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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of the PA11 and functionalized polyolefin species in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3, 4 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
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.
Claims 1, 7-14, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111040440 A (Hao) abstract and machine translation as evidenced by US 2005/0106965 (Wevers).
Hao discloses a molding composition comprising:
40 to 65 wt.% nylon resin such as PA1012 (meets Applicants’ aliphatic polyamide (A) and content thereof);
15 to 25 wt.% carbon fiber (meets Applicants’ carbon fibers (B) and overlaps content thereof);
10 to 15 wt.% hollow glass beads (meets Applicants’ hollow glass beads (C) and content thereof);
5 to 10 wt.% LDPE-g-PSAN (not precluded from present “comprising” claims);
1 to 3 wt.% white graphene (not precluded from present “comprising” claims);
2 to 5 wt.% toughening compatibilizer such as Dupont 493D [0053] a Fusabond maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer as evidenced by Wevers [0238] (meets Applicants’ maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin (D) but upper limit is slightly below the presently claimed 5.5% lower limit);
0.2 to 0.5 wt.% antioxidant (meets Applicants’ antioxidants (E) and content thereof);
0.5 to 1 wt.% lubricant (meets Applicants’ lubricants (E) and content thereof); and
0.2 to 0.5 wt.% nucleating agent (meets Applicants’ nucleating agents (E) and content thereof) (e.g., abstract, [0019-0027], examples, claims).
As to claims 1 and 20, Hao sets forth inventive Examples 6-10 (Tables 1 and 2) comprising:
43-49 wt.% PA1012 (meets Applicants’ aliphatic polyamide (A) and content thereof);
25 wt.% carbon fiber (meets Applicants’ carbon fibers (B) but content exceeds presently claimed 10-20% range);
15 wt.% hollow glass beads (meets Applicants’ hollow glass beads (C) and content thereof);
6-10 wt.% LDPE-g-PSAN (not precluded from present “comprising” claims);
1 to 3 wt.% white graphene (not precluded from present “comprising” claims);
3 wt.% Dupont 493D = Fusabond maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer (meets Applicants’ maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin (D) but content is below the presently claimed 5.5-20% range);
0.2 wt.% antioxidant (meets Applicants’ antioxidants (E) and content thereof);
0.6 wt.% lubricant (meets Applicants’ lubricants (E) and content thereof); and
0.2 wt.% nucleating agent (meets Applicants’ nucleating agents (E) and content thereof, wherein the compositions exclude PA6 and PA66.
Notably, the 25 wt.% carbon fiber used in Hao’s examples exceeds the presently claimed 10-20 wt.% carbon fiber (B) content and the 3 wt.% maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer is below the presently claimed 5.5-20 wt.% impact modifier (D) content. It is within the purview of Hao’s inventive disclosure, however, to use a lower carbon fiber content, e.g., 15 to 20 wt.% (meeting Applicants’ content), and up to 5 wt.% content of the maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer, for their expected additive effects and with the reasonable expectation of success. While the claimed impact modifier range does not overlap with Hao’s, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the presently claimed 5.5% lower limit and Hao’s 5% upper limit are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (MPEP 2144.05 l).
As to claim 7, Hao defines the carbon fibers as having a diameter of 7 to 10 µm [0020], but does not expressly disclose the fiber length thereof after compounding. Hao’s silence on a preferred carbon fiber length, however, implicitly suggests that any fiber length (inclusive of that presently claimed) can be satisfactorily used, absent evidence of criticality thereof.
As to claim 8, Hao’s hollow glass microspheres have a particle size of 2 to 120 µm [0021]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select carbon fibers with the appropriate volume diameter (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the ultimate properties desired and with the reasonable expectation of success, absent evidence of criticality thereof.
As to claim 9, Hao’s hollow glass microspheres have a density of 0.15 to 0.65 g/cm3 [0021]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select carbon fibers with the appropriate density (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the ultimate properties desired and with the reasonable expectation of success, absent evidence of criticality thereof.
As to claim 10, Hao’s hollow glass microspheres have a compressive strength of 3 to 125 MPa [0021]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select carbon fibers with the appropriate compression resistance (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the ultimate properties desired and with the reasonable expectation of success, absent evidence of criticality thereof.
As to claims 11 and 13, Hao uses PA1012 derived from a C10 aliphatic diamine and a C12 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid.
As to claims 12 and 14, it is within the purview of Hao’s inventive disclosure [0019], and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use PA12 as a functional alternative to the exemplified PA1012 with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 16, Hao discloses using the molding composition to obtain molded articles such as for automotive parts [0037].
As to claims 17 and 18, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to use any conventionally known molding technique inclusive of injection molding to produce the molded articles with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 21 and 22, Hao expressly exemplifies maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer.
Claims 1, 5, 7-14, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0058123 (Sutterlin).
Sutterlin discloses a molding composition comprising:
25 to 90 wt.% polyamide which can be a partially crystalline aliphatic polyamide [0028] (meets Applicants’ aliphatic polyamide (A) and overlaps content thereof);
5 to 30 wt.% impact modifier which can be a functionalized or non-functionalized polyolefin (meets Applicants’ impact modifier (D) and overlaps content thereof);
5 to 30 wt.% hollow glass balls (meets Applicants’ hollow glass beads (C) and overlaps content thereof); and
0 to 15 wt.% further additives inclusive of carbon fibers, stabilizers, etc. (meets Applicants’ carbon fibers (B) and additive (E) and overlaps contents thereof) (e.g., abstract, [0008-0012], [0027-0028], [0050-0100], [0108], examples, claims).
As to claims 1 and 20, Sutterlin sets forth inventive Examples 6 and 7 (Table 3) comprising:
79 wt.% PA612 (a3) or PA1010 (a4) (meets Applicants’ aliphatic polyamide (A) and content thereof);
10 wt.% maleic anhydride polyolefin (b1) impact modifier (meets Applicants’ maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin (D) and content thereof);
10 wt.% hollow glass balls (c1) (meets Applicants’ hollow glass beads (C) and content thereof); and
1 wt.% stabilizers (d1)-(d4) (meet Applicants’ stabilizers (E) and content thereof),wherein the compositions exclude PA6 and PA66.
In essence, Sutterlin differs from claims 1 and 20 in that none of the examples further comprise carbon fibers. It is within the scope of Sutterlin’s inventive disclosure, however, to use carbon fibers as additive (D) [0108]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include at least 10 wt.% carbon fibers (meets Applicants’ carbon fiber (B) content) in Sutterlin’s examples for their expected reinforcing additive effect.
As to claim 5, Sutterlin’s examples use 10 wt.% impact modifier.
As to claim 7, by being silent Sutterlin implicitly suggests that carbon fibers governed by any fiber length (inclusive of that presently claimed) can be satisfactorily used.
As to claims 8-10, Sutterlin exemplifies hollow glass balls governed by a similar diameter, density and compression resistance (Table 2).
As to claims 11 and 13, Sutterlin exemplifies PA612 and PA1010.
As to claims 12 and 14, it is within the scope of Sutterlin’s inventive disclosure [0028], to use PA11 or PA12 as a functional alternative to PA612 or PA1010.
As to claim 16, Sutterlin discloses using the molding composition to obtain molded articles for sports [0113].
As to claims 17 and 18, Sutterlin discloses the production of articles by injection molding [0129].
As to claims 21 and 22, Hao expressly exemplifies maleic anhydride grafted SEBS.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As presently recited, the present claims do not preclude Hao’s LDPE-g-SAN component. Hao discloses 2 to 5 wt.% toughening compatibilizer such as the exemplified maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer. While the claimed impact modifier range does not overlap with Hao’s 2 to 5 wt.% range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the presently claimed lower limit of 5.5% and Hao’s upper limit of 5% are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (MPEP 2144.05 l).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765