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
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 01/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suzuki et al (US 2019/0031838, of record, ‘838 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-9, ‘838 discloses a composite material comprising a polyamide polymerized from C10-12 diamine and terephthalic acid ([0060], 10T or 6T/11), which inherently having chemical structure reading upon the chemical structure as recited in the present claim 5; and a sheet-shaped material ([0081]-[0089]) having an aspect ratio being in a preferred range of 25 to 50 ([0089]), and thickness in a range of 0.5 to 3 microns (0.7 micron, Table 1, Examples 2 and 3); wherein the weight ratio of the polyamide to sheet-shaped material can be 65.5:34.5, satisfying the present claim 2 (50:30 as in Example 2, Table 1), and the sheet-shaped material can be one of muscovite, sericite, wollastonite, kaolinite, or a combination thereof as in present claim 4 ([0083]). ‘838 also discloses the polyamide having preferred intrinsic viscosity being in a preferred range of 0.7 to 1.8dl/g at 30°C, satisfying presently claimed viscosity range as in claim 7 ([0070], the measurement temperature 30°C is close to the 25°C as claimed). ‘838 does not expressly set forth that the composite material has shrinkage and shrinkage ratio as recited in the present claims 8 and 9, however, ‘838 discloses a composite comprising a polyamide and a sheet-shaped material being substantially identical to the composite material as presently claimed, it is reasonable to expect that the composite material of ‘838 would have possessed the same properties including the shrinkage and shrinkage ratio as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20//2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that cited reference does not specifically employ a polyamide derived from C10-C12 diamine to address water absorption and dimensional stability, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to select this polyamide C10-12 to address these problem. However, there is no experimental data shows that the composite as claimed having a polyamide derived from C10-C12 diamine provides lower absorption comparing with a composite having other polyamides; and the polyamide derived from C10-C12 diamine does not necessarily provides better dimensional stability than using other polyamide such as PA9T (See Comparative Example 2 and comparative Example 3, the composite having PA9T shows lower TD and MD shrinkages than that of the composite having PA10T). It is noted that cited reference expressly sets forth PA10T is one of the preferred semi-aromatic polyamides ([0060]) for making the composite having excellent mechanical strength and dimensional stability ([0033]), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use PA10T to render a composite having desired shrinkage. In addition, case law also holds that a reference must be considered in its entirety, and it is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (C.C.P.A. 1982). A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985).
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782