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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1, claim 1-14 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “…and/or…and/or…” and “selected from … and/or…” are not proper Markush group or conventional alternative limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, “[6/BAC]/[T/CHDA]” should read “and [6/BAC]/[T/CHDA]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The base claim 6 does not include a diamine component and a dicarboxylic acid that form a polymer of 46/6T, 6T/6D, [4,6,D]/[T/I], 6/BAC/[T/CHDA]. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aepli et al (US 2014/0179850, of record, ‘850 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11-13 and 19-20, ‘850 discloses a composition of 47.8 wt% of polyamide MACM12 based on the total weight of the composition, which is formed from a polycondensation of a reaction mixture of a diamine being MACM and a dicarboxylic acid being dodecanedioic acid (12) (Table 5, Example B3), and has a glass transition temperature being 156°C ([0120]), satisfying the limitations as recited in the present claims 1-8 and 19-20; 48 wt% of a fibrous filler being glass fiber based on the total weight of the composition (Table 5, Example B3), satisfying the limitations as recited in the present claims 1 and 11-13; and an additive Zinc sulphide (ZnS) being a sulphide of group IIB metals of the periodic table, satisfying the limitations as recited in the present claims 1 and 9.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aepli et al (US 2014/0179850, of record, ‘850 hereafter) in view of Ieda et al (US 2016/0304696, of record, ‘696 hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, ‘850 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically set forth that the composition includes an additive being an oxide of alkaline earth metal in an amount of 0.05 to 3 wt%. However, it is known in the art, as evidenced by ‘696, that the metal oxide such as calcium oxide and magnesium oxide ([0204]-0208]) in a small amount of 0.3 to 2 wt% in a polyamide composition ([0215]) can be used to render a polyamide composition having excellent properties such as whiteness, reflow resistance, heat discoloration resistance, and better extrusion processibility and molding stability ([0220]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a small amount of metal oxide as known in the art, to modify the polyamide composition of ‘850, in order to render a polyamide composition having better properties of heat resistance and processibility.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aepli et al (US 2014/0179850, of record, ‘850 hereafter) in view of Matsumoto (US 2018/0162069, ‘069 hereafter).
Regarding claim 14, ‘850 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically set forth that the fibrous filler is a carbon fiber. However, it is known in the art, as evidenced by ‘069, that the carbon fiber, as well as glass fiber ([0074]-[0075], Examples, Table 1), can be used to reinforce polyamide resin to render a polyamide composition having high mechanical strength with excellent solvent resistance ([0009], [0013], [0140]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a carbon fiber as known in the art, to modify the polyamide composition of ‘850, in order to render a polyamide composition having high mechanical strength and excellent solvent resistance.
Conclusion
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