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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because in lines 6-7, it not immediately clear that the amount of glass flakes of at least 20 wt % is based on the glass filler or the polyamide composite. Appropriate correction is required. 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 of this title, 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. Claim s 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topoulos (US 2008/0119603) in view of Kato (US 2020/0055770 as evidence ) and Wadahara (JP 2001/040229, machine translation ) . With respect to claim s 1, 11, 13, 14, and 1 7 , Topoulos discloses a mobile telephone housing comprising a polyamide composition (abstract). Example 1 comprises 44 wt % polyamide blend, 30 wt % glass fibers , and 20 wt % glass flakes (total glass filler is 50 wt %) . The glass fibers have a diameter of 10 µm (paragraph 0037), and the glass fibers used by Topoulos have an aspect ratio of at least 3, which provides for a size of at least 30 µm. The exemplified glass flake is REF 160A supplied by NGF (paragraph 0038) which inherently has a diameter of 160 µm as evidenced by Kato (paragraph 0076). Topoulos teaches adding reinforcing agent such as carbon fibers (paragraph 0024) but fails to disclose the amount of carbon fibers or their electrical conductivity. Wadahara discloses a flame-retardant resin composition comprising a semi-aromatic polyamide resin and 3-40 wt % reinforcing fibers such as carbon fibers (abstract). Wadahara teaches that the reinforcing fibers are preferably carbon fibers because they achieve high rigidity and lightweight molded product but can also be expected to provide electric field shielding effect by imparting electrical conductivity (paragraph 0057) . Wadahara teaches that they can impart anti-static/anti-discharge (electrostatic dissipative) properties even in small amounts (paragraph 0136). Given that Topoulos discloses a polyamide composition for electronic devices comprising carbon fibers and further given that Wadahara teaches that adding carbon fibers to a polyamide in amounts of 3-40 wt % provide for reinforcing as well anti-static properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an electrically conductive carbon fiber Topoulos to provide electrostatic dissipative properties . With respect to claim s 2 and 3 , the polyamide blend in Example 1 includes PA6,6/6,T (Table 1) , hexamethylene adipamide/hexamethylene terephthalamide copolyimide(paragraphs 0044 ). With respect to claim 4, Topoulos’s preferred polyamides include aliphatic such as polyamide 6,10 (PA610). With respect to claim 5, Topoulos does not explicitly disclose if the glass fibber is round or flat, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select one of those given no alternatives. With respect to claim 6, Topoulos discloses that the amount of reinforcing agents is 30-65 wt % with a weight ratio of glass fibers to glass flakes between 1:6 to 6:1 (paragraph 0019). When the amount of reinforcing agents is 65 wt %, the amount of glass flake is disclosed as up to 56 wt % which overlaps with claimed range of 30-55 wt %. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select at least 30 wt % of glass flakes. With respect to claim 7, Wadahara teaches that the fibers are advantageously used in “long fiber pellets” (paragraph 0125) i.e., claimed milled/chopped carbon fibers in granulates. With respect to claims 8 and 9, Example 3 of Topoulos includes 4 wt % of a color concentrate which contains about 30 wt % carbon black, i.e., carbon powder (paragraph 0047). With respect to claim 10, because Topoulos discloses that the carbon fiber is conductive, it would be expected to have volume resistivity of less than 0.02 Ω . cm . Also, Topoulos teaches that the volume resistivity of the molded article is 50 Ω . cm (paragraph 0132) , so therefore the volume resistivity of the carbon fibers is necessarily significantly less than 50 Ω . cm because polyamide has high resistivity has a non-conductive polymer binder . With respect to claim 12 , Topoulos discloses making the polyamide composition by melt blending the ingredients (paragraphs 0029-0030). With respect to claims 15 and 16, Topoulos teaches that the mobile telephone housings have “low warpage” (paragraph 0010). Example 1 in Table 2 has a warpage of 0.2 w hich overlaps with claimed “at most 0.5.” Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 -16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 9 of copending Application No. 18/693,584 (published as US 2024/0392130). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. With respect to claims 1-4, 6, and 7, US appl ‘584 claims in claim 1 a polyamide composition comprising 3-50 wt % of a polyamide comprising 60-90 wt %semi-aromatic polyamide, 10-15 wt % aliphatic polyamide, and 0-30 wt % additional polyamide; 5-15 wt % electrically conducting material selected from continuous carbon fibers, chopped carbon fibers and milled carbon fibers; and 45-50 wt % glass flakes (tri-dimensional structure). US appl ‘584 does not claim the size of the glass flake. Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an appropriate glass flake, including smaller than 500 microns, in order to appropriately reinforce polyamide composition. With respect to claim 9, see claim 9 of US appl ‘584. With respect to claim 10, see claim 8 of US appl ‘584. With respect to claim 11, the polyamide composition of US ‘584 is inherently electrostatic dissipative because of the conductive material. With respect to claim 12, see claim 13 of US appl ‘584. With respect to claim 13, see claim 14 of US appl ‘584. With respect to claim 14-16, see claims 15 of US appl ‘584. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2701 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday . 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 FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-11 30. 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. /Vickey Nerangis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763 vn