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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to fiber reinforced composition, classified in C 08 K 3/32.
II. Claim 21, drawn to electrical connector, classified in H 01 R 17/721
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case flame retardant thermoplastic composition comprising long fibers can be utilized making molding composition due to good mechanical properties and strength (CN 118359925) or be utilized in the electrical components that do not requires passageway defined for receiving contact pin (US 2010/0113657).
During a telephone conversation with Tim Cassidy on Feb. 17, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 21 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 10 requires presence of iodopsin(triphenylphosphine) copper. The compound is known under tradename Brugg Olen H3376 and Brugg Olen TP-H 7004. Consequently these two tradenames will inherently meet the limitation of instant claim 10.
Claim 11 requires an antioxidant that is a reaction produce of 2,4-di-t-butylphenol, phosphorous trichloride and 1,1-biphenyl. This compound is known under tradename Antioxidant 168 or Irgafos 168. Consequently these tradenames will meet the limitation of claim 11.
To meet the limitation of the test methods utilized to determine the properties of the composition (ISO) functional equivalents (ASTM, JIS, KIS) will also be considered as well as the description of the test method in the prior art.
With respect to definition of long fibers, if the prior art does not state if the fibers are long, the examiner will rely on definition in [0076] of the instant invention. Specifically, [0076] teaches that the length of the fiber has to be in a range of 1-25 mm.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement dated 8/14/2025 contains over 274 foreign references, approximately 132 of then provided abstract that was not in English. Submitting translation of at least abstract of the foreign references is a requirement per MPEP 609. While examiner Kolb considered all references cited for the sake of prompt prosecution, the amount of references that had to be translated and considered did cause serious burden. The applicants should note that other examiner may not consider such references. Any further IDS that will be submitted in this or the co-pending application throughout its prosecution will not be considered if the abstract of foreign reference is not in English.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation of “flame retardant system being utilized in an amount greater than about 12%”, and the claim also recites the amount of the flame retardant to be greater than 18.5%, which regardless of upper range will result in narrower content. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 8, 13-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Togawa (JP 2010-031257 translation provided).
With respect to claim 1, Togawa discloses polyamide composition comprising following additives (claim 1):
8-40 wt.% of (B) carbon fibers, fibers are long fibers (claim 2)
2-10 wt.% of (C) carbon black (encompassed by term “comprising”
13-30 wt.% of (D) phosphors based flame retardant system.
The flame retardant system of Togawa according to his claim 4 includes melamine phosphate compound and metallic phosphinate.
While claim 1 of Togawa does not recite the amount of polyamide such can be easily found in examples, where the polyamide content depicted in Table 1, which is in a range of 38-69 wt.%.
With respect to claim 8, fibers of Togawa are arranged in a parallel manner [0034]
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the phosphinate compounds include metal salts [0022] of following chemical structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And
PNG
media_image2.png
200
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein M is Ca, AL, Mg, Ba and Zn
With respect to claims 13, 17-19, polyamide include nylon 6 and nylon 6,6, wherein two polyamide resins can be mixed together [0015], nylon 6 being exemplified. Other polymers of Togawa include MCD6, and the like.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauer (EP 3665218 submitted by the applicant. Certified English translation IN 202017002820 is used as translation).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Bauer discloses composition comprising (p. 2-4)
Polyamide or polyamide blend 25-95 wt.%
Glass fibers 1-40 wt.% long glass fibers are depicted on p. 12, continuous on p. 13
Phosphinic metal salt 5-20 wt.%
Phosphonic acid 0.05-1.5 wt.%
Phosphonic acid salt 0.001-1 wt.%
Melamine polyphosphate 2-10 wt.%
Phenolic antioxidant 0.01-5 wt.%
Phosphinite 0.01-5 wt.%
Wherein additional phosphorous based compounds are encompassed by term “comprising”
With respect to claims 2 and 4, the comparative tracking is measured using IEC-60112 (p. 29) and it is 600V (Table 1) along with UL-94 rating of V-0, time of less than 250 seconds.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, preference is given to melamine poly(zinc phosphate) (p.22. l. 11). Wherein the amount of melamine is in a range of 2-10 wt.% (p. 4).
With respect to claim 8, Bauer discloses continuous fiber are in form of a threads, wherein fibers within a thread are oriented in substantially the same direction.
With respect to claim 11, Bauer discloses use of antioxidants which are listed on p. 16 of his reference, however, particular preference is given to Irgafos 168 (p. 21).
With respect to claims 13, 17-19, Bauer discloses use of polyamides are thermoplastic (p. 9, l 30) and include aliphatic polyamides (nylon 6) semi-aromatic polyamides (nylon 6,6) as well as others (p. 11, l. 9-15). Table 1 exemplifies also a polyamide blend of aliphatic and semi-aromatic polyamides.
With respect to claim 14 and 15, the metal phosphinate component C and E are salts having following formula (p. 2):
PNG
media_image3.png
116
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Or
PNG
media_image4.png
110
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wherein starting acid is diethylphosphinic acid.
With respect to claim 16, Bauer does not use zinc borate.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (EP 3665218) in view of Padmamaban (US 2019/0256656).
Discussion of the teachings of Bauer from paragraph 2 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. In summary, Bauer discloses thermoplastic polyamide composition comprising glass fibers, flame retardant system comprising melamine polyphosphate and metal salt of phosphonic acid along with long continuous glass fibers and that include organic and inorganic stabilizers, the antioxidant is Irgafos 168.
Composition of Bauer meets the CTI required by instant claims as well as UL94 rating and the content of the ingredients overlaps with those of the instant invention.
With respect to claim 3, Bauer does not explicitly teach the limiting oxygen index (LOI). However, this property is obvious as reflected in Langrick.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the LOI depends on several factors which includes degree of cure, filler and fiber content, flame retardant and additives and temperature.
Padmamaban discloses flame retardant polyamide composition, wherein polyamide includes MDX, polyamide 6 and polyamide 6,6 [0059], [0088], flame retardant additives which include glass fiber in overlapping amount with Bauer [0099], wherein flame retardants include phosphates, melamine polyphosphates or salts of phosphonic acids [0104-0111]. The composition of Padmamaban also has UL-90 rating of 0 [0128] with flame time of less than 30 second (Table 1) [051], which is also encompassed by Bauer.
Padmamaban discloses that the LOI for compositions such as those enabled in both references is 25 or more [0127]. While Padmamaban does not specifically disclose the method, the result would be expected to be within the same rage, because as it was stated above LOI depends on the aspects of the composition which overlap between both Bauer and Padmanaban.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that composition disclosing the same components (polymers, flame retardants, glass fibers and antioxidants) would have similar properties because compounds and their properties are mutually exclusive and combination of the components would have cumulative effect, rendering properties such as LOI obvious.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (EP 3665218) in view of Gabriel (US 2014/0252265) as evidenced by Briffaud (US 2018/0370208).
Discussion of the teachings of Bauer from paragraph 2 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. In summary, Bauer discloses thermoplastic polyamide composition comprising glass fibers, flame retardant system comprising melamine polyphosphate and metal salt of phosphonic acid along with long continuous glass fibers and that include organic and inorganic stabilizers, the antioxidant is Irgafos 168.
While Bauer discloses additives that includes other antioxidants, UV stabilizers (light), co-stabilizers, hydrolysis stabilizers and the like (p. 21, l. 17) Bauer does not disclose details of such additives.
Gabriel discloses polyamide composition, wherein polyamides include nylon 6, nylon 66 and the like [0036]. The polyamide of Gabriel is a flame retardant composition [0044] and additives such as fibers [0040], however, the most important aspect of Gabriel is his stabilization additive, which are known to stabilize polyamides.
On order to stabilize polyamides, Gabriel adds “usual additives: which include antioxidants, heat stabilizers, UV stabilizers (light) [0060] wherein two additives specifically names is an antioxidant and copper stabilizer Brugg Olen TP-H7004 [0061].
As evidenced in Bifraud who also teaches how to better stabilize polyamide composition with inorganic stabilizers based on copper [0143] “copper based stabilizers” are utilized to long-term heat resistance in hot air, in particular for higher temperatures because they prevent polymer chain scission [00144].
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize combination of at least antioxidant and copper based stabilizer and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Utilizing copper based stabilizer such as that of Gabriel would prevent degradation of polyamides which is result of the chain scission.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (EP 3665218) in view of Gabriel (US 2014/0252265) and Hoerold (US 2016/0009918) as evidenced by Briffaud (US 2018/0370208).
Discussion of the teachings of Bauer from paragraph 2 of this office action and Gabriel from paragraph 4 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. In summary, Bauer discloses thermoplastic polyamide composition comprising glass fibers, flame retardant system comprising melamine polyphosphate and metal salt of phosphonic acid along with long continuous glass fibers and that include organic and inorganic stabilizers, the antioxidant is Irgafos 168.
Gabriel as evidenced on Biffraud further discloses combination of antioxidants with copper stabilizer.
Bauer fails to teach use of carboxamide compound.
Hoerold discloses polyamide flame retardant composition comprising the same polyamide wherein nylon 6 and nylon 6,6 combination is preferred [0030], glass fiber [0039], wherein flame retardants have improved hydrolytic stability [0050]. Flame retardants are also based of melamine polyphosphates [0065] and salts of phosphonic acid [0068] and antioxidants [0077-0079]. The composition of Hoerold has UL-94 value of 0 and CTI of at least 550 V (examples show 600 [0012].
Hoerold also teaches addition of esteramides. Specific compound is based on benzenedicarboxamide [0041], which is well known in the art as enhancing heat and light stability long term just like copper based stabilizers.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed, to utilize benzenedicarboxamide of Hoerold as part of the stabilizer additive and thereby obtain the claimed invention.
Such modification would further enhance light and heat stability of the polyamide flame retardant composition while maintaining its UL-94 rating and CT Index.
Claims 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (EP 3665218) in view of Gabriel (US 2014/0252265) as evidenced by Briffaud (US 2018/0370208).
With respect to claim 20, Bauer discloses composition comprising (p. 2-4)
Polyamide or polyamide blend 25-95 wt.%
Glass fibers 1-40 wt.% long glass fibers are depicted on p. 12, continuous on p. 13
Phosphinic metal salt 5-20 wt.%
Phosphonic acid 0.05-1.5 wt.%
Phosphonic acid salt 0.001-1 wt.%
Melamine polyphosphate 2-10 wt.%
Phenolic antioxidant 0.01-5 wt.%
Phosphinite 0.01-5 wt.%
Wherein additional phosphorous based compounds are encompassed by term “comprising”
In disclosure of Bauer the comparative tracking is measured using IEC-60112 (p. 29) and it is 600V (Table 1) along with UL-94 rating of V-0, time of less than 250 seconds.
While Bauer discloses additives that includes other antioxidants, UV stabilizers (light), co-stabilizers, hydrolysis stabilizers and the like (p. 21, l. 17) Bauer does not disclose details of such additives.
Gabriel discloses polyamide composition, wherein polyamides include nylon 6, nylon 66 and the like [0036]. The polyamide of Gabriel is a flame retardant composition [0044] and additives such as fibers [0040], however, the most important aspect of Gabriel is his stabilization additive, which are known to stabilize polyamides.
On order to stabilize polyamides, Gabriel adds “usual additives: which include antioxidants, heat stabilizers, UV stabilizers (light) [0060] wherein two additives specifically names is an antioxidant and copper stabilizer Brugg Olen TP-H7004 [0061].
As evidenced in Bifraud who also teaches how to better stabilize polyamide composition with inorganic stabilizers based on copper [0143] “copper based stabilizers” are utilized to long-term heat resistance in hot air, in particular for higher temperatures because they prevent polymer chain scission [00144].
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize combination of at least antioxidant and copper based stabilizer and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Utilizing copper based stabilizer such as that of Gabriel would prevent degradation of polyamides which is result of the chain scission.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 13-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10, 13-16, 20 of copending Application No. 18/494,139. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1, 10, 13 17-19 of instant invention recited the same components which include polyamide, long reinforcing fibers and flame retardant system. While instant claim 1 discloses overall amount of the melamine polyphosphate and metal phosphinate, the ‘139 invention discloses the same information in form of the ratio of the two components. These ratios are met in combination with instant claim 6 of instant invention which reads on ratio 1:1 higher when the amount of phosphonic acid component is synergist is higher.
Instant claim 2 discloses subject to the same UL-94 test, the same CTI standards which are also recited in co-pending claim 4.
Instant claim 3 requires the same LOI index using the same standard as in co-pending claim 4.
Instant claims 7 and 8 disclose glass fibers that are oriented and spaces apart in a substantially similar direction. While co-pending claim 5 is open to any type of fibers, the fibers have to be arranged in the same manner.
Instant claims 14 and 15 discloses the same flame retardant chemical structure as that of co-pending claims 6 and 20 where substituents are defined the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 February 19, 2026