aepli because these references are in the field of device housings for mobile wireless technology while the claimed composition is for lightweight automotive components. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., use in automotive components) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claims are drawn to a composition and a method of making a composition rather than to an automotive component. In addition, it is unclear why Applicant asserts that the prior art references are focused on device housing for mobile wireless technology because Won, Chen, and Aepli all teach automobile components (Won, [0002]; Chen, title; Aepli, [0003]).
Applicant further argues (page 9) that there is no need for Won, Chen, and Aepli to require improved room temperature and high temperature tensile strengths because Won, Chen, and Aepli use aromatic polyamides with different Tg ranges and different applications. MPEP 2145 (IV) states that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the rejection below relies on a combination of Won, Chen, and Aepli rather than any reference alone. In particular, the combination relies on modifying Won by incorporating the PA66 (aliphatic polyamide) Tg and Tm of Chen and by incorporating the E-glass silica content of Aepli. All three references teach automotive component applications (Won, [0002]; Chen, title; Aepli, [0003]). Chen and Aepli are not relied upon for their teaches about aromatic polyamide Tg. As described above, the claimed room temperature and high temperature tensile strength limitations are met by modified Won because modified Won teaches a substantially similar composition to instant Example 7-8 prepared in a substantially similar method and Examples 7-8 demonstrate the claimed tensile strength properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, and 14-15 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are indefinite because the total weight percent of components exceeds 100% when the maximum weight percent of the glass fiber (80%) is combined with the minimum weight percents of the non-aromatic polyamide resin (31%) and the aromatic polyamide resin (4%). This rejection can be overcome by narrowing the glass fiber range from “36 to 80%” to “36 to 65%” because 65+31+4=100.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 11, and 15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (KR-20200043797-A, published 4/28/2020, English translation provided) in view of Chen (CN-109777099-A, English translation provided) and Aepli (US 2019/0055405 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, Won teaches a thermoplastic resin composition (Won, [0001] and [0054]) (claim 1), molded article manufactured using the thermoplastic composition (Won, [0001]) (claim 15) and a method of preparing the thermoplastic resin composition comprising melt-kneading and extruding (mixed with a TEX-30 twin-screw kneader, Won, [0060]) (claim 14).
The composition comprises 30 to 35 % by weight, based on the total weight of the resin composition, of a non-aromatic polyamide resin (Won, [0026]), overlapping with the claimed range of 31 to 41 % by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Won further teaches 55 to 65 % by weight based on the total weight of the resin composition of glass fiber (Won, [0043] and [0047]).
The resin composition further comprises 6 to 23 % by weight of an aromatic polyamide resin, based on the total weight of the resin composition (Won, [0028]), wherein the aromatic polyamide resin is polyhexamethylene isophthalamide (PA6I) (the polyamide resin may be a mixture of an aliphatic polyamide resin and an aromatic resin, Won, [0022]; The aromatic polyamide resin… may be… 6I, Won, [0027]). Won teaches that the aromatic polyamide resin preferably has a glass transition temperature (Tg) higher than 110 °C (Won, [0029]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 117-120 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Won teaches PA66 as the non-aromatic polyamide resin (Won, [0025]), but is silent as to the Tg and melting temperature (Tm) of the PA66 resin.
However, prior to the effective filing date, PA66 with a Tg of 55-58 °C and a Tm of 265 °C (Chen, [5]) was known to be useful in compositions comprising PA66 and glass fibers (Chen, [8]). Chen teaches that such a PA66 has the advantages of high heat resistance and high strength (Chen, [5]). Won targets excellent mechanical properties and long-term heat resistance (Won, [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have selected a PA66 with a Tg of 55-58 °C and a Tm of 265 °C in order to utilize a PA66 with the advantages of high heat resistance and high strength that is known to be suitable for glass fiber filled polyamide compositions.
While Won does not explicitly teach the silica content of the glass fiber, Won teaches that the glass fiber is preferably E-glass fiber (Won, [0045]).
Prior to the effective filing date, E-glass fiber was known to comprise the claimed silica content, as evidenced by Aepli. Aepli teaches polyamide molding compounds reinforced with glass filler (Aepli, [0202]). As a glass filler, Aepli teaches E-glass fibers comprising 52-62% silica (Aepli, [0105]). Given the disclosure of Aepli, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the chemical composition of E-glass fiber taught by Aepli is an appropriate E-glass fiber composition for use in reinforced polyamide compositions.
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP § 2143, rationale (B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have substituted the unspecified E-glass chemical composition of Won for the E-glass fiber chemical composition of Aepli. One would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a reinforced polyamide composition because Aepli teaches E-glass fibers with 52-62% silica as reinforcing fillers for polyamide compounds and teaches automotive parts applications (Aepli, [0003]). A range of 52 to 62 % falls within the claimed range of 52 to 66 % by weight, based on the total weight of the glass fiber.
Won teaches (a) a room temperature tensile strength of at least 300 MPa according to standard measurement ISO 527 (Won, [0053]) but is silent as to the high temperature tensile strength and, consequently, the physical property degradation rate.
However, modified Won teaches a substantially similar composition prepared by a substantially similar method as instant Examples 7 and 8. Examples 7-8 comprise 31-37 wt% PA66, 55-65 wt% glass fibers, and 4-8% PA6,I (instant specification, Table 3). Modified Won teaches 31-35 wt% PA66, 55-65 wt% glass fibers, and 6-23 wt% PA6,I. The PA66 of Examples 7-8 has a Tg of 50-60 °C and a Tm of 263 °C (instant specification, [167]) while modified Won has a Tg of 55-58 °C and a Tm of 265 °C. The PA6,I of the Examples 7-8 has a Tg of 106-150 °C (instant specification, [183]) while modified Won has a Tg of 117-120 °C. Examples 7-8 are prepared in a twin-screw extruder (instant specification, [189]) and Won also teaches preparing the composition in a twin-screw extruder (Won, [0060]). In addition, Examples 7-8 and Won teach room temperature tensile strengths of 300 MPa or greater (instant specification, Table 3). There is reasonable basis to conclude, therefore, that the composition of modified Won has approximately the same properties as Examples 7-8, including a physical property degradation rate of about 40-43.75. Consequently, the composition of modified Won would be expected to satisfy the relationship 34 ≤ 100 - (high temperature measurement value/room temperature measurement value x 100) ≤ 44 ( 34 ≤ 40-43.75 ≤ 44).
Regarding claim 2, modified Won teaches the thermoplastic resin composition according to claim 1 wherein the Tg of the non-aromatic polyamide resin, a, is 55-58 °C and the Tm of the non-aromatic polyamide resin, c, is 265 °C. Modified Won teaches that the Tg of the aromatic polyamide resin, b, 117-120 °C. Modified Won further teaches a content of silica contained in the glass fiber of 52 to 62 %, corresponding to 52 ≤ d ≤ 62.
With respect to Equation 3, Won satisfies a < b < c (55-58 < 117-120< 265). With respect to Equation 1, modified Won teaches 4.8a ≤ c ≤ 5.3a is 264 ≤ 265 ≤ 291.5 when a is 55 °C, but 4.8a ≥ c (278 ≥ 265) when a is 58 °C. Therefore, a subset of the values taught by modified Won satisfy Equation 1. With respect to Equation 2, Won teaches 117 ≤ b ≤ 120 and 52 ≤ d ≤ 62. The lower end of the d range (d=52) therefore satisfies 2d ≤ b ≤ 2.5d when b is 117 (104 ≤ 117 ≤ 130) and when b is 120 (104 ≤ 120≤ 130). The upper end of the d range (d=62) does not satisfy 2d ≤ b ≤ 2.5d because 117-120 is less than 124 (2d). Therefore, a subset of the values taught by modified Won satisfy Equation 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 3, modified Won teaches the thermoplastic resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the E-glass composition is that taught in [0105] of Aepli. Aepli teaches 52 to 62 % by weight of silica, 12 to 16% by weight of alumina, 0 to 5 % by weight of magnesia, 0 to 1.5 % by weight of titanium dioxide, and 0 to 0.3 % by weight of Fe2O3. Because boron trioxide, fluorine, sodium oxide, and potassium oxide are not listed in the E-glass composition, their content can be approximated as 0 % by weight. The E-glass composition further comprises 16 to 25 % by weight of calcium oxide and 0 to 10% by weight of boron oxide. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of 0.5 to 24% by weight of calcium oxide and 0 to 8% by weight of boron oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 5, modified Won teaches the thermoplastic resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the E-glass composition is that taught in [0105] of Aepli. Aepli teaches 12 to 16% by weight of alumina and 0 to 0.3 % by weight of Fe2O3. Because the fluorine, sodium oxide, and potassium oxide are not listed in the E-glass composition, their content can be approximated as 0 % by weight. The E-glass composition further comprises 52 to 62 % by weight of silica, 16 to 25 % by weight of calcium oxide, 0 to 5 % by weight of magnesia, 0 to 1.5 % by weight of titanium dioxide, and 0 to 10% by weight of boron oxide. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of 52 to 56 % by weight of silica, 20 to 24% by weight of calcium oxide, 1.5 % by weight or less of magnesia, 1 % by weight or less of titanium dioxide, and 5 to 8 % by weight of boron oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 6-8, modified Won teaches the thermoplastic resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the E-glass composition is that taught in [0105] of Aepli. Aepli teaches 16 to 25 % by weight of calcium oxide and 0 to 5 % by weight of magnesia. This corresponds to 16 to 30 % by weight in sum of calcium oxide and magnesium, based on the total weight of the glass fiber. A range of 16 to 30 % overlaps with the claimed ranges of 17 to 24% (claim 6) and 21 to 25 % (claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
With respect to the fiber dimensions, Won teaches a length of 3 to 50 mm and a diameter of 5 to 30 µm (Won, [0046]). Won is silent as to the shape and aspect ratio of the fiber cross-section.
However, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, both circular cross-section and flat E-glass fibers were known as reinforcing fibers in polyamide compositions for automotive applications, as evidenced by Aepli. Aepli teaches that the glass fibers preferably have a circular or non-circular cross-sectional area (Aepli, [0111]). Aepli teaches that fibers with a circular cross-section typically have a diameter in the range of 5 to 20 µm and a length of 0.2 to 20 mm (Aepli, [0112]). Fibers with a non-circular cross-sectional area (referred to as flat glass fibers by Aepli) have a dimensional ratio of the main cross-sectional axis to the secondary cross-sectional axis of 2.5 to 5 (Aepli, [0113]), a diameter of 6 to 40 µm (Aepli, [0114]), and a length of 0.2 to 20 mm (Aepli, [0117]). The diameters and lengths of both the circular and flat fibers of Aepli fall overlap with those taught by Won. Given the disclosure of Aepli, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that glass fibers with either a circular or a flat cross-section could be utilized in polyamide compositions for automotive applications.
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP § 2143, rationale (B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have substituted the unspecified E-glass cross-section of Won with either of the circular or flat cross-section of Aepli. One would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a reinforced polyamide composition because Aepli teaches E-glass fibers with circular or flat cross-sections as reinforcing fillers for polyamide compounds (Aepli, [0003]). A glass fiber with a circular cross-section reads on claim 6. A glass fiber that is flat glass fiber with a non-circular cross section reads on claim 7.
A flat glass fiber with an aspect ratio of 2.5 to 5 (Aepli, [0113]) corresponds to 1:2.5 to 1:5 and overlaps with the claimed range of an aspect ratio of 1:1 to 1:4 expressed as a ratio (L/D) of length (L) to diameter (D). Both the diameter range of 5 to 30 µm (Won, [0046]) and the diameter range of 6 to 40 µm taught by Aepli overlap with the claimed range of an average diameter of 6 to 16 µm (claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 11, modified Won teaches the thermoplastic resin composition according to claim 1, and further teaches 3 to 10 % by weight of a heat stabilizer (Won, [0040]). A range of 3 to 10% by weight overlaps with the claimed range of 5% by weight or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDRA DESTEFANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/AUDRA J DESTEFANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766