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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The applicant has amended the abstract to meet the requirements. As a result, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The applicant has amended claim 11 to define the CTI acronym. As a result, the objection to claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify the required components. As a result, the previous 112 rejection for indefiniteness has been withdrawn.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20130273290).
Regarding Claim 1,
Luo teaches a polyarylene sulfide composition (Paragraph 42) where the polyarylene sulfide is a polyphenylene sulfide (Paragraph 299) and can be used in amounts of 20 to 90% by weight of the composition (Paragraph 86) and where the composition also includes one or more fillers in amounts of 20 to 65% by weight (Paragraph 119) and include glass fibers (Paragraph 121) and calcium carbonate (Paragraph 125) along with an impact modifier in amounts of 0.1 to 35% by weight (Paragraph 106) where the ranges of Luo overlap with those of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amounts of the components would affect the final material properties such as strength and ductility and would adjust the relative amounts to obtain the desired properties. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
With regard to the type of impact modifier, Luo teaches the use of ethylene-alkyl(meth)acrylate-glycidyl(meth)acrylate terpolymers (Paragraph 96).
Regarding Claim 2,
Luo is silent on the melt index of the polymer but does teach that the polyarylene sulfide can have any molecular weight and melt viscosity that is suitable for the final application of the composition (Paragraph 87). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the melt index is related to the viscosity of the polymer and would select a polymer that possessed a value that was suitable for the intended molding method. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected a polymer with any melt index that was suitable for the desired molding process and end use.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4,
Luo teaches that the glass fibers have an initial length of 3 to 5 mm (Paragraph 122), which is contained within the range of the instant claim and that the fibers may be pretreated with a sizing that is generally known (Paragraph 123). As silanes are generally used in the art to improve the compatibility of the filler with the polymer matrix, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used any silane to pretreat the glass fibers.
Regarding Claim 5,
Luo teaches that particulate fillers such as calcium carbonate preferably have a median particle size of 3 to 20 microns (Paragraph 124), which overlaps with the range of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that smaller particles can be more readily incorporated into a polymer matrix at higher amounts and would select a particle size that was appropriate based upon the amount required to obtain the desired properties of the composition. As such, it would have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 6,
Luo teaches that the terpolymer preferably contains alkyl acrylate content of 20 to 30% by weight of the polymer as well as 6 to 10% by weight of the glycidyl acrylate component (Paragraph 96), both of which overlap with the ranges of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 7,
Luo teaches that the composition can contain additives such as lubricants (Paragraph 134), colorants (Paragraph 134), antioxidants (Paragraph 134), UV stabilizers (Paragraph 128), and heat stabilizers (Paragraph 134).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15,
Luo teaches that the composition can be used to make molded parts for electronics (Paragraph 186) as well as being useful in automotive parts (Paragraph 187). While Luo doesn’t explicitly teach the use of the composition to make a drive motor terminal assembly, the language of claim 15 does not indicate any modification to the composition in order to be used in this capacity and as such, because the composition taught by Luo is taught to be used in automotive and electronic use cases, it would be capable of being used as a drive motor terminal assembly and it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the composition in any use case for which it was capable.
Regarding Claims 9-14,
Luo teaches that the composition can have a wide range of impact strengths, including greater than 5 kJ/m2 (Paragraph 47), which overlaps with the range of the instant claims. Luo is silent on the weld strength, dielectric breakdown strength, comparative tracking index, elongation, and high-speed peak force. However, as Luo teaches compositions that include the same components in overlapping amounts, it would logically follow that because the listed properties are of the composition that any composition containing the same components in similar amounts would possess similar values for each of the properties. See MPEP 2112.01.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishida (US 20220017722) teaches polyarylene sulfide compositions that include glass fibers which have been surface treated, calcium carbonate, and an olefinic polymer containing acrylates and glycidyl acrylates and further teaches that silanes are used as surface treatments.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights