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 .
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 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJI et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0112059, hereinafter FUJI) in view of ENDTNER et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0177060, hereinafter ENDTNER).
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 11, and 12, FUJI teaches a polyamide moulding composition which consists of the following components: (A) 25 to 99.3% by weight of at least one polyamide [0017-0018]. In a preferred embodiment, the moulding composition comprises the at least one polyamide (A), which could be any of the polyamides (A1) to (A4) or a combination thereof, in an amount of 30.0 to 98.7% by weight [0028-0030].
The polyamide (A) is selected from the group consisting of partially crystalline aliphatic polyamides (A1) [0031] which includes aliphatic dicarboxylic acids [0033-0034; 0037; and 0047]; partially crystalline aromatic polyamides (A2) [0031] which includes aromatic dicarboxylic acids [0039-0040]; amorphous or microcrystalline cycloaliphatic polyamides (A3) [0031].
Polyamides (A1) and (A2) read on a component unit (a) derived from a dicarboxylic acid and
polyamides (A3) read on a component unit (b) derived from a diamine.
Polyamides (A3) includes 2,6-norbornanediamine or 2,6-bis-(aminomethyl)-norbornane [0085] (which reads on (b2) of the present invention). Besides the cycloaliphatic diamines, other aliphatic and aromatic diamines which form the polyamides (A3) include 2-methyl-1,5-pentanediamine, 2-methyl-1,8-octanediamine, 1,9-nonanediamine, and 1,10-decanediamine [0086] (which reads on (b1) of the present invention). The straight-chain aliphatic diamines comprising 6-10 carbon atoms [0087] and preferably make up no more than 60 mol% of the totality of diamines in component (A2).
The total of (A3) (which is the combination of (b1) and (b2) make up more than 80 mol% of the totality of diamines in component (A3) [0087].
The polyamide composition comprises (E) 0 to 15.0% by weight of at least one further additive [0022] including flame retardants and non-halogen-containing flame retardants ([0175-0176]; Claim 24).
The polyamide moulding composition can be used in electric or electronic field [0189].
However, FUJI does not teach the polyamide composition comprises a flame retardant, wherein the flame retardant is a flame retardant (X) selected from the group consisting of polybrominated styrene, brominated polystyrene, and brominated polyphenylene and a flame retardant (Y) containing a phosphinate compound represented by formula (I), a bisphosphonate compound represented by formula (II), or a polymer of the phosphinate compound or the bisphosphinate compound.
In the same field of endeavor of polyamide compositions, ENDTNER teaches the composition comprises D) one or more phosphinate salts of the formula (I) and/or one or more diphosphinic salts of the formula (II) and/or polymers thereof [0020]:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In which R1, R2 are the same or different and are each a linear or branched C1-C6-alkyl, and/or C6-C14-aryl [0021-0022], R3 is linear or branched C1-C10 alkylene, C6-C10 arylene or C1-C6 alkyl-C6-C10 arylene or C6-C10 aryl-C1-C6 alkylene [0023], M is aluminum, zinc, or titanium [0024], m is an integer from 1 to 4 [0025], n is an integer from 1 to 3 [0026], x is 1 and 2 [0027].
The amount of D) is about 3.9% to about 55% by weight [0036 and 0049].
The composition further comprises component H) which is at least one further additive other than components B) to E) [0197-0198] which includes further flame retardants [0199]. Preferred halogen-containing flame retardants include brominated polystyrene or brominated polyphenylene ethers which can be used alone or in combination with synergists including antimony trioxide or antimony pentoxide [0236]. The amount of E) is 0.01% to 20% by weight [0074].
The polyamide compositions can be used for composite structures and overmoulded composite structures, including electrical components [0333].
Given FUJI teaches the polyamide composition comprises (E) 0 to 15.0% by weight of at least one further additive [0022] including flame retardants and non-halogen-containing flame retardants ([0175-0176]; Claim 24), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the flame retardants of ENDTNER with the polyamide composition of FUJI for the benefit of its art recognized function (e.g., prevent the immediate start of a fire or slowing growth of fire of the composition) for polyamide compositions (e.g., electrical components). It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 2, FUJI teaches the composition comprises polyamides (A3) includes 2,6-norbornanediamine or 2,6-bis-(aminomethyl)-norbornane [0085] (which reads on (b2) of the present invention).The total of (A3) (which is the combination of (b1) and (b2) do not make up more than 80 mol%, preferably no more than 60 mol%, particularly preferably no more than 40 mol% [0087].
However, FUJI does not explicitly teach wherein the component unit (b2) derived from the diamine represented by formula (1) has the content of 15 mol% or more and less than 45 mol%, based on the total number of moles of the component unit (b) derived from the diamine.
Given FUJI teaches the total of (A3) (which is the combination of (b1) and (b2) do not make up more than 80 mol%, preferably no more than 60 mol%, particularly preferably no more than 40 mol% [0087], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, as discussed above in paragraph 6, FUJI teaches the polyamides (A3) read on a component unit (b) derived from a diamine.
Besides the cycloaliphatic diamines, other aliphatic and aromatic diamines which form the polyamides (A3) include 2-methyl-1,5-pentanediamine, 2-methyl-1,8-octanediamine, 1,9-nonanediamine, and 1,10-decanediamine [0086] (which reads on (b1) of the present invention).
The other diamines within the component (A3) do not make up more than 80 mol% of the totality of diamines in component (A3), preferably make up no more than 60 mol%, particularly preferably no more than 40 mol% of the totality of diamines in component (A2) [0087]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, FUJI teaches polyamide (A) based on aliphatic or araliphatic diamines and aromatic dicarboxylic acids [0039-0040]. The partially aromatic partially crystalline polyamides (A2) are prepared from a) 50-100 mol% terephthalic acid and/or a naphthalene dicarboxylic acid [0043 and 0046-0047].
Regarding claim 9, FUJI teaches the polyamide composition comprises particulate fillers (D2) in an amount of 0 to 30% by weight [0155-0156] including zinc oxide and calcium carbonate [0157]. Note: Zinc oxide is a well-known salt of zinc and calcium carbonate is well-known salt of calcium.
Regarding claim 10, FUJI teaches the polyamide composition can be used to moulded articles in the electric or electronic field, e.g., coated wire [0189]. The position is taken that the coated wire reads on an insulation material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, EST.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763