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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the abstract is incomplete because it does not include formula (1) which pertains, in combination with the thermoplastic, to the invention. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. Claim Objections Claims 7, 10, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following reasons: With respect to claims 7, 13, and 14, the term “formula (1)” is inconsistent with capitalized “Formula (1)” to the right of the formula structure. With respect to claims 10, 13, and 14, the term “formula ( 2 )” is inconsistent with capitalized “Formula ( 2 )” to the right of the formula structure. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi (CN 107345068, machine translation provided with IDS on 1/28/2025) . With respect to claims 7 and 8, Yi discloses a nylon 66 (polyamide) resin composition comprising nylon 66, low-water-absorption agent, and a flame retardant (abstract). Example 4 (paragraphs 0059-0060 of original document) includes 29.9 kg PA66 (polyamide), 1.5 kg H-Si 6441P (siloxane compound identical to that exemplified in the specification as originally filed on page 28, compound (C-1) and therefore reads on claimed formula (1)), and 18 kg GREATBAY XZ-6700 (brominated polystyrene, paragraph 0041, which reads on claimed thermoplastic resin with a reactive functional group). These amounts provide for 100 parts by weight polyamide (claim A, 60 parts by weight thermoplastic resin with a functional group (claimed B), and 5 parts by weight organic-modified siloxane compound of formula (1) (claimed C). With respect to claims 11 and 12, Yi discloses that the composite is molded into test st rips (paragraph 0081) which are capable of being a weld part because the composition is a thermoplastic and can be remelted to form a weld. 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 of this title, 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. Claim s 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi (CN 107345068, machine translation provided with IDS on 1/28/2025) in view of Lee (US 6,733,854) . The discussion with respect to Yi in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference. With respect to claim 9, Yi fails to disclose a thermoplastic having an acid anhydride or epoxy functional group. Lee discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising a “nylon thickener” having at least two functional groups added in an amount of about 0.5-10 wt % (abstract). Lee states that the nylon thickener includes maleic anhydride modified polyolefin or polystyrene (col. 3, lines 9-13). Lee teaches that the thickener is used to improve workability (col. 2, lines 1-2) for obtaining uniformly thick components (col. 2, lines 12-13) . In Table 1, nylon thickener is added in an amount of 0.33-1.2 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight nylon 6. Given that both Yi and Lee are drawn to nylon molding compositions and further given that Lee teaches that a nylon thickener is used to improve workability , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a thickener that is a thermoplastic resin having a maleic anhydride functional group in an amount like claimed. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). With respect to claim 10, Yi fails to disclose adding a sulfonamide-based compound of formula (2) in an amount of 1-20 parts by mass . Lee discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising a “nylon plasticizer ” added in an amount of about 0. 1 - 2 0 wt % (abstract ). L ee teaches that the nylon plasticizer is used to provide flexibility and includes sulfonamides such as ethyl toluene sulfonamide which reads on formula (2) when R’ is methyl (C1) and R is ethyl (C2) (col. 4, lines 49-53) . In Table 1, sulfonamide nylon plasticizer is added in an amount of 0.8-13 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight nylon 6. Given that both Yi and Lee are drawn to nylon molding compositions and further given that Lee teaches that nylon plasticizer is used to improve flexibility , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add that is ethyl toluene sulfonamide in an amount like claimed. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). With respect to claims 13 and 14, Yi fails to disclose adding both a thermoplastic having an acid anhydride group and a sulfonamide-based compound of formula (2) . Lee discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising a “nylon thickener” having at least two functional groups added in an amount of about 0.5-10 wt % (abstract). Lee states that the nylon thickener includes maleic anhydride modified polyolefin or polystyrene (col. 3, lines 9-13). Lee teaches that the thickener is used to improve workability (col. 2, lines 1-2) for obtaining uniformly thick components (col. 2, lines 12-13). In Table 1, nylon thickener is added in an amount of 0.33-1.2 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight nylon 6. Lee also discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising a “nylon plasticizer” added in an amount of about 0.1-20 wt % (abstract). Lee teaches that the nylon plasticizer is used to provide flexibility and includes sulfonamides such as ethyl toluene sulfonamide which reads on formula (2) when R’ is methyl (C1) and R is ethyl (C2) (col. 4, lines 49-53). In Table 1, sulfonamide nylon plasticizer is added in an amount of 0.8-13 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight nylon 6. Given that both Yi and Lee are drawn to nylon molding compositions and further given that Lee teaches that a nylon thickener and nylon plasticizers are used to improve workability and flexibility, respectively , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add both thermoplastic resin with reactive maleic anhydride groups and an ethyl toluene sulfonamide to Yi’s nylon composition within the claimed amounts . Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2701 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday . 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-11 30. 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. /Vickey Nerangis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763 vn