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. The provisional application claimed in applicant’s ADS is not in agreement with the provisional application identified at the beginning of the specification. The lined out IDS items either were not provided (an abstract of a reference is not the underlying reference actually cited on the IDS), misidentified or was not provided with a date. Abstracts provided alone are to listed as “other references” see MPEP711.06(a). 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. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 12 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. The claim’s “generally free” of boron is indefinite. Applicant’s specification gives multiple meanings at paragraph 0039. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Crevecoeur (US 20230143023 A1 ). Regarding claim 1, Crevecoeur teaches a polymer composition comprising 59.5% polyarylene sulfide (in the form of polyphenylene sulfide),40% DS 8800-11P glass fibers and 0.5% aminotriethoxy silane shown below in Table 1: This is equivalent to 100 parts PPS, 67 parts glass fiber and 0.8 parts silane. Crevecoeur teaches further that when the composition was aged in a 50%/50% water/glycol mixture at 135°C for 1,000 hours and is tested at 23°C according to ISO 527-2 standards (paragraph 0041), the aged to initial tensile strength ratio is 0.93, shown below in Table 2-2, Example 1: In regards to applicant’s dependent claims: Regarding claim 2, Crevecoeur teaches the cited example’s aged tensile strength is 188 (Table 2-2, Example 1). Regarding claim 3, Crevecoeur teaches the cited example’s aged tensile elongation to initial tensile elongation is 0.83 (Table 2-3, Example 1) shown below: Regarding claim 4, Crevecoeur teaches the cited example’s aged tensile elongation is 1.88% (Table 2-3, Example 1). Regarding claims 5 and 6, Crevecoeur teaches applicant’s preferred glass fibers DS 8800-11P in applicant’s preferred amounts. Presumably, the properties of applicant’s claims would be inherently met. Regarding claim 9, Crevecoeur teaches the polyphenylene sulfide should be linear (paragraphs 0018). Regarding claim 10, Crevecoeur teaches the inorganic fibers have a diameter between 16 and 25 micrometers (paragraph 0020). Additionally, applicant admits DS 8800-11P glass fibers have a diameter of 11 microns (see applicant’s examples). Regarding claims 12-14, Crevecoeur’s DS 8800-11P glass fibers are applicant’s preferred fibers. Presumably, DS 8800-11P has the makeup of applicant’s claims. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Yamamoto (US 2024/0254335) . Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yamamoto teaches the polymer composition of claim 1 wherein the polymer composition consists of 42.6 wt.% of polyphenylene sulfide and 50% wt.% of E-CR glass fiber (noted as Glass fiber (C-1)) (Table 2). This is equivalent to 100 parts PPS and 117 parts of E-CR glass fiber. E-CR is applicant’s preferred fiber. Given Yamamoto teaches the applicant’s preferred kind of glass fibers in the preferred amounts, presumably, the tensile strength properties of claim 1 and 2 would be inherently met. In regards to applicant’s dependent claims: Regarding claims 3-6, Yamamoto teaches the applicant’s preferred kind of glass fibers in the preferred amounts. Presumably, the tensile elongation and impact strength properties of the applicant’s claims would be inherently met. Yamamoto’s method of making the PPS (paragraph 48) does not appear to involve any trifunctional or higher monomer. Presumably, the PPS is linear – meeting applicant’s claim 9. Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the inorganic fibers have a diameter between 6 and 16 micrometers (paragraph 0030). Regarding claims 12-14, Yamamoto’s E-CR glass fibers are applicant’s preferred fiber type. Presumably, E-CR glass fibers have the makeup of applicant’s claim 14. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Anim-Danso (US 11180637) . Regarding claim 1, Anim-Danso teaches a polymer composition consisting of polyphenylene sulfide and DS880-11P E-CR glass fiber (column 6, line 18; Table 1, example 1, shown below). The polyphenylene sulfide is a combination of low MFR PPS and high MFR PPS is at 29.08 wt.% and 28 wt.%, respectively. The E-CR glass fiber is 41 wt% of the composition. This is equivalent to 100 parts by weight of polyphenylene sulfide and 72 parts of E-CR glass fiber. DS880-11P E-CR glass fiber is applicant’s preferred fiber (see examples). Presumably, since the reference teaches the preferred polyarylene sulfide and inorganic fiber as applicant, the reference example is expected to display the same tensile strength ratio when subject to the same conditions. It is noted that the reference composition was tested similarly to the instant invention. However, the reference composition was tested in water - not a water/ethylene glycol mixture as does applicant. In regards to applicant’s dependent claims: Anim-Danso teaches teaches applicant’s preferred glass fibers DS 8800-11P in applicant’s preferred amounts. Presumably, the properties of applicant’s claims 2-6 would be inherently met. Anim-Danso’s depiction of the PPS (col 3 line 16) does not show any branching. Presumably, the PPS is linear – meeting applicant’s claim 9. Regarding claims 10-14, Anim Danso’s DS 8800-11P glass fibers are applicant’s preferred fibers. Presumably, DS 8800-11P has the makeup of applicant’s claims. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Crevecoeur (US 20230143023 A1 ) in view of Yves 9499432. Crevecoeur applies as explained above. Crevecoeur does not identify the chemical makeup of his DS 8800-11P glass fibers. In the event this particular fiber does not have applicant’s claimed compositional makeup, such a specific glass fiber would have been an obvious choice. Yves (abstract) discloses glass fibers of applicant’s claim 14 has good properties (table 1). No boron is said to be present and therefore meets applicant’s claim 12. Yves teaches this fiber is suitable for reinforcing composites (col 4 line 6-10) of an organic matrix (col 7 line 9). It would have been obvious to use any known type of reinforcing glass fiber in Crevecoeur’s composition. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Crevecoeur (US 20230143023 A1) in view of Beerda (US 7419721 B2) . Crevecoeur applies as explained above. Crevecoeur teaches that his PPS/glass fiber composition may include sizing/coupling agents (paragraph 22,30). Crevecoeur does not teach pre-treating the glass fibers with the sizing/coupling agents. Beerda (tables) teaches pre-treating glass fibers with a sizing composition comprising a gamma-aminopropyl triethoxysilane, caprolactam blocked isocyanate, a maleic anhydride copolymer, and polyurethane as a film-forming agent (column. 1, lines 62-67; column 7, line 38; column 13, lines 35-50). Beerda also teaches that this composition is advantageous for improving the hydrolytic resistance of glass fibers (column 1, lines 41-46), It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize Beerda’s sizing composition to pre-treat Crevecoeur’s glass fibers prior to adding to PPS to improve hydrolytic resistance. Beerda’s silane may be aminotriethoxy silane – meeting applicant’s claims 15-18. The maleic anhydride copolymer meets applicant’s claims 18 and 19. Caprolactam blocked isocyanates are known to have de-blocking temperatures within the range of applicant’s claim 21 (see table 8 and fig 68 of the Wicks article). The blocked isocyanate may be a blocked isophorone diisocyanate (col 6 line 17) – meeting applicant’s claim 22. The polyurethane (col 7 line 38) is film forming – meeting applicant’s claim 23. Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Crevecoeur (US 20230143023 A1) in view of Beerda (US 7419721 B2) in further view of Tadepalli 2014/0296377. Crevecoeur and Beerda apply as explained above. Beerda (col 10 line 57,64) dries his sizing agent after coating the glass fibers. The extent of drying is not reported. Tadepalli similarly coats glass fiber with sizing agent (paragraph 87) followed by a drying step. Tadepalli (claim 5) dries to moisture content of 1% or less. It would have been obvious to dry the coated glass fibers used in the Crevecoeur/ Berda composition to any extent desired. A <0.5wt% moisture content appears to be within common procedures of the art. Furthermore, Crevecouer (paragraph 28) is concerned with hydrolytic stability – which is additional motivation to dry the sized glass fibers to a low moisture content. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 26, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Anim-Danso (US 11180637 B2) in view of Spira (What are the Parts of an Electric Car? ; Kloekner Metals) . Anim-Danso applies as explained above. Anim-Danso teaches his composition is useful in automobiles as a coolant reservoir and in water transporting applications such as a water pump (column 5, lines 47-50). Anim-Danso does not teach coolant reservoirs or pumps in electric vehicles. Electric vehicles require cooling systems in much the same manner as gasoline fueled vehicles. Spira teaches an electric vehicle comprising an electric traction motor, an electric transmission, a power electronics controller, and a cooling system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize Anim-Danso’s composition as a coolant reservoir of an electric vehicle as the advantages of using said composition in an electric vehicle are the same as when using in a gasoline fueled vehicle. The electric vehicle components listed in applicant’s claim 26 are simply the common parts of EV’s as shown by Spira and would have been obvious by the mere mention of “electric vehicle”. Claims 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yamamoto (US 2024/0254335) in view of JP2019195909 and further in view of Spira (What are the Parts of an Electric Car?; Kloekner Metals) . Yamamoto applies as explained above. Yamamoto (paragraph 38) teaches his composition is useful in automobiles and electrical parts. Yamamoto does not teach parts of electric vehicles. JP2019195909 (abstract) teaches glass fiber reinforced PPS. The composition is useful as wire harnesses in transmissions, engine cooling modules, water pump housings, connectors etc (paragraph 102). J’909 contemplates use in electric cars (paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize Yamamotos’s composition as any of said parts in an electric vehicle. The electric vehicle components listed in applicant’s claim 26 are merely the common parts of EV’s as shown by Spira and would have been obvious by the mere mention of “electric car”. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1084 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-3pm . 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 Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /DAVID J BUTTNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 3/31/26