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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The description of the polyamide in claim 2 is broader than is recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The description of the polyamide in claim 2 is broader than is recited in claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (2019/0002639) in view of Zhu (2013/0055490).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-9: Zhang et al. teach a composite material comprising 50 wt% semi-aromatic polyamide, 30 wt% glass fiber, 5 wt% of polybutylene-1 (impact modifier), and the phosphorus containing flame retardant Exolit OP 1230 [Example 8; Table 2.]. Zhang et al. teach that a combination of discontinuous aramid (polyamide) fiber and carbon fiber can be used in place of glass fiber [0041; Claim 29]. The skilled artisan would immediately envisage a meta-aramid fiber. The composition of Zhang et al. is melt processable [Examples]. Zhang et al. teach that the polyamide comprises PA6 or PA66 [0090; Examples].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination of polyamide fiber and carbon fiber in place of the glass fiber in Example 8 as the reinforcing filler. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The skilled artisan would immediately envisage a 50/50 mixture, which would provide 15wt% polyamide fiber and 15 wt% carbon fiber in Example 8.
Zhang et al. fail to specify the aramid.
However, Zhu teaches that an aramid that most often used in the art is poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) as taught by Zhu as the polyamide fibers in Zhang et al. since it is most often used in the art, and is commercially available.
Since the composition is the same as claimed, it will possess the claimed impact resistance. The courts have stated that 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Regarding claims 3-4: Zhang et al. teach that the polyamide fiber has an average fiber length of 0.01 to 20 mm [0037; Claim 29].
The length taught by Zhang et al. overlapped the claimed ranges.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (2019/0002639) in view of Zhu (2013/0055490).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15-17: Zhang et al. teach an article [0117; Examples] comprising 50 wt% semi-aromatic polyamide, 30 wt% glass fiber, 5 wt% of polybutylene-1 (impact modifier), and the phosphorus containing flame retardant Exolit OP 1230 [Example 8; Table 2.]. Zhang et al. teach that a combination of discontinuous aramid (polyamide) fiber and carbon fiber can be used in place of glass fiber [0041; Claim 29]. The skilled artisan would immediately envisage a meta-aramid fiber. The composition of Zhang et al. is melt processable [Examples]. Zhang et al. teach that the polyamide comprises PA6 or PA66 [0090; Examples].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination of polyamide fiber and carbon fiber in place of the glass fiber in Example 8 as the reinforcing filler. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The skilled artisan would immediately envisage a 50/50 mixture, which would provide 15wt% polyamide fiber and 15 wt% carbon fiber in Example 8.
Zhang et al. fail to specify the aramid.
However, Zhu teaches that an aramid that most often used in the art is poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) as taught by Zhu as the polyamide fibers in Zhang et al. since it is most often used in the art, and is commercially available.
Since the composition is the same as claimed, it will possess the claimed impact resistance. The courts have stated that 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Regarding claims 13-14: Zhang et al. teach that the polyamide fiber has an average fiber length of 0.01 to 20 mm [0037; Claim 29].
The length taught by Zhang et al. overlapped the claimed ranges.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 18-19: Zhang et al. teach a helmet [0117], which is a head protection article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has alleged that the instant claims exclude the additional polyamide of Zhang. This is incorrect. The instant claims use the open language “comprising” throughout the independent claims. Therefore, they are open to any additional components, including the additional polyamide in Zhang. The instant claims do not exclude 30 to 100 parts by weight of the new polyamide polymer of Zhang. Zhang et al. teach that the polyamide comprises PA6 or PA66 [0090; Examples].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights