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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation “long chain” is indefinite. The metes and bounds are unclear.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the personal safety article" in claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 6-10 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].
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.
Regarding claim 10: Zhang et al. teach that the polyamide comprises PA6 or PA66 [0090; Examples].
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].
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 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has made the argument that “long chain” is a term understood in the art. This is not persuasive because the remarks don’t even provide a clear definition of the term, but the applicant provides contradictory information. “Longer chains” are specified as C18 and above, but a common example cited is lauryl alcohol with a C12 chain.
The applicant has made the argument that the skilled artisan would not look to Zhu since Zhu is not making fiber reinforced composites but rather flame retardant clothing. This is not persuasive because the paragraph [0022] of Zhu, cited in the rejection, cites six patents, demonstrating that the “most often” is not limited to fabrics. The patents cited are as follows.
Mera et al. (4,172,938) is an invention relating to fibers, films, fibrids and other shaped articles (column 1, lines 5-10).
Blades (3,869,429) is an invention relating to fibers and films (column 1, lines 40-48).
Kwoleck (3,819,587) is an invention relating to fibers, films, fibrids, and coatings (column 1, lines 17-24).
Bair et al. (3,673,143) is an invention relating to films, fibrids and/or coatings (column 3, lines 12-14).
Hill Jr. et al. (3,354,127) is an invention relating to coatings and molding articles (column 5, lines 30-69).
Hill Jr. et al. (3,094,511) is an invention relating to film and filaments (column 1, lines 36-40).
As can be seen, from the documents cited above, the use of poly(metaphenylene isophthalamide) and poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide) as the most often used aramids in the prior art is not limited to fabrics. It is noted that none of the documents cited above relates to fabrics, but all of them relate to molded articles.
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.
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