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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 14-APR-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected claim groupings, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14-APR-2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31-Jul-2023, 01-AUG-2023, 13-AUG-2024, 29-AUG-2026, and 07-MAY-2026 were filed before the date of this Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Specifically, the Markush group is improper because of the phosphonate species being present. When the phosphonate species are present alone (ie. the claim recites “one or more”) then the phosphite-based thermal stabilizer is rendered indefinite since no phosphite would be present.
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 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 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/019882 A1 in view of Pelt Van (US 2009/0176919 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-12: WO ‘882 teaches the basic claimed thermoplastic composition, comprising: 20-70% of polyamide resin (pg. 8, para. 2); 20 to about 50% glass fibers when the reinforcing material is 100 parts relative to 100 parts polyamide (pg. 9, para. 2); >0 to 1% thermal stabilizer when the stabilizer material is 5 parts relative to 100 parts polyamide (pg. 9, para. 3); and cuprous chloride, cuprous bromide, cuprous iodide, cupric chloride, cupric bromide, and cupric iodide (pg. 9, para. 4)(note – cuprous is copper I and cupric is copper II). WO ‘882 also teaches that stabilizers may be used in combination of several kinds and that an optimum amount may be selected with a maximum of 5 parts relative to 100 parts polyamide (pg. 9, para. 4 and top of pg. 5).
WO ‘882 does not teach a phosphite-based thermal stabilizer. However, Pelt Van teaches a phosphite stabilizer (para. 11-13) in the amount of 0.2-1% (para.18), specifically triphenyl phosphite. It is submitted that the MW of triphenyl phosphite, C18H15O3P, is 310.29 and the P percentage is 9.98%. WO ‘882 and Pelt Van are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, polymers containing flame retardants and additives. At the time of filing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a phosphite stabilizer, as taught by Pelt Van into the composition of WO ‘882, since Pelt Van suggests that such phosphite stabilizer provides colour stability and suggests that such stabilizers/additives may be used in combination.
Regarding claim 2: The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Specifically, the original specification suggests that when claimed ingredient amounts are met, then a comparative tracking index (CTI) of 530 V occurs (para. 20-21). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, ie. the comparative tracking index (CTI) of 530 V, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 5: WO ‘882 teaches various polyamides formed from: diamines of 6-10 carbon atoms with dicarboxylic acids of 6-12 carbon atoms; polyundecanamide and polydodecanamide; and polycaproamide (ie. lactam polymer (pg. 10, para. 1).
Regarding claim 6: WO ‘882 teaches glass fibers having a diameter of 20 µm or less and fiber lengths of about 1-20 mm (pg. 9, 1st para.).
Regarding claims 7-9: WO ‘882 teaches a composite flame retardant comprising diethylphosphinic acid aluminum salt (ie. Formula I, where R1 and R2 are ethyl group, n = 3, and M = Al) and melamine polyphosphate (pg. 15, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 13: WO ‘882 does not teach a copper-based thermal stabilizer comprising an alkali metal halide. However, Pelt Van teaches a copper-based heat stabilizer (ie. Cu I) comprising an alkali metal halide (para. 19). At the time of filing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a copper-based heat stabilizer, as taught by Pelt Van into the composition of WO ‘882, since Pelt Van suggests that additional stabilizer provides added stabilization of a flame retardant polyamide composition.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/019882 A1 in view of Pelt Van (US 2009/0176919 A1), as set forth above, and further in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2010/0069539 A1).
WO ‘882 teaches the basic claimed thermoplastic composition as set forth above.
Regarding claims 3-4: WO ‘882 does not teach talc as a nucleating agent in the amount of 0.01-0.6%. However, Morimoto et al. teaches talc as a nucleating agent in the amount of 0.2-0.5%. (para. 78). WO ‘882 and Morimoto et al. are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, polymers containing flame retardants and additives. At the time of filing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added talc as a nucleating agent in the amount of 0.2-0.5%, as taught by Morimoto et al. into the composition of WO ‘882, since Morimoto et al. suggests that such nucleating agent raises the crystallization speed thereby improving moldability.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EASHOO whose telephone number is (571)272-1197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am - 4pm.
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, Patricia Mallari, can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
MARK EASHOO, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights