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 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “A polyamide resin composition crosslinked material obtainable by”. The claim should instead read “A polyamide resin composition crosslinked material obtained by.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A polyamide resin composition which comprises
55 to 78% by mass of an aliphatic polyamide resin (A),
20 to 35% by mass of glass fiber (B),
1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent (C),
0.1 to 1.5% by mass of a heat-resistant agent (D) and
0 to 6% by mass of an inorganic filler other than glass fiber (E) in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition, and
the aliphatic polyamide resin (A) has an average number of carbon atoms per one amide group of exceeding 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoppelmann (US 20100237271 as listed on IDS dated February 29, 2024) and as evidence by datasheet PA12 provided in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Stoppelmann discloses a polyamide resin composition Example 8 comprises 67.80 mass% of nylon 12, 15.00 mass% of glass fibers, 1.7 mass% of a crosslinking agent TAI, 0.25 mass% of Irganox 1010 which is a heat-resistant agent (Table 2, Example 8), thereby lying within the claimed range of the aliphatic polyamide resin (A), crosslinking agent, heat resistant agent, and an inorganic filler other than the glass fiber. Nylon 12 has 12 carbons per amide group, thereby lying within the claimed range of an average number of carbon atoms per one amide group of exceeding 6.
Stoppelmann discloses the amount of glass fibers in Example 8 is 15.00 mass%, thereby lying outside the claimed range.
However, Stoppelmann broadly teaches the amount of glass fibers present in the composition is 0 to 30% by mass (claim 1 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the glass fibers to the polyamide composition in the amount taught by Stoppelmann.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Stopplemann discloses in the resin composition of Example 8 the aliphatic polyamide is polyamide 12 (Table 2), which is known to have a melting point of 178° as evidenced by the datasheet provided and thereby lies within the claimed range of instant claim 2 and the polyamide is a polydodecaneamide homopolymer as recited in instant claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Stoppelmann discloses in the resin composition of Example 8 the crosslinking agent is TAIC or triallyl isocyanurate, thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Stoppelman discloses the polyamide resin composition of Example 8 is used to produce a molding and crosslinked by irradiation with electrons [0104], thereby reading on the molded product of instant claim 7 and a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material of instant claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Stoppelman is silent on the density of the polyamide resin composition crosslinked material as recited in the instant claim.
However, Stoppelman teaches a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material that is substantially identical to the claimed material as rejected above in claim 8. In view of the substantially identical polyamide resin composition crosslinked material, the polyamide resin composition crosslinked material of Stoppelman will possess the claimed properties because density is an inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoppelman (US 20100237271 as listed on IDS dated February 29, 2024) in view of Masai et al. (WO 2010084845 as listed on IDS dated February 29, 2024).
The examiner refers to the machine English translation of Masai et al. provided in this Office Action.
The polyamide resin of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 5, Stoppelman discloses the polyamide resin composition of Example 8 comprises Irganox 1010, which is an organic heat resistant agent.
Stoppelman is silent on a heat resistant agent that is an inorganic-based resistant agent as recited in the instant claim.
Masai et al. teach a resin composition comprising a thermoplastic resin that is a polyamide resin and a filler (claim 10). Masai et al. further teach the resin composition may comprise heat stabilizers such as hindered phenols, phosphorous compounds, copper compounds and alkali metal halides (page 27, line 9-11), thereby reading on the inorganic-based heat-resistant agent of the instant claim. The examiner notes that the substitution of equivalents (i.e., hindered phenols and alkali metal halides) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC). Therefore, it is prima facie obvious that hindered phenols and alkali metal halides as heat stabilizers are considered to be equivalent (exchangeable), it is held that substitution of art recognized equivalents is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP § 2144.06).
Regarding claim 6, Stoppelman is silent on if the glass fibers used in Example 8 are surface treated as recited in the instant claim.
Masai et al. teach the glass fiber used may be surface treated with a coupling agent (page 16, line 13-14), thereby reading on a glass fiber that is surface treated by a surface treatment agent. Masai et al. further offer the motivation that surface treating the filler with a coupling agent improves adhesion with the thermoplastic resin (A). Stopplemnan also broadly teaches the glass fibers may be surface treated [0074]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to surface treat the glass fiber with a surface treatment agent since it is well known in the art for use in compositions comprising thermoplastic resin such as polyamides and glass fibers to improve compatibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights