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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Upon entry of the amendment filed on 12 January 2026, Claim(s) 1 is/are amended, Claim 11 is cancelled and claim 21 is added. The currently pending claims are Claims 1-10 and 12-21.
Based on applicants’ remarks and amendments (e.g. the specific loading amounts and components), the 103 rejections based solely on Cremer or Samisch are withdrawn. However, they are not found persuasive regarding the Keulen reference and the rejections are maintained. Further, new grounds of rejections are provided necessitated by the amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one” should be added to every subsequent instances of the polyamide (e.g. “the at least one aliphatic polyamide”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Newly-amended claim 1 now recites specific conducting material and (A1) components in a Markush group limitation while the dependent claims recites the same components and/or additional components. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cremer (US-20220177701-A1) in view of Samisch (US-20180194925-A1).
Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 19: Cremer discloses a polyamide molding material for various end-products such as electronic devices comprising (a) a mixture of polyamides such as PA12, PA6T/66 and PA610 at various loading amounts, (b) 0.1 to 25% of carbon fiber fillers (thus meeting the claimed conductive material), (c) 10-70% of glass fibers and 0.1-25% of additional additives (abs, ¶29, 57-81, 100-105, 116-122 and examples/Tables 1-3 with accompanying text). The Cremer reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the glass component being in a flake shape. In an analogous art, the Samisch reference discloses the glass component having various shapes and aspect ratios such as round/fibers/flakes and a ratio of 1 to 1.5 is well known in the art (abs, ¶8-20, 75-95, 109-160 and examples/Tables 1-5 with accompanying text). Further, Samisch discloses a composition comprising a mixture of polyamide such as PA12, PA6T/66 and PA610, conductive fillers such as carbon fibers, glass fibers and additional additives (abs, ¶8-20, 75-95, 109-160 and examples/Tables 1-5 with accompanying text). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known component of Samisch to the teachings of Cremer would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems and compositions for the benefit gain of enhanced reinforcement, stability and strength. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution/implementation would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
The Cremer and Samisch reference disclose the claimed invention with the feature of the mixture of PA, the glass fibers and fillers at various loading amounts but does not disclose the material with the claimed components and their respective amounts with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Cremer and Samisch disclose each of the claimed components at various loading amounts overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components and optimize its loading amount since Cremer and Samisch teach each one and is motivated to optimize the components to gain the benefit of enhanced stability and resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them less obvious. Here, Cremer discloses each of the claimed components in a similar polyamide molding end-product and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 7: Cremer and Samisch disclose various additives such as stabilizers and colorants (Cremer: ¶98-102).
Claims 8, 14, 15 and 18: Regarding the claimed volume resistivity property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical material, it would be reasonable that the same property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claim 13: Cremer and Samisch disclose a method of making the material (Cremer: examples).
Claim 20: Cremer and Samisch disclose the glass flake having various shapes such as round and flake – which has a ratio of 1 and would meet the claimed ratio range of less than 1 (Cremer: ¶33). Additionally, even though the preferred ratio is more than 2, it is noted that this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 since a preferred embodiment is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures including nonpreferred and/or alternative embodiments should be considered and constitute prior art. See MPEP 2123. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any of the shapes and size since the Cremer reference teaches each one.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keulen (cited in the IDS).
Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 19: Keulen discloses an electrically conductive composition for various end-products such as electronic devices comprising (a) a mixture of polyamide such as PA12, PA6T/66 and PA610 at various loading amounts, (b) 0.01-80 % wt. of a conductive filler such as carbon fibers, (c) 0.01-50 % wt. of glass fibers and (d) optional 0.01-50 % wt. % of additional additives (abs, ¶17, 26-29, 31-47 and examples/Tables 1-6 with accompanying text). The Keulen reference discloses the claimed invention with the feature of the mixture of PA, the glass flakes and carbon fibers at various loading amounts but does not disclose the composition with the claimed components and their respective amounts with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Keulen discloses each of the claimed components at various loading amounts overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components and optimize its loading amount since Keulen teaches each one and is motivated to optimize the components to gain the benefit of enhanced stability, dissipation, shielding and strength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them less obvious. Here, Keulen discloses each of the claimed components in a similar polyamide molding end-product and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 7: Keulen discloses various additives such as stabilizers (¶30 and Tables 1-6 with accompanying text).
Claims 8, 14, 15 and 18: Regarding the claimed volume resistivity property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical material, it would be reasonable that the same property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present. Here, Keulen discloses a volume resistivity of less than 10e8 ohm-cm and the optimization of the components to achieve the desired volume resistivity (¶10, 16, 49 and Table 3 with accompanying text).
Claim 13: Keulen discloses a method of making the material (¶56 and examples).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keulen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samisch (US-20180194925-A1).
The Keulen reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the glass component having a ratio of less than 1.5. It is noted that the Keulen reference discloses employing known glass fibers/flakes and the claim(s) call(s) for a glass flake having a specific ratio. In an analogous art, the Samisch reference discloses the glass component having various shapes and aspect ratios such as round and a ratio of 1 to 1.5 (see above). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known component of Samisch to the teachings of Keulen would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems and compositions for the benefit gain of enhanced reinforcement, stability and strength. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution/implementation would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-9 and 11-13, filed 12/25/2025, with respect to the Cremer or Samisch reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections based solely on Cremer or Samisch have been withdrawn. The following response is directed to relevant advanced arguments:
Applicant argues that Cremer teaches glass fibers instead of glass flakes (pg. 7 and 8).
The examiner respectfully notes that the Samisch reference is now relied upon to teach the various shapes such as fibers and flakes (see above for a detailed rejection).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/25/2025 regarding the and entered on 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (a) Keulen does not provide any guidance regarding the selection and optimization of the components and (b) it would not be obvious to arrive at the claimed loading amounts for the components with a detailed argument based on MWCNT (pg. 10-12).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that given that Keulen discloses each of the claimed components at various loading amounts overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components and optimize its loading amount since Keulen teaches each one and is motivated to optimize the components to gain the benefit of enhanced stability, dissipation, shielding and strength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them less obvious. Here, Keulen discloses each of the claimed components in a similar polyamide molding end-product and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. Applicant seems to argue the criticality of the claimed loading amounts. The examiner respectfully notes that, in order to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness for the numerical range claim limitation, the applicant may show (1) criticality or unexpected result of the range, (2) the prior art teaches away from the claim or (3) pertinent secondary factors to rebut the rejection under 35 USC 103. MPEP 2144.05. However, it is noted that the instant claims do not seem to mirror any showing of unexpected results. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness and the rejections are maintained. Regarding the MWNT component, it is noted that Keulen also discloses the carbon fibers (see above) and the rejection has been updated based on the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764