DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14, 15, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/25/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 16 in the reply filed on 9/25/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Monsheimer fails to teach the inclusion of a hollow glass reinforcement component. This is not found persuasive because as described in the rejection below, the prior art teaches the elements of the shared technical feature of Groups I and II. That is, Takeishi in view of Monsheimer teaches the claimed shared technical feature (see rejection of claim 1, below) and therefore this feature does not make a contribution over the art and is not a special technical feature. Therefore, there is no unity of invention between the described groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeishi et al. (US 2014/008244, “Takeishi”) in view of Monsheimer et al. (US 2006/0189784, “Monsheimer”).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Takeishi teaches the inclusion of a copolymer of a polyamide resin composition (e.g., [0012] – [0020]) that may include amide units ([0007], [0012] – [0015]) in an amount of from 20 to 80% by mass ([0025]), may include from 2 to 30% of hollow glass reinforcement ([0007], [0046]), and may include additional additives such as a silane coupling agent or other fillers (e.g., [0008], [0047]). Takeishi additionally teaches that such a resin may be used to make an injection molded article ([0050]). Takeishi additionally teaches that the resin may include olefin copolymers ([0026], [0027]), but fails to specifically teach that the polyamide is a polyetheramide (i.e., that it includes a unit that is a polyether unit). In the same field of endeavor of polyamide compositions for molded articles (e.g., [0001] – [0005]), Monsheimer teaches to include an ether component in a polyamide resin to form a polyetheramide for use in resin compositions for making molded articles ([0033] – [0035], [0043], [0022]) and that such polyetheramide compositions may have improved impact resistance when compared with conventional polyamide compositions ([0043], [0033]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have substituted the polyetheramide of Monsheimer for the resin of Takeishi or else to have included ether components as described by Monsheimer in the polyamide resin of Takeishi for the benefit of the improved impact resistance when compared with conventional polyamide compositions ([0043], [0033]).
Regarding claim 2, Takeishi additionally teaches that the amide unit may be obtained from at least one lactam ([0012]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Takeishi additionally teaches that the polyether units may comprise, for example, polyethylene glycol (Monsheimer, [0050], ethylene oxide, i.e., ethylene glycol).
Regarding claim 4, ,Takeishi additionally teaches that the resins may have a density of greater than 1 (i.e., greater than 1 g/cm^3, [0046], polyamide resin).
Regarding claim 5, modified Takeishi teaches that the density of the composition is highly manipulable based on adjustments to the amounts of resin and filler in the composition (see [0046], [0037] – [0039]) and Monsheimer further teaches that it is known for such a resin-based article to have a density of less than 1 g/cm^3 (see Monsheimer, [0049]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the density of the overall composition to less than 1 by increasing the amount of hollow microparticles in order to reduce the weight of the composition (Takeishi, [0037]; Monsheimer, [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Takeishi additionally teaches the amount of hollow microparticles may read on the claimed range of from 5 to 25% by weight ([0046]).The Examiner notes that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Takeishi additionally teaches that the hollow glass reinforcement may be hollow glass microparticles (i.e., beads, [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Takeishi additionally teaches that the glass microparticles may have a diameter on the range of from 10 to 70 micrometers ([0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Takeishi additionally teaches that the glass microparticles may have a density on the range of less than 0.65 g/cm^3 (e.g., [0037] - [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, ,Takeishi additionally teaches that the glass microparticles may have a compressive strength of greater than 50 MPa ([0038]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Takeishi additionally teaches that the resin may include polyamide 11 ([0018]).
Regarding claim 13, Takeishi additionally teaches that the resin may include various fillers ([0047]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782