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 .
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) by Application No. TW 112111300 filed 3/25/2023, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites ther moplastic and it appears Applicant intended to recite “thermoplastic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adue et al. (US 2016/0046807) in view of Philipp et al. (US 2010/0279111).
Regarding claim 1: Adur is directed to a method for producing a polyamide long glass fiber reinforced composite material comprising:
Performing a feeding step which includes feeding raw materials into an extruder, and mixing and melting the raw materials to form a mixed plastic melt, wherein the raw materials include: a polyamide, a toughener, and a compatibilizer (abstract [0011]), wherein the toughener is an elastomer composed of a first polyolefin material and modified by maleic anhydride ([0007]), the compatibilizer is a resin material composed of a second polyolefin material and modified by the maleic anhydride ([0079], Amplify GR205). An exemplary toughener of Fusabond® N493 (Ethylene-Octene-g-MAh) from DuPont is used in the working examples which as a melt flow index of 1.6 g/10 min and an exemplary compatibilizer of Amplify® GR205 is 2 g/10 min, and therefore the toughener of Fusabond® N493 has a melt flow index that is less than a second melt flow index of the compatibilizer of Amplify® GR205. See the datasheets for Fusabond® N493 and Amplify® GR205.
Adur doesn’t mention performing an impregnating step which includes conveying the mixed plastic melt into an impregnating device and conveying a long glass fiber in a continuous form into the impregnating device so that the long glass fiber is fully impregnated by the mixed plastic melt, wherein a surface of the long glass fiber is modified by at least one of a hydroxyl group and a carboxyl group. However, glass fibers are included in the composition.
Philipp is directed to a filled polyamide molding comprising long glass fibers, wherein the polyamide is impregnated the mixed melt by mixing plastic melt into an impregnating device, specifically a pultrusion processes in which the endless fibre strand (roving) is completely saturated with the polymer melt ([0017] Philipp). The glass fibers are treated with an epoxysilane ([0015]) (equivalent to modified by at least one of hydroxyl groups or carboxyl groups). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the method of Philipp in the method of Adur since selection of treated long glass fibers in the moulded articles leads to excellent mechanical properties ([0001]-[0002] Philipp). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the method of Philipp in the method of Adur to arrive at claim 1 of the present invention.
Both Philipp and Adur teach a shaping step which includes shaping cooling and pelletizing the long glass fiber impregnated by the mixing plastic melt
Regarding claim 2: Philipp teaches the process comprises utilizing a twin screw extruder, at a processing temperature of 290 ˚C and 150-200 rpm ([0046]-[0047] Philipp).
Regarding claim 3: The olefin maleic anhydride copolymer toughener/impact modifier of Adur includes EPDM, TPO, POE ([0002]-[0003] Philip).
Regarding claim 4: The level of maleic anhydride is 0.5-5% ([0065] Adur). A toughener of Fusabond® N493 (Ethylene-Octene-g-MAh) from DuPont is used in the working examples which as a melt flow index of 1.6 g/10 min per the datasheet for Fusabond N493.
Regarding claim 5: Amplify® GR205 (high density polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride) is utilized in the working examples ([0079] Adur).
Regarding claim 6: The level of maleic anhydride is about 0.8-2% ([0066] Adur).
Adur doesn't specifically recite a “second melt flow index” of the toughener. However, the toughener in Adur is substantially identical to the toughener produced in the instant invention. Specifically, both the present invention and Adur disclose polyethylene and polypropylene modified with maleic anhydride as tougheners.
Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I).
Hence, Adur in view of Philipp suggests a toughener having a second melt flow index within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 7: The toughener, compatibilizer, and polyamide are mixed and melted in the extruder. The combination of Adur and Philipp doesn’t specifically mention the maleic anhydride modified on the toughener or the compatibilizer is capable of reacting with an amino functional group at an end of a polymer chain of the polyamide resin to initially form an amide bond, and then form an imide bond after a ring-closing reaction, so that a graft copolymer is finally formed.
However, the method of Adur and Philipp is substantially identical to the method in the present invention.
Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I).
Hence, the combination of Adur and Philipp suggests the aforementioned functional characteristics within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adur and Philipp as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Overend et al. (US 2018/0230275)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Adur and Philipp doesn’t mention a flow modifier of a polyolefin type hyper dispersant having a number average molecular weight between 1000-10,000 g/mol.
Overend is directed to a polymeric material including polyamides, comprising a flow modifier / dispersant of Solplus hyperdispersant ([0148] Overend). While a number average molecular weight is not mentioned, Overend hyperdispersant is the same flow modifier of the present invention.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the flow modifier / dispersant of Solplus hyperdispersant in Adur to improve shelf life and prevent sedimentation of any solid particles ([0099] Overend). Thereore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included the flow modifier / dispersant of Solplus hyperdispersant in Adur to arrive at claim 8 of the present invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adur and Philipp as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0052115) as evidenced by the product information sheet for Toray T700.
Regarding claim 9: Adur doesn’t mention the fiber is conveyed to a spreading device through a bobbin device and introduced after a preheating operation and a spreading operation, so that the long glass fiber in a preheated and spread state is impregnated by the mixed plastic melt.
Li is directed to a polyamide long fiber reinforced composite material wherein, in the impregnating step, the long glass fiber is conveyed to a spreading device via a yarn splitting frame, and the long glass fiber is introduced into the impregnating device after a preheating operation and spreading operation so that the long glass fiber is preheated and spread state is impregnated by the mixed plastic melt ([0102] Li). Specific fibers include Toray T700, wherein the datasheet for Toray T700 are provided on a bobbin device. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have utilized the method of Li as the method of choice in Adur since it allows for good flowability and wettability to fibers in the molten state, resulting in good mechanical properties ([0007] Li). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected the method of Li as the method of choice in Adur to arrive at claim 9.
Regarding claim 10: The method of Lee comprises a long glass fibers impregnated by the mixed plastic melt is outputted from the impregnating deice after being bundled and covered by a die head of the impregnating device. Specifically, the method comprises
S1, extruding the long-carbon-chain polyamide resin composition, and subjecting the extruded melt into an impregnation die;
S2, introducing the fibers into the impregnation die to impregnate the fibers with the melt;
S3, molding, cooling, drawing and winding the impregnated fibers, to obtain the continuous fiber reinforced long-carbon-chain polyamide composite material ([0054]-[0057] Li).
Adue doesn’t mention the fiber length.
Li teaches the fiber length is approximately 12-24 mm ([0043] Li). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected the fiber of Li as the fiber of choice in Adue since Adue doesn’t mention any particular length, and Adue teaches long glass fibers include those of 12-24 mm in length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected the fibers of Li as the fibers of choice in Adue.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights