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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutterlin et al (US 2017/0058123).
Regarding claims 1-2, Sutterlin teaches a polyamide composition (Abstract) comprising at least one polyamide, hollow glass balls and impact modifier (Abstract). The impact modifier is a blend of grafted and non-grafted impact modifiers ([0053]-[0054]). The at least one polyamide can be PA11 or PA12 ([0027]) which has the recited structure.
Sutterlin fails to specifically exemplify the exact polyamide composition. However, Sutterlin discloses each of the components of the composition, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the compositions suggested by Sutterlin, including the claimed invention. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Sutterlin to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 3-4, Sutterlin teaches a polyamide composition (Abstract) comprising at least one polyamide, hollow glass balls and impact modifier (Abstract). The impact modifier is a blend of grafted and non-grafted impact modifiers ([0053]-[0054]). The at least one polyamide can be a mixture of polyamides such as PT 11 and PA 6, 10 ([0027]) which has the recited structures of the polyamide blends.
Sutterlin fails to specifically exemplify the exact polyamide composition. However, Sutterlin discloses each of the components of the composition, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the compositions suggested by Sutterlin, including the claimed invention. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Sutterlin to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Sutterlin teaches that the polyamide is present in the amount from 25 to 90% by weight ([0009]).
Regarding claim 7, Sutterlin teaches a hollow glass particles which is sold under the brand name iM16K (Table 2) which has the desired properties.
Regarding claim 8, Sutterlin teaches that the hollow glass balls are surface treated with silanes, titanates ([0103]).
Regarding claim 9, Sutterlin teaches that the hollow glass balls are present in the amount from 5 to 30% by weight ([0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Sutterlin teaches that the impact modifier can be an ethylene or styrene-based elastomer ([0050]).
Regarding claim 11, Sutterlin teaches that the ethylene-based elastomer can be an ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer ([0060]) and the styrene-based elastomer can be a SBS copolymer ([0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Sutterlin teaches that the grafted impact modifier is grafted with carboxyl, acid, epoxy groups ([0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Sutterlin teaches that the impact modifier is present in the amount from 5 to 30 % by weight ([0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Sutterlin teaches that the impact modifier is a combination of ([0054]) ethylene octene ([0060]) and maleic anhydride grafted ([0058]) ethylene octene ([0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Sutterlin teaches a manufacturing process to produce the polyamide composition of claim 1 comprising combining all the components of the polyamide composition ([0118]).
Regarding claims 17-20, Sutterlin teaches a lightweight article made from the composition according to claim 1. The article can be for an electronic device such as laptops, mobile phones and/or smart phones ([0113])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutterlin et al (US 2017/0058123) in view of Dorgan et al (US 2015/0038652).
The discussion regarding Sutterlin in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 5, Sutterlin teaches that the composition can contain a blend of PA 11 (reads on Formula (VI) and PA610 (reads on Formula (V)) ([0027]).
However, it fails to teach the ratio of these two components.
Dorgan teaches a blended polyamide made from polyamide 11 and polyamide 6,10 (Abstract). The composition contains 1 to 75 wt. % of PA610 ([0039]) and the amount of PA 11 ranges from 35 to 99 % by weight ([0040]). It is exemplified in Table 1 a mixture of PA11/PA610 of 25:75, which translates into a ratio of Formula V to Formula VI of 3:1 which is within the claimed ratio range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratios of Dorgan to the PA610 and PA11 of Sutterlin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having a miscible polymer blend for use in a wide variety of applications (Dorgan, [0011]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutterlin et al (US 2017/0058123) in view of Wouters (WO 2007/136460).
The discussion regarding Sutterlin in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 15, Sutterlin teaches that the impact modifiers can be a blend of grated and non-grafted impact modifiers ([0054]).
However, Sutterlin fails to teach the recited ratio between the grafted and non-grafted entities.
Wouters teaches a polyamide composition ([0050]) which incorporates an impact modifier ([0001]) which includes from 5 to 95 wt. % of a functionalized ethylene-based elastomer and from 5 to 95 wt% of an unfunctionalized ethylene-based elastomer (Claim 1). The ratio can be calculated to overlap the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the grafted and non-grafted impact modifiers of Sutterlin be formulated in the amounts as taught by Wouters. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of producing materials with excellent low temperature properties (Wouters, [0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights