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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending in the current application.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “a second carbon fiber selected from the group consisting of based fiber, a lignin-based fiber, a cellulose-based fiber, or
Correction is required.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from claim 1 as rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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, 2, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberts et al. (US 2016/0297120 A1) in view of Takano et al. (US 2016/0145419 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lamberts teaches a polyamide resin composition comprising (A) a polyamide resin and (C) at least one carbon fiber (Lamberts, Abstract, [0001], [0010]-[0020], [0056]-[0060]). Lamberts teaches the carbon fiber preferably includes a recyclate (recycled) carbon fiber (i.e., a first carbon fiber), where PAN-based, pitch-based, or cellulose-based fibers for the carbon fibers can be used (Lamberts, [0056]-[0057]).
Lamberts remains silent specifically regarding a second carbon fiber comprising PAN-based, pitch-based, rayon-based, lignin-based, cellulose-based or PE-based fibers.
Takano, however, teaches a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a thermoplastic resin component such as polyamide and a carbon fiber component (Takano, Abstract, [0012]-[0020], [0028]-[0036]). Takano teaches the carbon fiber component can include two or more species of carbon fibers used in combination, where PAN-based and pitch-based carbon fibers are preferable (Takano, [0041]-[0046]). Takano teaches PAN-based carbon fibers can be included in an amount of 30% by weight or more of the carbon fibers contained in a thermoplastic resin composition (Takano, [0041]).
Since Lamberts and Takano both disclose polyamide resin compositions comprising carbon fibers and Lamberts suggests using PAN-based, pitch-based, or cellulose-based fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Takano’s PAN-based carbon fibers as a component of Lamberts’ (C) at least one carbon fiber to yield a composition that exhibits improved elastic modulus, improved Charpy impact strength, and good appearance as taught by Takano (Takano, [0041], [0044]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lamberts teaches (A) the polyamide resin comprises polyamide 6/6T, and can comprise structural components of polyamide 6, polyamide 66, polyamide 12, and polyamide 6I (Lamberts, [0019]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lamberts teaches the carbon fibers can be chopped (Takano, [0042]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lamberts teaches the carbon fiber length is 0.1 to 50 mm (Lamberts, [0057]). Modified Lamberts’ fiber length encompasses the claimed range of 3 to 15 mm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lamberts teaches the PAN-based carbon fiber (second carbon fiber) is included in an amount of 30 wt% or more of all carbon fibers (Takano, [0041]). This yields a ratio of 0:1 to 7:3 of first carbon fiber to second carbon fiber. Modified Lamberts’ ratio encompasses the claimed ratio of 4:6 to 6:4, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lamberts teaches the carbon fibers can be chopped (Takano, [0042]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lamberts teaches the carbon fiber length is 0.1 to 25 mm (Takano, [0042]). Modified Lamberts’ fiber length encompasses the claimed range of 3 to 15 mm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lamberts teaches the polyamide resin composition comprises (A) 20 to 79 wt% of polyamide resin, 20 to 60 wt% of the carbon fibers, where the PAN-based carbon fiber (second carbon fiber) is included in an amount of 30 wt% or more of all carbon fibers (Lamberts, Abstract, [0010]-[0015], [0060]; Takano, [0041]). The first carbon fiber is included in an amount of 0 to 70 wt% and the second carbon fiber is included in an amount of 30 to 100 wt% relative to all carbon fibers; therefore, relative to the total polyamide resin composition, the first carbon fiber is included in an amount of 0 (0%*20) to 42 (70%*60) wt% and the second carbon fiber is included in an amount of 6 (30%*20) to 60 (100%*60) wt%. Modified Lamberts’ polyamide resin range overlaps with the claimed range of 60 to 80 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Lamberts’ first carbon fiber range encompasses the claimed range of 10 to 20 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Lamberts’ second carbon fiber range encompasses the claimed range of 8 to 20 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lamberts teaches the polyamide resin composition comprises an additive (Lamberts, Abstract, [0010]-[0015], [0061]-[0065]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lamberts teaches the additive is included in an amount of 0 to 5 wt% (Lamberts, Abstract, [0010]-[0015], [0061]-[0065]). Modified Lamberts’ additive range encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 to 1 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberts et al. (US 2016/0297120 A1) in view of Takano et al. (US 2016/0145419 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0275458 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lamberts teaches the polyamide resin composition as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Lamberts teaches (A) the polyamide resin comprises polyamide 6/6T, and can comprise structural components of polyamide 6, polyamide 66, polyamide 12, and polyamide 6I (Lamberts, [0019]).
Modified Lamberts remains silent regarding a polyamide resin formed from regenerated waste fibers, fabrics, films, fishing nets, or combinations thereof.
Lee, however, teaches a polyamide resin composition with fibers including recycled polyamide 66 resin recovered from waste substances of radiator shrouds, radiator fans, radiator end tanks, and engine covers (i.e., waste fibers, waste films, and combinations thereof) (Lee, [0009]-[0011], [0016]).
Since modified Lamberts and Lee both disclose polyamide resin compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Lee’s recycled polyamide 66 as a component of modified Lambert’s polyamide resin to yield a composition that achieves sufficient mechanical properties, achieves reduced production costs, and improves vehicle recycling proportions as taught by Lee (Lee, Abstract, [0002], [0068]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lamberts teaches the polyamide resin has a relative viscosity of about 2 to 3 (Lee, [0018]-[0019], [0040]). Modified Lamberts’ relative viscosity is encompassed within the claimed range of 2 to 3.3, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 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 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782