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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025, has been entered.
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 22-29, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markgraf (US20160177219, herein Markgraf), in the view of Seksaria (US20070278819, herein Seksaria).
Regarding Claims 22-26, 37, Markgraf teaches “window winding systems” [0103] “for the automotive industry” [0103] which collectively read on the window system for vehicle. Markgraf does not explicitly teach the configuration of the window system, however, Seksaria teaches “the modular door hardware assembly may include a carrier, window glass guide track, window glass actuating mechanism, window motor” [0060], and “The carrier provides mounting points for the door hardware, including but not being limited to the window components,” [0060], wherein “the modular carrier 36 may be composed of a polymeric or composite material.” [0061].
Markgraf and Seksaria are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymer composite materials based window system. 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 modified Markgraf to add the teachings of Seksaria and provide the specified feature of the window system. Doing so would further achieve the desired property of “having the mechanical properties, such as rigidity and strength, suitable for automotive applications. In one embodiment, the mechanical properties of the door shell are further enhanced by the attachment of the modular door hardware assembly” [0059] as taught by Seksaria.
Markgraf teaches polymer composition comprising: “polyoxymethylene polymer” [0014] wherein “The polyoxymethylene polymer contained terminal hydroxide groups in an amount from about 20 mmol/kg to about 25 mmol/kg” [0119], in the concentration of “polyoxymethylene polymer in an amount of 60% by weight” [0120] lies in the claimed range.
“reinforcing fibers; less than about 30 wt. %” [0061] overlaps the claimed range.
“the polyoxymethylene polymer composition may comprise at least one tribological modifier” [0067] wherein, the modifier is “polyethylene graft base grafted with styrene/acrylonitrile; 2-10 wt. %” [0085] encompasses the claimed range, and “at least one” [0067] also indicates the exclusion of the other tribological modifier including the silicone polymers and use polyethylene graft base grafted with styrene/acrylonitrile as solo tribological modifier, hence exclude the silicon polymers in the composition formation.
“coupling agent is a polyisocyanate such as a diisocyanate, such as at least about 0.3 wt. %” [0062] lies in the claimed range.
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).
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Markgraf teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, molecular structures, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as the compositions were extruded and pelletized. The pellets were dried for 8 hours at 120° C and then injection molded [0122] as taught by Markgraf. 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., dynamic coefficient of friction, noise rating, melt volume flow rate, heat distortion temperature, wear track 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.
Regarding Claim 27, Markgraf teaches “The ultraviolet light stabilizer may comprise a benzophenone, a benzotriazole, or a benzoate. The UV light absorber, when present, may be present in the polymer composition in an amount of such as less than about 0.75 wt. %” [0091] overlaps the claimed range.
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 28, Markgraf teaches “calcium salt, in an amount of such as less than about 0.75 wt. %” [0094] overlaps the claimed range.
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 29, Markgraf teaches “oligomeric hindered amine compounds, such as at least about 0.075 wt. %” [0097] overlaps the claimed range.
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 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markgraf (US20160177219, herein Markgraf), in the view of Seksaria (US20070278819, herein Seksaria).
Regarding Claims 30, 31, 32, 36, Markgraf teaches “window winding systems” [0103] “for the automotive industry” [0103] which collectively read on the window system for vehicle. Markgraf does not explicitly teach the configuration of the window system, however, Seksaria teaches “the modular door hardware assembly may include a carrier, window glass guide track, window glass actuating mechanism, window motor” [0060], and “The carrier provides mounting points for the door hardware, including but not being limited to the window components,” [0060], wherein “the modular carrier 36 may be composed of a polymeric or composite material.” [0061]
Markgraf and Seksaria are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymer composite materials based window system. 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 modified Markgraf to add the teachings of Seksaria and provide the specified feature of the window system. Doing so would further achieve the desired property of “having the mechanical properties, such as rigidity and strength, suitable for automotive applications. In one embodiment, the mechanical properties of the door shell are further enhanced by the attachment of the modular door hardware assembly” [0059] as taught by Seksaria.
Markgraf teaches polymer composition comprising: “polyoxymethylene polymer” [0014] wherein “The polyoxymethylene polymer contained terminal hydroxide groups in an amount from about 20 mmol/kg to about 25 mmol/kg” [0119], in the concentration of “polyoxymethylene polymer in an amount of 60% by weight” [0120] lies in the claimed range.
“reinforcing fibers; less than about 30 wt. %” [0061] overlaps the claimed range.
“the polyoxymethylene polymer composition may comprise at least one tribological modifier” [0067] wherein, the modifier is “polyethylene graft base grafted with styrene/acrylonitrile; 2-10 wt. %” [0085] encompasses the claimed range, and “at least one” [0067] also indicates the exclusion of the other tribological modifier including the silicone polymers and use polyethylene graft base grafted with styrene/acrylonitrile as solo tribological modifier, hence exclude the silicon polymers in the composition formation.
“coupling agent is a polyisocyanate such as a diisocyanate, such as at least about 0.3 wt. %” [0062] lies in the claimed range.
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).
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Markgraf teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, molecular structures, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as the compositions were extruded and pelletized. The pellets were dried for 8 hours at 120° C and then injection molded [0122] as taught by Markgraf. 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., dynamic coefficient of friction, noise rating, melt volume flow rate, heat distortion temperature, wear track 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.
Regarding Claim 33, Markgraf teaches “The ultraviolet light stabilizer may comprise a benzophenone, a benzotriazole, or a benzoate. The UV light absorber, when present, may be present in the polymer composition in an amount of such as less than about 0.75 wt. %” [0091] overlaps the claimed range.
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 34, Markgraf teaches “calcium salt, in an amount of such as less than about 0.75 wt. %” [0094] overlaps the claimed range.
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 35, Markgraf teaches “oligomeric hindered amine compounds, such as at least about 0.075 wt. %” [0097] overlaps the claimed range.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/11/2025, 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 Markgraf (US20160177219, herein Markgraf), and Seksaria (US20070278819, herein Seksaria).
In this case, Markgraf and Seksaria collectively teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts of the composition as set forth above in the new rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In fact, Markgraf not only teaches the polyoxymethylene polymer composition and the polymer article comprising the polyoxymethylene polymer composition may comprise at least one tribological modifier. For instance, the polyoxymethylene polymer composition may comprise an ultra-high molecular weight silicone [0067], but also explicitly teach the additional tribological modifier “polyethylene graft base grafted with styrene/acrylonitrile; 2-10 wt. %” [0085], which indicates the exclusion of the other modifiers including the silicone polymers and use polyethylene graft base grafted with styrene/acrylonitrile as solo tribological modifier, hence exclude the silicon polymers in the composition formation. Hence, Markgraf does not teach away the instant application.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the performance of Sample 1 demonstrates that a polymer composition including a graft copolymer of polyethylene and styrene acrylonitrile as the only tribological modifier achieves a unique and notably advantageous balance of mechanical strength, thermal stability, wear resistance, low noise, and reduced friction not attained by comparative formulations. In this respect, the data associated with Sample 1 is not an isolated or anomalous result, but rather a clear indication of the performance achieved by the claimed composition”, the argument is still insufficient to overcome the fact that the single data which is not commensurate in scope with the claim 22, hence, are insufficient to establish non-obviousness.
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
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