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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-31 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites --fuse element element-- in line 2 which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "fuseSee MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0003] and [0011] of the filed instant specification both recite --fuse element element--. However, the rest of the filed specification recites --fuse element--. Therefore, for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct the recitations in paragraphs [0003] and [0011] to both read "fuse.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 18, 26, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation --a fuse element element that-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "a fuse
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the actuator-- in line 5, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the pyrotechnic actuator".
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the composition-- in line 9, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the composition-- in line 10, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 2: Claim 2 recites --the switch-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the pyrotechnic switch".
With Regards to Claim 2: Claim 2 recites --the polymer composition-- in line 3, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 3: Claim 3 recites --the actuator-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the pyrotechnic actuator".
With Regards to Claim 4: Claim 4 recites --the polymer composition-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites --the actuator-- in lines 1 to 2, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the pyrotechnic actuator".
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites --the polymer composition-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 7: Claim 7 recites --the polymer composition-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 8: Claim 8 recites --the polymer composition-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 9: Claim 9 recites --the thermoplastic polymer-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the high performance thermoplastic polymer".
With Regards to Claim 10: Claim 10 recites --the thermoplastic polymer-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the high performance thermoplastic polymer".
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites --the polyamide-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the aliphatic polyamide".
With Regards to Claim 13: Claim 13 recites --the composition-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 13: Claim 13 recites --the composition-- in lines 3 to 4, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 14: Claim 14 recites --the polymer composition-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites --contains at an organophosphorous-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "contains [[at]] an organophosphorous".
With Regards to Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation --hydrogen or substituted or unsubstituted-- in line 7, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted".
With Regards to Claim 26: Claim 26 recites --the polymer composition-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the fiber-reinforced polymer composition".
With Regards to Claim 31: Claim 31 recites --the fibers-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the long reinforcing fibers".
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is 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.
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites --the polyamide includes nylon-6, nylon-6,6, or a combination thereof-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 11, from which claim 12 depends, recites --the polyamide includes an aliphatic polyamide-- in lines 1 to 2. The claim as written is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that claim 12 is attempting to redefine the polyamide to include "nylon-6, nylon-6,6, or a combination thereof" in addition to the "aliphatic polyamide" recited in claim 11; or (2) that claim 12 is attempting to further define the "aliphatic polyamide" of claim 11 as including said "nylon-6, nylon-6,6, or a combination thereof". For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be applied, and the limitation of claim 12 will be treated to read as "the aliphatic polyamide includes nylon-6, nylon-6,6, or a combination thereof".
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 1-13 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudinat et al. (US 2020/0035437 A1) in view of Baba (JP 2019-093700 A), as further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("High Deflection Temperature of Plastics") (referred to herein as "SpecialChem").
Regarding Claim 1: Gaudinat discloses a pyrotechnic switch (ref. #1, #100, and #200) comprising: at least a first circuit portion with two connection terminals; a mobile body (ref. #20, #120, and #220); a pyrotechnic actuator (ref. #45 and #145) arranged to control the movement of the mobile body from a first position to a second position; and a fuse element (ref. #30, #130, and #230) (figures 1 to 4, [0001]-[0003], and [0006]-[0022] of Gaudinat). Gaudinat also discloses that the pyrotechnic switch comprises an ablative material selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyamide 6-6 (PA6.6), wherein PA6.6 can be loaded with 30% of fiber glass ([0046] and [0060] of Gaudinat); which anticipates the claimed range of --a high performance thermoplastic polymer and constitutes from about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition-- and --a plurality of reinforcing fibers in an amount from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition--. See MPEP §2131.03(I). Specifically, Gaudinat provides for --a pyrotechnic switch comprising a pyrotechnic actuator that is electrically coupled to a conductive member and a fuse element that is electrically coupled or capable of being electrically coupled to the pyrotechnic actuator, wherein the pyrotechnic actuator has an initial state in which a conductive path couples the actuator to the conductive member and an actuated state in which a gap is formed in the conductive member, wherein the pyrotechnic switch comprises a fiber-reinforced polymer composition comprising a polymer matrix that contains a high performance thermoplastic polymer and constitutes from about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of the composition and a plurality of reinforcing fibers in an amount from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% of the composition--.
Gaudinat does not explicitly recite that --the high performance thermoplastic polymer exhibits a deflection temperature under load of about 40°C or more as determined in accordance with ISO 75-2:2013 at a load of 1.8 MPa--. However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature that the PET and PA6.6 of Gaudinat would exhibit a deflection temperature of about 40°C or more. SpecialChem discloses the high deflection temperature at a loading of 1.8 MPa for PA66 and PET has a range of from 65 to 105°C and 65 to 80°, respectively ([Pg. 5 to 9] of SpecialChem). Therefore, as evidenced by SpecialChem, the PET and PA6.6 of Gaudinat have respective deflection temperatures that anticipate the claimed range of --about 40°C or more--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Gaudinat failed to disclose that the reinforcing fibers are --long reinforcing fibers--.
Baba discloses a molded automotive structural component comprising a fiber-reinforced resin, wherein the fiber-reinforced resin comprises reinforcing fibers (e.g., glass fiber) with a length of 1 mm or more, and wherein the resin can be a polyamide (e.g., PA66) ([0002], [0003], [0017], [0040], and [0042] of Baba).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the long fibers of Baba as the reinforcing fibers disclosed by Gaudinat in order to have --long reinforcing fibers--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the long fibers of Baba as the reinforcing fibers disclosed by Gaudinat, from the stand-point of having greater strength and rigidity ([0003] of Baba).
Regarding Claim 2: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the pyrotechnic switch comprises a main body that houses the fuse element and the pyrotechnic actuator, wherein the main body contains the fiber-reinforced polymer composition (figure 1, [0001]-[0003], [0006]-[0022], [0046], [0060], and [0077]-[0094] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 3: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the actuator contains a body portion that is capable of forming the gap in the conductive member (figures 1 to 5 and [0077]-[0094] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 4: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the body portion comprises the polymer composition (figure 1 to 5, [0046], [0060], and [0077]-[0094] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 5: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the fuse element and the actuator are electrically isolated in the initial state ([0011]-[0016] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 6: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses the claimed pyrotechnic switch, but does not explicitly recite --the fiber-reinforced polymer composition exhibits a comparative tracking index of about 550 volts or more as determined in accordance with IEC 60112:2003 at a part thickness of 3 millimeters--. However, Baba provides the same fiber-reinforced polymer composition as applicants (i.e., a polymer matrix that contains a high performance thermoplastic polymer (e.g., nylon-6,6) and constitutes from about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition and a plurality of long reinforcing fibers (e.g., glass fibers) in an amount from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition; see ([0002], [0003], [0017], [0040], and [0042]) of Baba and ([0003], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0052], [0109], and [0110]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the fiber-reinforced polymer composition of Baba inherently possesses a comparative tracking index of about 550 volts or more as determined in accordance with IEC 60112:2003 at a part thickness of 3 millimeters. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 7: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses the claimed pyrotechnic switch, but does not explicitly recite --the fiber-reinforced polymer composition exhibits a Charpy unnotched impact strength of about 20 kJ/m2 or more as determined in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 at a temperature of about 23°C--. However, Baba provides the same fiber-reinforced polymer composition as applicants (i.e., a polymer matrix that contains a high performance thermoplastic polymer (e.g., nylon-6,6) and constitutes from about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition and a plurality of long reinforcing fibers (e.g., glass fibers) in an amount from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition; see ([0002], [0003], [0017], [0040], and [0042]) of Baba and ([0003], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0052], [0109], and [0110]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the fiber-reinforced polymer composition of Baba inherently possesses a Charpy unnotched impact strength of about 20 kJ/m2 or more as determined in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 at a temperature of about 23°C. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 8: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses the claimed pyrotechnic switch, but does not explicitly recite --the fiber-reinforced polymer composition exhibits a tensile strength of about 50 MPa or more as determined in accordance with ISO Test No. 527-1:2019 at a temperature of about 23°C--. However, Baba provides the same fiber-reinforced polymer composition as applicants (i.e., a polymer matrix that contains a high performance thermoplastic polymer (e.g., nylon-6,6) and constitutes from about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition and a plurality of long reinforcing fibers (e.g., glass fibers) in an amount from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition; see ([0002], [0003], [0017], [0040], and [0042]) of Baba and ([0003], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0052], [0109], and [0110]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the fiber-reinforced polymer composition of Baba inherently possesses a tensile strength of about 50 MPa or more as determined in accordance with ISO Test No. 527-1:2019 at a temperature of about 23°C. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 9: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the high performance polymer includes a propylene polymer (e.g., PET) ([0060] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 10: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the high performance polymer includes a polyamide (e.g., PA6.6) ([0060] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 11: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the polyamide includes an aliphatic polyamide (e.g., PA6.6) ([0060] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 12: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the aliphatic polyamide includes nylon-6,6 (i.e., PA6.6) ([0060] of Gaudinat).
Regarding Claim 13: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the polymer matrix constitutes about 70 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition and the long reinforcing fibers constitute about 30 wt.% of the fiber-reinforced polymer composition ([0060] of Gaudinat; [0076] of Baba); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --about 55 wt.% to about 85 wt.%-- and --about 15 wt.% to about 45 wt.%--, respectively. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 31: Gaudinat in view of Baba discloses that the long reinforcing fibers include glass fibers ([0060] of Gaudinat; [0076] of Baba).
Claims 14-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudinat et al. (US 2020/0035437 A1) in view of Baba (JP 2019-093700 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoerold et al. (US 2004/0049063 A1).
Gaudinat in view of Baba is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 14: Gaudinat in view of Baba failes to disclose --the fiber-reinforced polymer composition further comprises a flame retardant system--.
Hoerold discloses a flame retardant for thermoplastics (e.g., polyamides [e.g., nylon-6,6] with glass fiber filler) ([0001], [0006], [0008]-[0016], [0051]-[0052], [0057]-[0061], and [0088] of Hoerold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the flame retardant of Hoerold with the fiber-reinforced polymer composition of Gaudinat in view of Baba in order to have --the fiber-reinforced polymer composition further comprises a flame retardant system--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the flame retardant of Hoerold with the fiber-reinforced polymer composition of Gaudinat in view of Baba, from the stand-point of suppressing discoloration resulting from high processing temperatures ([0006] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 15: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the flame retardant system contains an organophosphorous compound ([0008]-[0016] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 16: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the organophosphorous compound includes a phosphinate ([0008]-[0016] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 17: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the organophosphorous compound includes a phosphinate having the general formula (I) and/or formula (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
101
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(I);
PNG
media_image2.png
117
252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(II); wherein, R7 and R8 are, independently, substituted or unsubstituted, straight chain, branched, or cyclic hydrocarbon groups having 1 to 6 carbon atoms; R9 is a substituted or unsubstituted, straight chain, branched, or cyclic C1-C10 alkylene, arylene, arylalkylene, or alkylarylene group; Z is Mg, Ca, Al, Sb, Sn, Ge, Ti, Zn, Fe, Zr, Ce, Bi, Sr, Mn, Li, Na, K, and/or a protonated nitrogen base; y is from 1 to 4; n is from 1 to 4; and m is from 1 to 4 ([0008]-[0016] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 18: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the phosphinate is a metal salt of dimethylphosphinic acid, ethylmethylphosphinic acid, diethylphosphinic acid, methyl-n-propylphosphinic acid, methane-di(methylphosphinic acid), ethane-1,2-di(methylphosphinic acid), hexane-1,6-di(methylphosphinic acid), benzene-1,4-di(methylphosphinic acid), methylphenylphosphinic acid, diphenylphosphinic acid, or hypophosphoric acid ([0008]-[0024] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 19: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the phosphinate includes zinc diethylphosphinate or aluminum diethylphosphinate ([0008]-[0024] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 20: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the flame retardant system further includes an organophosphorous synergist ([0034]-[0036] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 21: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the organophosphorous synergist includes an azine phosphate salt ([0034] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 22: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the azine phosphate salt includes melamine pyrophosphate or melamine polyphosphate ([0034] of Hoerold).
Regarding Claim 25: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold discloses that the flame retardant system further includes an inorganic compound ([0037]-[0048] of Hoerold).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudinat et al. (US 2020/0035437 A1) in view of Baba (JP 2019-093700 A) and Hoerold et al. (US 2004/0049063 A1) as applied to claims 1, 14, 15, and 20 above, and further in view of Non-Patent Literature No. 3 ("Melamine poly(metal phosphates) as flame retardant in epoxy resin: Performance, modes of action, and synergy") (referred to herein as "Müller").
Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 23: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold fails to disclose --the organophosphorous synergist includes an azine metal phosphate salt, azine poly(metal phosphate ), or a combination thereof--.
Müller discloses using melamine polyphosphate (MPP) (e.g., melamine poly[metal phosphate]) as a flame retardant in polyamide ([Pg. 1: paragraph 2] of Müller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the MPP of Müller as the organophosphorous synergist disclosed by Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold in order to --the organophosphorous synergist includes an azine metal phosphate salt, azine poly(metal phosphate ), or a combination thereof--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the MPP of Müller as the organophosphorous synergist disclosed by Gaudinat in view of Baba and Hoerold, from the stand-point of having a versatile halogen-free alternative flame retardant with synergy with other flame retardants ([Pg. 1: paragraph 2] of Müller).
Regarding Claim 24: Gaudinat in view of Baba, Hoerold, and Müller discloses that the organophosphorous synergist include an azine poly(metal phosphate salt) that includes melamine poly(zinc phosphate), melamine poly(magnesium phosphate), or a combination thereof ([Pg. 1: paragraph 1 to Pg. 2: paragraph 1] of Müller).
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudinat et al. (US 2020/0035437 A1) in view of Baba (JP 2019-093700 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergmann et al. (US 2023/0120837 A1).
Gaudinat in view of Baba is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 26: Gaudinat in view of Baba failed to disclose --the fiber-reinforced polymer composition further comprises a stabilizer system--.
Bergmann discloses a polyamide material for automotive applications, the polyamide material comprising glass fiber reinforcing material and stabilizers ([0001], [0003], [0004], [0027], and [0047] of Bergmann). Bergmann also discloses that the stabilizer can be copper stabilizers such as copper salts (e.g., CuI, CuBr, copper acetate, copper stearate, CuCN, Cu2O, CuO) and any other copper complexes ([0078], [0081], [0084]-[0095] of Bergmann).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the stabilizers of Bergmann with the fiber-reinforced polymer composition disclosed by Gaudinat in view of Baba in order to have --the fiber-reinforced polymer composition further comprises a stabilizer system--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the stabilizers of Bergmann with the fiber-reinforced polymer composition disclosed by Gaudinat in view of Baba, from the stand-point of having polyamide compositions stabilized at elevated temperatures ([0017] and [0027] of Bergmann).
Regarding Claim 27: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Bergmann discloses that the stabilizer system includes a copper(I) salt, copper(II) salt, copper complex, or a combination thereof ([0081] and [0084]-[0095] of Bergmann).
Regarding Claim 28: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Bergmann discloses that the copper(I) salt includes CuI, CuBr, CuCl, CuCN, Cu2O, or a combination thereof and/or the copper(II) salt includes copper acetate, copper stearate, copper sulfate, copper propionate, copper butyrate, copper lactate, copper benzoate, copper nitrate, CuO, CuCl2, or a combination thereof ([0081] and [0084]-[0095] of Bergmann).
Regarding Claim 29: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Bergmann discloses that the copper complex includes copper acetylacetonate, copper oxalate, copper EDTA, [Cu(PPh3)3X], [Cu2X(PPh3)3], [Cu(PPh3)X], [Cu(PPh3)2X], [CuX(PPh3)-2,2’-bypyridine], [CuX(PPh3)-2,2’-biquinoline)], or a combination thereof, wherein PPh3 is triphenylphosphine and X is CI, Br, I, CN, SCN, or 2-mercaptobenzimidazole ([0081] and [0084]-[0095] of Bergmann).
Regarding Claim 30: Gaudinat in view of Baba and Bergmann discloses that the stabilizer system includes a sterically hindered phenolic antioxidant ([0003] of Bergmann).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schubert et al. (US 2018/0298191 A1) discloses a fiber reinforced polyamide composition comprising copper salt stabilizers.
Wakeman et al. (US 2011/0027571 A1) discloses a fiber reinforced polyamide composition comprising copper salt stabilizers.
Steenbakkers-Menting et al. (US 2004/0021135 A1) discloses a glass fiber reinforced polyamide with fire retardant system.
Schlosser et al. (US 6,255,371 B1) discloses a glass fiber reinforced polyamide with fire retardant system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights