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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8 10, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR102065617B1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2012/0232184), Truckai et al. (US 2005/0182157), and Hauenstein et al. (US 5,708,084). Kim and Kwon were cited in a prior Office action.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 20, Kim teaches a striking cap of a shock absorber (Abstract) and a vehicle including the striking cap (p. 2, [0015]). The striker cap is formed of a plastic material (p. 2, [0016]) by injection molding (p. 3, [0022]). Kim does not specify a particular plastic material.
Kwon teaches a polyamide composition having excellent impact resistance, hardness, heat resistance, and warpage properties, and is useful in forming molded vehicle parts (p. 1-2, [0018]). The composition is also environmentally friendly, leading to a decreased amount of carbon dioxide during production (p. 2, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Kwon’s composition when forming Kim’s striking cap in order to take advantage of its excellent impact resistance, hardness, heat resistance, and warpage properties as well as environmental benefits.
Kwon’s composition comprises (A-1) a first polyamide resin; (B) a glass fiber (i.e. an inorganic filler); and optionally (A-2) a second polyamide resin. The composition may also include other additives in amounts of up to 30 parts by weight (p. 5, [0073]).
Example 9 (p. 5-6, Table 1) includes (A-1) 19 parts by weight of polyamide 11 (PA11) and (B) 29 parts by weight of glass fibers present in a combined amount of 48 parts by weight. This combination of materials reads on the claimed first compound.
Example 9 also includes (A-2) 48 parts by weight of polyamide 6 (PA6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include up to 30 parts by weight of an additive in Example 9, as the use of additives in this amount is expressly suggested.
Kim and Kwon do not teach an additive comprising polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), EPDM, or combinations thereof.
Hauenstein teaches a composition comprising a thermoplastic resin such as polyamide, combined with at least 1 part by weight of a diorganopolysiloxane. Inclusion of the diorganopolysiloxane leads to improved hydrophobicity and better processability (col. 1, lines 15-29). Suitable diorganopolysiloxanes include polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) homopolymers (col. 2, lines 59-60).
By using a steel extruder die during molding, the PDMS migrates toward the die and collects at the surface, which results in better hydrophobicity (col. 2, lines 38-52). This clearly describes molded articles having a higher content of PDMS at the surface than at a central portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kim in view of Kwon as applied above, and further in view of Hauenstein to include PDMS in the composition for the benefit of improved hydrophobicity and better processability. It would have been further obvious to form Kim’s striker cap via injection molding as suggested by Kim (p. 3, [0022]) using a metal die as suggested by Hauenstein (col. 2, lines 38-52), leading to a higher surface content of PDMS which in turn results in better hydrophobicity; and to include Hauenstein’s PDMS in amounts of up to 30 parts by weight as this range is recognized by Kwon as being suitable for a wide range of additives (p. 5, [0073]).
As discussed above, Kwon’s combination of PA11 and glass fibers reads on the claimed first compound. The combination of Kwon’s PA6 and up to 30 parts by weight of Hauenstein’s PDMS reads on the claimed second compound. Forming the striker cap via injection molding using a metal die will result in a content of PDMS additive at a surface portion greater than the content at a central portion.
Kwon further teaches toward compositions having excellent heat resistance (p. 1, [0018]). The cited references do not teach a similar distribution of inorganic filler as claimed.
Truckai teaches polymer compositions comprising filler filaments that have extraordinary insulation properties (p. 1, [0007]). The base polymer may be a polyamide (p. 1, [0019]). Suitable fillers include solid filaments (p. 1-2, [0019]) and may be formed from glass (p. 3, claim 9). Truckai’s Fig. 3 illustrates the filler material present in a gradient concentration with more of the filler material present at the surface, leading to a flame resistant surface (p. 2, [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kim in view of Kwon and Hauenstein as applied above, and further in view of Truckai to employ glass fiber filler with a higher concentration at the surface of the striker cap, motivated by the design incentive of obtaining a striker cap with a flame resistant surface. Modification in this way reads on claims 1, 3, 4, and 8.
Regarding claim 5, Kwon’s glass fiber has a length of 3-6 mm (p. 3, [0052]) and a cross-sectional diameter of 10-20 microns (p. 3, [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon’s Examples 9 and 11 illustrate compositions comprising 48 parts by weight of the claimed first compound and 52 parts by weight of the claimed second compound, indicating a ratio of 1:1.08. This falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 19, Kim, Kwon, Hauenstein, and Truckai remain as applied to claim 1 above.
Additionally, Kim teaches a striking cap of a shock absorber (Abstract). The strike cap is formed of a plastic material (p. 2, [0016]) by injection molding (p. 3, [0022]). Kwon’s composition may be formed according to any method well known to those skilled in the art, for example by mixing in an extruder and extruding in the form of pellets (p. 5, [0074]).
The cited references do not specify the claimed order of mixing ingredients. Nevertheless, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, as is selection of any order of mixing ingredients. See MPEP 2144.04.
Additionally, the obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to arrive at the claimed order of mixing Kwon’s polyamide (A-1), polyamide (A-2), and glass fibers (B), and Hauenstein’s PDMS based on the limited possibilities for combining these ingredients in the absence of new or unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to subsequently form a striker cap by injection molding per Kim’s teaching for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Kwon’s glass fiber has a length of 3-6 mm (p. 3, [0052]) and a cross-sectional diameter of 10-20 microns (p. 3, [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, as indicated above, Kwon’s Examples 9 and 11 illustrate compositions comprising 48 parts by weight of the claimed first compound and 52 parts by weight of the claimed second compound, indicating a ratio of 1:1.08. This falls within the claimed range.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kwon, Hauenstein, and Truckai as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Trouillet-Fonti et al. (US 2010/0305257; cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Kim, Kwon, Hauenstein, and Truckai remain as applied above. Kwon teaches a glass fiber-reinforced polyamide composition for forming automotive parts, and Kim suggests forming an automotive striker cap via injection molding. The cited references do not teach the claimed processing conditions.
In the same field of endeavor, Trouillet-Fonti teaches a composition comprising a polyamide and glass fibers (Abstract) suitable for injection molding, and useful in forming articles for the automotive industry (p. 1, [0002]). Exemplary compositions based on PA66 and glass fibers were formed by melt blending with a twin screw extruder at a temperature of 240-280°C and a rotation speed of 200-300 rpm (p. 3, [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kwon in view of Kim and Kopannia as applied above, and further in view of Trouillet-Fonti to conduct all compounding and molding steps under the conditions indicated above as they are shown to be suitable for similar compositions with similar end uses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art applied in the previous grounds of rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8 10, 12-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Applicant's arguments regarding alleged objective evidence of non-obviousness have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Tables 6 and 7 from the instant specification illustrate markedly improved noise characteristics while maintaining required material properties.
Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
The examples in the specification are not reasonably commensurate in scope with the claims, and the Applicant has provided no explanation regarding how the exemplified results could reasonably be extended to the full scope of the claims. The examples are therefore insufficient to establish non-obviousness of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S JONES JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7733. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Pacific.
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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at (571)272-1200. 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.
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762