DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, 16-25, 27 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/20/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be rephrased, for example: “A method comprises directly contacting at least a portion of a part with a fuel, wherein the at least a portion is made from a polyamide moulding composition……”; or “A method comprises providing a part comprising at least a portion made from a polyamide moulding composition, directly contacting the at least a portion with a fuel……” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble should be “A method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14, 16-27 objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble should be “The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, 18-19, 24-25 objected to because of the following informalities: a proper Markush format is “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “by weight of polyamide” should be “by weight of a polyamide/polyamides”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities: replace “for the automotive field as a fuel line connector” with “a fuel line connector for the automotive field”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9, 16, 18-20, 22, 24-25, 27 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 pre-AIA 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 19 recites the broad recitation “component A is at least one aliphatic or partially aromatic polyamide derived from…”, and the claim also recites “component (A) is selected from…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
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 22 recites the broad recitation “selected as glass fiber”, and the claim also recites “selected from E glass……” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 24 is confusing due to the use of “selected from”, “or”, “including”.
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 24 recites the broad recitation “selected as …”, and the claim also recites “including……” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “wherein component C is a sterically hindered phenol”.
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 25 recites the broad recitation “selected from …”, and the claim also recites “in the form of……” and “including” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
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 4-5, 18-20 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.
Claims 4-5, 18-20 broaden the scope of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16-20, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoeppelmann et al (US 2007/0167552) in view of in view of Robert et al (US 2021/0371652).
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 14, 16, 22-25: Stoeppelmann teaches a method of contacting a fuel tank with a fuel, the tank is made of a composition consisting of 58.6 wt% of a polyamide, 30wt% of a glass fiber, 6 wt% of silicate and 5 wt% of impact modifier and 0.5 wt% a heat stabilizer [0066, table 4]. The polyamide comprises PA 6. The amount of silicate is 0.5-15 wt%, the amount of impact modifier can be 3-12wt% [0090-0099]. Therefore, the total amount of impact modifier and silicate can overlap the claimed range of the additives. The stabilizer can be an antioxidant [0131].
Stoeppelmann does not teach a non-circular glass fiber is preferred.
However, Robert discloses a molded polyamide article and teaches flat E glass fiber provides better fatigue resistance properties than circular glass fiber (abstract, tables, 0081, 0203-0204). The flat glass fiber has an aspect ratio of 3-4 (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize flat glass fiber in the composition of Stoeppelmann to provide improved fatigue resistance.
Claim 3, 17: one exemplified relative viscosity in m-cresol at a concentration of 0.5 at 20°C is 2.25 [0145].
Claims 4-5, 18-20: the polyamide can consist of PA12 (example 3).
Claim 12, 26: Stoeppelmann is silent with respect to the permeation value of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Stoeppelmann and Robert have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claims 6, 11, 13-14, 21, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoeppelmann et al (US 2007/0167552) in view of in view of Robert et al (US 2021/0371652) and further in view of Hewel et al (US 2017/0275459).
Claim 6, 21: Stoeppelmann and Robert teach the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Stoeppelmann and Robert do not teach the amine end group
However, Hewel discloses a similar method and teaches the polyamide has an excess of amine end groups in an concentration of at least 20 mmol/kg [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a polyamide with an excess of amine group because it is recognized in the art being suitable for a fuel tank composition.
Claim 11: Stoeppelmann and Robert teach the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Stoeppelmann further teaches the production of hollow bodies is carried out on a large scale by extrusion blow moulding method [0066].
Stoeppelmann does not teach an injection molding part.
However, Hewel teaches a hollow body can be produced by injection molding or blow molding [0100]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that the hollow bodies of Stoeppelmann can also be made by injection molding.
Claim 13, 14, 27: Stoeppelmann and Robert teach the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Stoeppelmann does not teach a connector.
However, Hewel teaches a similar method and composition and teaches the composition can be used to make a fuel tank or a fuel line which can be used as a connector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made recognize that the composition of Stoeppelmann can also be used to make a fuel line which functions as a connector.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 17-20, 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi (JPH07207154) in view of Robert et al (US 2021/0371652).
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 18-20, 22-25, 27: Deguchi teaches a method of using an injection molded fuel line connector which has a direct contact with a fuel, the connector is made of a composition consisting of 70wt% of a polyamide 12, 10 wt% of carbon fiber, 20wt% of a glass fiber [0003-0005, 0011, 0018, 0026, table 1].
Deguchi does not teach the glass fiber is a non-circular glass fiber.
However, Robert discloses a molded polyamide article and teaches flat E glass fiber provides better fatigue resistance properties than circular glass fiber (abstract, tables, 0081, 0203-0204). The flat glass fiber has an aspect ratio of 3-4 (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize flat glass fiber in the composition of Hewel to provide improved fatigue resistance.
Claim 3, 17: Deguchi teaches the polyamide has a relative viscosity of 1.8-2.6 when measured by 98% sulfuric acid method [0011].
Deguchi does not teach a relative viscosity in m-cresol.
However, Deguchi teaches the relative viscosity value is a result effect variable where if the viscosity falls below 1.80, physical properties such as impact strength will decrease, which is undesirable. If it exceeds 2.60, the flow characteristics when manufacturing parts by injection molding will deteriorate, which can cause short shots and poor surface condition, which is also undesirable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the relative viscosity through routine experimentation in the composition of Deguchi to balance between physical properties and flow characteristics. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 12, 26: Deguchi is silent with respect to the permeation value of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Deguchi and Robert have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Deguchi does not deal with permeation, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that in Robert only mechanical properties are an issue and uses PA 66, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (571)272-1130. 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
