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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US20160130422, herein Tamura), in the view of Bauer (DE102017212097, herein Bauer, US20210363348 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 16, Tamura teaches polyamide resin composition [0012] comprising: 100 parts by mass of (A) a polyamide having a melting point of 280 to 330° C [0014], wherein, the polyamide is PA9T [0102], which reads on the claimed polyamide (A), evidenced by CAS Registry Number: 169284-22-4, structure see below [SciFinder], wherein, the polyamide (A) contains terephthalic acid (without selecting aromatic dicarboxylic acids other than terephthalic acid) and two diamines both with 9 carbon atoms.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tamura further teaches reinforcing material (E) include fibrous reinforcing materials, such as glass fiber [0074], reads on the inorganic filler (B), and in the range of 50 (lower limit) to 150 (upper limit) parts by mass [0076], which encompasses the claimed range; 0.5 to 80 parts by mass of (B) at least one phosphinic acid salt represented by the following formula (1) [0044] reads on the phosphinate salt (C) and overlaps the claimed range, wherein, the alkyl group represented by R1, R2, preferably an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms [0046]; Mm+ represents a cation of at least one atom selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Al, Zn [0045], m is an integer of 1 to 4 [0045] overlaps
PNG
media_image2.png
165
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the claimed range, structure see below [Page 2] matches the formula (I):
Tamura does teach the phosphite salt and colorant, however, Bauer teaches inorganic phosphonate (component H) is aluminum phosphite [Al(H2PO3)3] [0058] in the range of Component H is preferably present in an amount of 0.005% to 10% by weight [0076] overlaps the claimed range; “suitable colorants usable as component G” [0135]. Tamura and Bauer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of polyamide-based composite toward high flame retardancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the inorganic phosphonate (component H) is aluminum phosphite [Al(H2PO3)3] [0058] in the range of Component H is preferably present in an amount of 0.005% to 10% by weight [0076]; “suitable colorants usable as component G” [0135] into the composition. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of flam retardancy and coloration.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Tamura and Bauer teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, molecular structures, and Bauer teaches “injection molding” [0091], indicates the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., sulfur element content and ΔE represents a color difference, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 7, Tamura and Bauer teach the polyamide resin composition as set forth above in claim 1, Tamura is silent on total content of C and D; C/D ratio. However, Bauer teaches “phosphinic salt of the formula (I) as component C” [0013], in the range of “component C is typically 1% to 35% by weight” [0029] overlaps the claimed range; “inorganic phosphonate (component H) is aluminum phosphite [Al(H2PO3)3],” [0058] in the range of “Component H is preferably present in an amount of 0.005% to 10% by weight” [0076] overlaps the claimed range. Hence, the C+D range is 1.005% to 45% in comparison to polyamide range; “component A is typically 25% to 95% by weigh” [0027], which is 1.06% to 100%, encompasses the claimed range. C/D ratio range is 1/45=0.022 to 35/1.005=34.82, encompasses the claimed range. Tamura and Bauer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of polyamide-based composite toward high flame retardancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add C and D total content and the C/D ratio developed from the “phosphinic salt of the formula (I) as component C” [0013], in the range of “component C is typically 1% to 35% by weight” [0029]; “inorganic phosphonate (component H) is aluminum phosphite [Al(H2PO3)3],” [0058] in the range of “Component H is preferably present in an amount of 0.005% to 10% by weight” [0076], into the composition formation. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of high flam retardancy.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 12, 13, 14, Tamura teaches the production of flame-retardant polyamide molding compounds by injection molding [0091], indicates the composition has been produced into a molded body. The applications including a surface mount process is the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US20160130422, herein Tamura) and Bauer (DE102017212097, herein Bauer, US20210363348 is used as English language equivalent) as applied in claim 1 as set forth above, in the view of Bienmueller (US20190292366, herein Bienmueller).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Tamura and Bauer teach the polyamide resin composition as set forth above in claim 1, Tamura is silent on wherein the colorant (E) contains an organic colorant, and the organic colorant is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of an anthraquinone dye, a perinone dye, an anthrapyridone dye, and a phthalocyanine dye. However, Bienmueller teaches “Colourants for use as component H) are phthalocyanines, anthraquinones.” [0152] and “inorganic pigments, especially iron oxide, titanium dioxide” [0152] in the range of “H) at least one further additive distinct from the components in an amount of 0.01 to 80 parts by mass, based on 100 parts by mass of component A).” [0059] overlaps the claimed range. Tamura and Bienmueller are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of polyamide composition toward color management via colorant selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have add the “Colourants for use as component H) are phthalocyanines, anthraquinones.” [0152] and “inorganic pigments, especially iron oxide, titanium dioxide” [0152] in the range of “H) at least one further additive distinct from the components in an amount of 0.01 to 80 parts by mass, based on 100 parts by mass of component A).” [0059]. Doing so would further lead to achieve the suitability of the product development via “exhibit significantly improved flexural strength and a low propensity for surface changes in a hot and humid climate without impairing flame retardancy” [0008] as taught by Bienmueller.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US20160130422, herein Tamura) and Bauer (DE102017212097, herein Bauer, US20210363348 is used as English language equivalent) as applied in claim 1 as set forth above, in the view of Su (CN105331099, herein Su, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding claims 10, 11, Tamura and Bauer teach the polyamide resin composition as set forth above in claim 1. Tamura teaches glass fibers [0074], but is silent on the feature of the glass fiber, however, Su teaches “G-fiber: Glass fiber, produced by Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. under the trade name ECS03T-262H” [0047] reads on the specific glass fiber. Tamura and Su are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of polyamide composition toward thermal management via glass fibre selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the “G-fiber: Glass fiber, produced by Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. under the trade name ECS03T-262H” [0047]. Doing so would further lead to achieve the suitability of the product development toward “electronic or electrical components such as lamp sockets, electrical plug-in units, connectors, switches, solenoid valves, and laptop/mobile phone housings.” [0042] as taught by Su.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tamura (US20160130422, herein Tamura), and Bauer (DE102017212097, herein Bauer, US20210363348 is used as English language equivalent).
In this case, the references_ Tamura and Bauer collectively teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as set forth in the new rejection above, in particular, the newly added ref_ Tamura teaches the specific Polyamide: (A) a polyamide having a melting point of 280 to 330° C [0014], and the polyamide is PA9T [0102], reads on the claimed specific polyamide (A) structure and property features, as set forth above in the new 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 mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767