XiNotice 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
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 05/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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]), which overlaps instantly claimed range of 0.001 to 0.050 parts per 100 parts of polyamide resin (the amount of polyamide in the polyamide composition can be up to 100 wt%, see [0015]). ‘191 does not specifically exemplify a polyamide resin composition having a 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the presently claimed copper amount used in the presently claimed polyamide composition because the polyamide is a mixed polyamide in the composition and the content of the copper as disclosed is not based on the specific polyamide resin contained in the polyamide composition. The examiner’s position is that the cited prior art generally teaches that the copper amount used in a polyamide composition is very small and overlaps the amount range as presently claimed, and the effectiveness of a heat stabilizer such as copper-based heat stabilizer in the polyamide composition has content dependence, which is well-known in the art; thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of copper, in the amount range as taught by the prior art, including the amount as presently claimed, to render a polyamide composition having desired heat stability without undue experimentation. 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 addition, the experimental data as presented in the present specification and the Declaration filed on 05/11/2026 is not sufficient to establish the un-expected result of copper amount in the presently claimed range for the following reasons: (1) two point comparison, copper amount being 0.015 and 0.06, is not sufficient to show unexpected result in the range of 0.002 to 0.005 as claimed. It is also noted that the polyamide composition without adding copper-based heat stabilizer (the third point) shows highest high temperature tensile strength but does not show tensile strength retention ratio, thus the lower end point of copper amount range could be 0. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 716.02(d) II). (2) the data based one copper-based heat stabilizer (Copper I iodine) used in experiments are not sufficient to show all copper-based heat stabilizers providing the same effect in the instantly claimed amount range. Since the evidence presented to rebut prima facie obvious must be commensurate in scope with claim to which it pertains; evidence offered by way of affidavit that is considerably narrow in scope than claimed subject matter is not sufficient to rebut PTO’s prima facie case. In re Dill, 202 USPQ 805 (CCPA 1979).
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights