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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of polydecamethyleneterephthalamide (nylon 10T), high density polyethylene, PTFE lubricating additive, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer saponified, magnesium metaphosphate, Fii and polyethylene oxide wax, in the reply filed on 10/14/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no analysis was performed regarding whether the claims recite a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature is/was met. See under item #4 pages 5-6 of the restriction requirement dated 6/13/25 wherein the Examiner laid out that all the features of the special technical feature were met.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10, 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species/group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/14/25.
Priority
The foreign priority is not in English, the claims have an effective date of the filing of the PCT: 4/8/21
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/26/25, 7/10/25, 2/11/25, 1/6/25, 7/18/24, 6/24/24, 5/30/24, 12/22/23, 9/27/23, 10/20/22, 11/11/25 have been considered by the examiner.
The Written Opinion documents lined through in the 10/20/22 IDS were not in English, the reference lined through in the IDS dated 6/24/24 was not found in the file
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Claims 10 (albeit withdrawn), 11, 12 (albeit withdrawn), and their dependents, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly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 10, 11 and 12 have the limitation “ratio” therein, however the ranges therein don’t say what the ratio is based on (e.g. ratio of polyethylene to lubricant, ect). The Examiner believes this should be “amount” and will treat as such
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai (JP2003226808A, English translation provided).
Hirai discloses a polyamide resin composition [0011] [meeting the claimed polyamide resin] that further comprises a polyethylene resin such as high density polyethylene HDPE [0012] in amounts ranging 0.5-30 wt% [0008] [meeting the polyethylene resin], polytetrafluoroethylene resin PTFE, exemplified [0037] in amounts 1-10% [0028] [meeting the PTFE resin of 5-30%], an unsaturated carboxylic acid modified polyethylene [0013-0014] in amounts of 0.5-30% [0008].
Herein, combining two different polyolefin resins (the HDPE and carboxylic acid modified polyethylene) is prima facie obvious see In re Kerkhoven, and, immediately envisaging a 50:50 split calculates to 0.25-15% of either [meeting the modified polyolefin resin of 0.5-5% and 5-20% of polyethylene resin]. The composition may also comprise a phosphate compound such as magnesium metaphosphate [0022] in amounts of 0.1-5% [0024] [meeting the phosphate of 1-5% by mass].
Elements above thusly render obvious elements of claim 1. The polyamide is aliphatic [0011], as required by claim 2. Elements above meet claims 3-4, 8, 9. Use of a polyethylene wax (polyethylene is a hydrocarbon) lubricant is disclosed in [0020] in amounts of 1-15% [0021], as required by claim 11.
Claim(s) 2, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Masunaga (US 20150232617).
Hirai includes elements as set forth above. Hirai discloses the use of aliphatic polyamide resins such as nylon 6, nylon 66 and those others of [0011] but does not disclose the use of semiaromatic polyamide resins, such as nylon 10T that was elected.
Masunaga discloses polyamide resin compositions (title). Said compositions are used for sliding components [0003] (thus akin to Hirai). The polyamide resin may be aliphatic such as nylon 6 or nylon 66 [0023] (akin to Hirai). The polyamide resin may also be nylon 10T [0023]. Masunaga thusly teaches aliphatic and semiaromatic resins, such as nylon 6, 66 and 10T, to function equivalently for sliding member compositions in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in Hirai the use of semiaromatic polyamides such as nylon 10T, as taught by Masunaga, since it is recognized in the art of sliding member compositions to function equivalently to nylon 6 and nylon 66.
Claim(s) 7, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai and Masunaga in view of Uchida (US 20090098325).
Hirai and Masunaga include elements as set forth above. Hirai discloses polyamide resins for sliding members, and, Masunaga renders obvious the use of semi-aromatic polyamides therein but the references do not disclose the use of the elected ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer saponified polyolefin resin of the above claims.
Uchida discloses semiaromatic polyamide resins (thus akin to Hirai v. Masunaga) used for sliding parts [0002, 0006] (again akin to Hirai and Masunaga). Uchida discloses that various additional materials may be used in these, including saponified ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers [0078] in amounts of 1-100 parts by mass of the semiaromatic polyamide resin [0084]. Uchida thusly teaches this to be a suitably known additional resin added to polyamide resins used for sliding members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hirai and Masunaga the use of 1-100 parts per semiaromatic polyamide resin of a saponified ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, as taught by Uchida, since such is a suitably known resin used in polyamide resins for sliding members. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
See also MPEP 2143A, E since such is a known element and/or an identified, predictable solution, combining such with Hirai and Masunaga with a reasonable expectation of forming a sliding member is prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 11, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai and Masunaga in view of JP6827815B2, herein JP ‘815.
Hirai and Masunaga include elements as set forth above. Hirai discloses polyamide resins for sliding members that comprise hydrocarbon waxes to lower the friction thereof, and, Masunaga renders obvious the use of semi-aromatic polyamides therein but the references do not disclose the use of the elected.
JP ‘815 discloses polyamide resins and moldings thereof (title) wherein the resins are used for sliding parts (pg 1 para 3 of translation), thus akin to Hirai and Masunaga. The polyamide resin is a blend of semi-aromatic polyamide a1 (page 2 para 5) (embracing the polyamide of Masunaga), a higher melting point polyamide such as nylon 66 (page 4 para5) (embracing the polyamide of Hirai) and a low melting point polyamide. The composition further comprises a polyolefin wax to reduce the friction coefficient of the composition (last para page 5) thus akin to the hydrocarbon waxes of Hirai. The waxes may be polyethylene wax, polypropylene wax (both hydrocarbon waxes, e.g. akin to Hirai), or polyethylene oxide wax (page 6 para 2). JP ‘815 thusly teaches polyethylene oxide waxes to function equivalently to hydrocarbon waxes for reducing friction of polyamide sliding members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hirai and Masunaga the use of polyethylene oxide wax, as taught by JP ‘815 since it is recognized in the art as a functional equivalent to hydrocarbon waxes.
Further, the wax of JP ‘815 is used in amounts of 1-10 % by mass (page 6 1st para), embracing the 1-15% of Hirai and the % by mass requirements of claim 11
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of possible allowable subject matter: JP 6827815 (used above) is cited as meeting claim 22, however, if priority is perfected and the claims receive the date of the foreign priority, this reference would be overcome and the claim would be free from art. Other close art includes US 20190077957, that discloses similar lubricants for polyamide sliding members however oxidized polyethylene is disclosed, not polyethylene oxide wax.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759