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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Schubert et al (US 2018/0298191, of record, IDS 08/23/23, ‘191 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-7, ‘191 discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising a polyamide resin, which contains a component unit derived from an aromatic dicarboxylic acid being terephthalic acid satisfying the limitations of present claim 7 ([0072], [0076], [0080], [0175]-[0176], PA-1); a component unit derived from a linear alkylene-diamine being 1,6-diaminohexane of 65 to 85 mol%, based on the total number of moles of the component units derived from diamine, satisfying the limitations of present claims 5-6 ([0069], [0085], 75 mol% in PA-1, [0175]-[0176]), and a component unit derived from 1,3-bis(aminomethyl) cyclohexane of 15 to 50 mol%, based on the total number of moles of the component unit derived from diamine, satisfying the limitations of present claim 4 ([0070], [0086], 25 mol% in PA-1); and a copper-based heat-resistance stabilizer with a content of 0.02 parts to 0.50 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of total polyamide resin composition ([0144]-[0147]). ‘191 does not specifically exemplify a polyamide resin composition having copper content falling within instantly claimed range, however, it is known in the art that the thermal stability of a polyamide resin is directly depended on the amount of the copper in the polyamide resin composition, thus the content of copper in the polyamide composition is an effective variable in terms of thermal stability of the polyamide resin in the composition. 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." See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the content of copper within the scope of the present claims so as to render sufficient thermal stability of the polyamide resin in the presently claimed polyamide resin composition.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, ‘191 also discloses that the polyamide resin composition further contains a glass fiber in a content range of 20-60 w%, wherein the glass fiber can be surface treated by a fatty acid ([0096]-[0116]), satisfying the limitations of present claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 8-10, ‘191 also discloses a molded article which can be used as an in-vehicle member ([0162]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782