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. This Office Action is in response to the application filed 8/11/2023. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is no space before claim 5. Each claim must begin on a new line. Currently, there is no space separating claim 5 from claim 4. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 11 , 13 and 15-20 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 . Claim 11 contains the trademark/trade name s antioxidant 168, antioxidant 1098, antioxidant 1010, and antioxidant S9228. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify Tris(2,4-di- tert -butylphenyl) phosphite (antioxidant 168), N,N '-Hexamethylenebis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamamide) (antioxidant 1098), Pentaerythritol tetrakis (3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate) (antioxidant 1010) and bis (2,4-dicumylphenyl) pentaerythritol diphosphate (antioxidant S9228) and, accordingly, the identification is inadequate. For the purpose of examination, the use of trademark/trade name antioxidant 168, antioxidant 1098, antioxidant 1010, and antioxidant S9228 will be assumed to mean Tris(2,4-di- tert -butylphenyl) phosphite (antioxidant 168), N,N'-Hexamethylenebis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamamide) (antioxidant 1098), Pentaerythritol tetrakis (3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate) (antioxidant 1010) and bis (2,4-dicumylphenyl) pentaerythritol diphosphate (antioxidant S9228) as set forth in the rejection below. Regarding claim s 13 and 15, 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 13 recites the broad recitation “internal lubricant” and “external lubricant” and the claim also recites “such as montan wax” and “such as amide wax, stearate, or ethylenebis-stearamide ” which are the narrower statements of the limitation. C laim 15 recites the broad recitation “mixing the polyamide resin” , and the claim also recites “preferably kneading by a melt extruder” and “more preferably melt kneading by a twin-screw extruder” which are the narrower statement s of the limitation. The claims 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. Claims 16-20 are depending from claim 15 and are thereby rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim. 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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. ( CN111117225A ; English Machine Translation incorporated herewith). Regarding claim 1, Duan et al. teach a flame retardant polyamide material (Abstract) and a preparation method thereof, wherein the flame retardant polyamide material comprises 50-70 parts of PA56T (thereby corresponding to the 40-65 parts by mass of a polyamide resin), a filler that is a glass fiber [0069] in the amount of 20-30 parts by mass (Table 1, C1-C6) thereby corresponding to the 25-40 parts by mass of glass fibers , 5-30 parts by mass of a flame retardant (corresponding to 0-20 parts by mass of a flame retardant), an antioxidant [0083] in an amount of 0.01-0.2 parts [0084] , and 1-10 parts of an auxiliary agent (Abstract) thereby corresponding to the 0.1-2 parts by mass of other auxiliaries. Duan et al. further teach the polyamide resin is pentanediamine and an acid, wherein the acid is selected from one or more of sebacic acid and terephthalic acid, among others (claim 2) thereby reading on the polyamide resin comprising repeat units derived from pentanediamine and a diacid comprising an aliphatic diacid (sebacic acid) and an aromatic diacid (terephthalic acid) of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the p entanediamine and the acid is from (1-1.05) : 1 [00 37 ] thereby reading on the molar ratio of pentanediamine to the diacid is 1-1.05: 1. Duan et al. and the claims differ in that Duan et al. do not teach the exact same amount for the antioxidant as recited in the instant claims . However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the amount of antioxidant taught by Duan et al. (0.01-0.2 parts; [0084]) overlap the instantly claimed range (0.2-1 part by mass antioxidant) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 2, Duan et al. teach adipic acid and terephthalic acid [0118], and further teach the ratio of the pentanediamine and the acid is from (1-1.05 ) : 1 [0037] . Regarding claim 3, Duan et al. teach the relative viscosity of the PA56T in 98% concentrated sulfuric acid at 25C is 2-3 (Abstract) thereby corresponding to the claimed range of 1.8-4. Regarding claim 4, Duan et al. do not particularly teach the melting temperature of the polyamide resin . However, Duan et al. teach the same polyamide resins (such as PA56T) formed by the same diacids and penta ne diamine and in the same preparation method as required by the instant claim. Therefore, the melting temperature of the polyamide resin of Duan et al. is expected to be the same melting temperature as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where 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." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients ( polyamide resin comprised of aliphatic and aromatic diacids with pentanediamine ) within the claimed proportions (weight ratio of 1: 1:05) for the same utility (flame retardant compositions) . Regarding claim 5, Duan et al. teach alkali-free glass fibers [0128] thereby reading on the claimed E-glass fiber. Regarding claim 6, Duan et al. are silent regarding the length of the glass fiber . However, Duan et al. teach the feeding of the glass fibers from different inlets will benefit the mixing of the materials, the of mixing time, promoting the dispersion of the glass fibers and preventing the precipitation of glass fibers [0112]. The length of the glass fibers will affect the resulting dispersion of the glass fiber in the flame retardant composition. Therefore, the length of the glass fibers can be optimized to reach the desired dispersion via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the length of the glass fibers for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention . Regarding claim 7, Duan et al. teach the flame retardant comprises hypophosphite and halogen (claims 4-5) thereby reading on the claimed phosphorous-containing and halogen flame retardant. Regarding claim 8, Duan et al. teach the flame retardants comprise a hypophosphite, wherein the hypophosphite is selected from one or more of dimethyl phosphite, ethyl methyl phosphite, diethyl phosphite s , aluminum phosphonates [0050-0051] and further teach the flame retardants are selected from one or more of decabromodiphenyl ether [0062]. Regarding claim 9, Duan et al. teach the weight ratio of the hypophosphite to the halogenated flame retardant is 1 : (0.3-0.5) [0061] thereby corresponding to the claimed ratio of 3 to 5 : 1. Regarding claim s 10 -11 , Duan et al. teach the antioxidant 1098 [0159] which is N,N '-bis-(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionyl)hexamethylenediamine thereby reading on the hindered phenolic antioxidant and the antioxidant 1098. Regarding claim 12, Duan et al. teach other additives such as lubricants [0083], among others. Regarding claim 13, Duan et al. teach lubricants including stearates and various waxes [0088] thereby reading on the internal and external lubricants as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 14, Duan et al. teach various mechanical properties of the flame retardant composition, in particular, a flame retardant property of UL94 of V0 (Table 2). Regarding claim 15, Duan et al. teach the preparation method comprising mixing the polyamide resin, the glass fibers, the flame retardant, the antioxidant and other auxiliaries [0165]. Regarding claim 16, Duan et al. teach method of mixing the polyamide resin, the flame retardant, the antioxidant and the other auxiliaries at temperature s of 270 C thereby reading on the claimed 15-40C higher than the melting temperature of the polyamide resin , then further teaches the main material (the polyamide resins) are fed through a main port and the auxiliary material is fed through the first side feed port [0166] thereby reading on the premix as required by the instant claim, and then adding the glass fiber to the second side feed port thereby reading on the adding the antioxidant and the other auxiliaries and adding the glass fibers to the premix, then mixing and extruding and cooling to obtain the flame retardant composition. Regarding claim s 17 -20 , Duan et al. teach the main material is fed into a twin-screw extruder through a main feed port [0166] and further teach heating zones wherein the temperature of each zone from the main feed port to the die is 120 ℃ , 270 ℃ , 270 ℃ , 270 ℃ , 270 ℃ , 270 ℃ , 270 ℃ , 270 ℃ , and the die temperature is 280 ℃ . Duan et al. teach a mixing speed of 250 r/min for 3 min [0165] and the screw speed is 400 r/min. Duan et al. do not teach the exact same temperatures and mixing speeds as required by the instant claims . However, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller , USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Further, d ifferences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination of values (MPEP 2144.05.II.A.). This decision is clearly analogous to other process parameters. Where the principle difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that difference (see Ex parte Khusid , 174 USPQ 59). This decision is clearly analogous to pressure differences and other process parameters such as mixing speed. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the mixing speeds and temperatures of Duan et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LANEE REUTHER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7026 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-3:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Yvonne Eyler can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1200 . 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. /ARRIE L REUTHER/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764