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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/6/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment supported by the original disclosure.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 3 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wakatake et al. (JP H10-279800) in view of Imai et al. (US 20140364554), both listed on IDs and ISR.
As to claim 1, Wakatake (abs., claims, examples) discloses a molding (claim 6) composition (claim 1, 3, 24, Ex.1) comprising 100 parts of polyphenylene sulfide, 10-100 parts of alkaline resistant, ZrO2 based glass fiber, and 0.1-5 parts of organosilane as essential components. The glass fiber (16-19) must have B2O3 <1 wt% and preferably having 55 wt% of SiO2. The glass fiber (Ex.1) has a diameter of 10 micron and a length of 3mm.
Wakatake is silent on the claimed glass fiber having the claimed composition of claim 1.
In the same area of endeavor of producing a molding (19) composition (claim 1, 3, 24, Ex.1) comprising polymer resin (19) and glass fibers, Imai (abs., claims, examples) discloses a glass fiber having both acid and alkali resistance (7-12, 33-34). The fiber has a diameter of 13.5 microns (25-56) and can be cut into desirable length (27). The fiber (9-11) has 19-24 wt% of ZrO2 (falling within the claimed range), 0.2-8 wt% of TiO2 (overlapping with the claimed range of 8-10 wt% in amended claim 1), 0.2-8 wt% of CaO (overlapping with the claimed range), 57-64 wt% of SiO2, etc. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05.
. As to claim 3, Wakatake (26, Ex.1) discloses the composition is melt kneaded.
As to claim 15, Wakatake (26, Ex.4) discloses an exemplary glycidyl containing 2-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)ethyltrimethoxysilane.
Therefore, as to claims 1, 15, and 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition disclosed by Wakatake and replaced the glass fiber with the aforementioned ones of Imai, because the resultant composition would yield improved acid resistance due to the use of Imai’s fiber.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
The examiner assets combining Wakatake and Imai meets the claims. See the above rejection.
Applicant's argument of unexpected results is unpersuasive and insufficient. Evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit of declaration. See MPEP § 716.01(c). Unexpected results must, in actuality, be unexpected. Unexpected results must be compared with the closest art, in this particular case, Wakatake, not applicants’ own results of instant Ex.1-5. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. The applicant must show unexpected results over the entire claimed range to support unexpected results for the entire range and generic structures. Therefore, Applicant should compare several compositions containing claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points over the claimed range to several compositions containing the same claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points outside of the claimed range, including data points close to and far from the claimed range. The examiner reminds applicants’ that these results are “UNEXPECTED”, therefore how can one logically predict what the results would be for distinctly different polymers. Thus, the examiner asserts the showing of unexpected results is insufficient for the claims in their present state. If applicants were to limit their claims to what is shown in the declaration, more favorable consideration would be given.
Therefore, the previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. 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.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights