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 02/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura (US 2018/0194942, ‘942 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, ‘942 discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising 58.8 parts by mass of an aliphatic polyamide resin being a PA66 (A) (Table 1, Example 3), 10.3 parts by mass of a polyamide MXD6 resin (B) (Table 1, Example 3), and 30.9 parts by mass of an inorganic reinforcing material being a glass fiber (C) (Table 1, Example 3), with respect to the total of 100 parts by mass of (A), (B) and (C). ‘942 does not specifically exemplify a composition having glass fiber in the presently claimed range of 40 to 59 parts per 100 parts of total composition of (A), (B) and C; however, ‘942 discloses that the content of the inorganic filler can be up to 140 part per 100 pars by mass of polyamide (140/240=58.3 part per 100 part of total composition, [0060]-[0061]), which significantly overlaps instantly claimed range, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have used any content taught by ‘942, including the content in the presently claimed range, to render a polyamide composition having desired mechanical properties. ‘942 also fails to expressly set forth that the polyamide resin composition having an MFR as recited in the present claims 1 and 6; however, the polyamides used in ‘942 have similar molecular weight ([0071]-0074], polyamides of ‘942 having relative viscosity of 2.1 to 2.7, is in the same range of the polyamide used in the present application, see Examples of the present application). It is well-known in the art that the MFR directly depends upon resin’s molecular weight; thus, it is reasonable to expect that the polyamide resin composition of ‘942 would have the MFR falling within the ranges as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, ‘942 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but ‘942 does not expressly set forth that the resin composition has a cooling crystallization temperature of the polyamide resin composition being 160 to 190°C. However, since ‘942 discloses a polyamide composition having polyamide 66 and polyamide MXD6, which is identical to the polyamide resin composition as presently claimed, it is reasonable to expect that the polyamide resin composition of ‘942 would have possessed the cooling crystallization temperature in the presently claimed range, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 3, ‘942 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘942 also discloses that the polyamide resin composition may further comprise 0.005 to 3 parts by mass of the metal hypophosphite with respect to the total of 100 parts by mass of(A), (B) and (C) to prevent thermal discoloration ([0049]-[0051]).
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al (US 2016/0102203, of record, ‘203 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, ‘203 discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising 37.5 parts by mass of an aliphatic polyamide resin (A) (Table 3, CE5), 12..5 parts by mass of a polyamide MXD6 resin (B) (Table 3, CE5), and 50 parts by mass of an inorganic reinforcing material being a glass fiber (C) (CE5 ,Table 3), with respect to the total of 100 parts by mass of (A), (B) and (C). 203 does not expressly set forth that the polyamide resin composition having an MFR as recited in the present claims 1 and 6; however, the polyamides used in ‘203 have similar molecular weight ([0025]-[0030], polyamides of ‘203 having preferred relative viscosity of 1.6 to 2.8, is in the same range of the polyamide used in the present application, see Examples of the present application). It is well-known in the art that the MFR directly depends upon resin’s molecular weight (represented by relative viscosity in this case); thus, it is reasonable to expect that the polyamide resin composition of ‘203 would have the MFR falling within the ranges as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, ‘203 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but ‘203 does not expressly set forth that the resin composition has a cooling crystallization temperature of the polyamide resin composition being 160 to 190°C. However, since ‘203 discloses a polyamide composition having aliphatic polyamide PA66 and polyamide MXD6, which is substantially identical to the polyamide resin composition as presently claimed, it is reasonable to expect that the polyamide resin composition of ‘229 would have possessed the cooling crystallization temperature in the presently claimed range, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in light of Applicant's amendment..
Conclusion
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 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