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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/26/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 2, 6, 14, and 18 has/have been cancelled. Claims 20-23 are new. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17 and 19-23 is/are pending and is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/26/2025, with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that (A) Malet Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Optical-Fatigue Envelope: Malet's references to "transparent" materials are qualitative and uncoupled from fatigue performance. Amended claim 1 now requires a specific, quantified combination of optical clarity and cyclic fatigue resistance that Malet neither teaches nor recognizes as result- effective.
In response, the recited transparency and haze are properties of the product. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art of Malet in view of Eustache teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited properties are expected to be present.
Applicant argued that Malet Is Structurally Incompatible with the Amended Claim: Malet employs minor comonomers as crystallinity-disturbing defects in an otherwise uniform polyamide lattice. See, e.g., Malet,[0035]-[0038]. This approach inherently risks either excessive haze or reduced fatigue endurance. By contrast, amended claim 1 requires a copolyamide of X.X'/Y.Z type with a defined internal molar ratio, which, together with the claimed optical and fatigue thresholds, distinguishes from Malet's defect-based crystallinity control.
In response, Malet teaches that the comonomer introduced to disorganize the crystal lattice will increase the transparency while maintain good mechanical properties [0034].
Applicant argued that combining Malet with Eustache requires impermissible hindsight: selecting specific diamines, inserting them into Malet's system, and assuming, without any teaching, that the resulting article would meet all claimed optical and fatigue limits.
In response, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argued that Eustache fails to disclose or suggest: any optical transmittance or haze thresholds; transparent injection-molded articles; or a copolyamide ratio (X.X'/Y.Z = 5:1-25:1) tied to optical or fatigue performance.
In response, the injection molded articles from the prior art are formed from a compositionally identical copolymer and exhibiting a Ross flex fatigue test result falling within the claimed range. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, articles injection molded from the composition described above will necessarily be transparent as claimed.
Applicant argued that while Eustache mentions Ross-Flex testing as a general durability metric, it does not teach achieving >50,000 cycles in transparent, low-haze articles.
In response, Eustache further teaches that products passing 150,000 cycles in the Ross flex test are described as exhibiting good fatigue strength (p. 8, [0149]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize through routine experimentation the fatigue strength of injection molded articles formed from the composition described above in order to obtain products that meet or exceed 150,000 cycles in a Ross flex test. Eustache identifies this as a benchmark indicating good fatigue strength, and one of ordinary skill in the art would at once recognize the need for adequate fatigue strength measured by repeated flexion in applications such as sports shoes. Optimizing the fatigue strength of articles formed from the composition described above would carry with it a reasonable expectation of success given the fact that similar compositions employed in Eustache’s examples and suggested for use in the same applications exhibit properties within this range. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Applicant argued that the Office has not considered that optical transparency, haze, crystallinity, and Ross-Flex fatigue are governed by morphology rather than block identity alone.
In response, the prior art teaches the same semicrystalline morphology as stated in the 103 rejection.
Applicant argued that neither Malet nor Eustache teaches or requires a melting point (Tm) within 130-210 °C for the rigid polyamide block or the overall copolymer. Malet discloses families of PEBAs with diverse PA blocks (PA-6,12; PA-10,10; PA-10,12, etc.), whose melting points span well outside this range depending on comonomer content, block length, and processing history. Eustache similarly discloses PEBA materials without fixing or even emphasizing a specific melting-point window. Accordingly, a Tm of 130-210 °C is not inherent and is not an inevitable consequence of using PA/polyether blocks. Therefore, Claim 22 is separately patentable as the melting point range is not disclosed or suggested in the art, as the melting point range is not inherent or arbitrary, and requires inventive insight, not routine optimization.
In response, neither Malet nor Eustache teaches away from the claimed melting point. There is no evidence to show that the melting points of PA-6,12; PA-10,10; PA-10,12, etc. span well outside the claimed range. Besides, these are examples of PEBA. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments; and patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain; nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art (see MPEP 2123).
Applicant argued that neither Malet nor Eustache reports AHm(2), specifies a crystallinity window, or recognizes crystallinity as a controlling variable for transparency and fatigue. Thus, the claimed AHm(2) of 30-60 J/g is not inherent or obvious in view of the cite art.
In response, the claimed AHm(2) of 30-60 J/g is a property of the product and thus is prima facie obvious. Applicant did not provide concrete evidence to show that the prior art product does not have this property.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 nonobviousness.
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, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malet et al (US 2005/0165210) in view of Eustache et al (US 2016/0376483). NIST (Cyclohexanamine, 4,4'-methylenebis-, 2023) is cited as evidence.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 19, Malet teaches copolymers having polyamide blocks and polyether blocks. The polyether block is PTMG (polytetramethylene glycol) having a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 200-4,000. The polyamide blocks are formed from a linear, aliphatic, predominantly semicrystalline monomer, and at least one comonomer to reduce crystallinity (Abstract). This effectively describes a copolymer comprising a rigid, semicrystalline block and a flexible polyether block. The copolymers may be used to form injection molded articles (p. 1, [0016]).
The semicrystalline monomer may be a diamine associated with a diacid (p. 2, [0028]). Examples of such diamine-diacid pairs include PA-6,12 resulting from condensation of hexamethylenediamine and 1,12-dodecanedioic acid; PA-9,12 resulting from condensation of C9 diamine and 1,12-dodecanedioic acid; PA-10,10 resulting from condensation of C10 diamine and 1,10-decanedioic acid; and PA-10,12 resulting from condensation of C10 diamine and 1,12-dodecanedioic acid (p, 2, [0029]-[0033]). These diamine-diacid pairs read on the X.X’ portion of the claimed polyamide.
The comonomer may also be a diamine associate with a diacid (p. 2, [0034]). The diamine is a cyclic diamine such as bis(p-aminocyclohexyl)methane (PACM 20). As evidenced by NIST (Cyclohexanamine, 4,4'-methylenebis-, 2023), this structure is called bis(4-aminocyclohexyl)methane [other names], which is BACM.
In the same field of endeavor, Eustache teaches copolymers having polyamide (PA) blocks and polyether (PE) blocks (Abstract). The copolymers are used in the manufacture of sports shoes (p. 1, [0003]) through methods including injection molding (p. 1, [0008]). The PA blocks are of the X.Y type where X is a diamine and Y is a diacid (p. 1, [0016]). Suitable diamines include bis(4-aminocyclohexyl)methane (BACM), bis(3-methyl-4-aminocyclohexyl)methane (BMACM), 2,2-bis(3-methyl-4-aminocyclohexyl)propane (BMACP) and 2,6-bis(aminomethyl)norbornane (BAMN) (p. 3, [0058]).
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Eustache recognized BACM, BMACM, BMACP, and BAMN are equivalent for the same purpose of making the PA block for a PA-PE block copolymer for the same application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute BACM with BMACM, BMACP and BAMN in Malet’s composition. The BMACM, BMACP and BAMN read on the claimed cycloaliphatic diamine Y.
Malet teaches that the diacid is preferably a linear aliphatic diacid (p. 2, [0035]).
Examples of comonomer diamine-diacid pairs include PACM 20 and C12 diacid (PACM 12) (p. 2, [0036]). These diamine-diacid pairs read on the Y.Z portion of the claimed polyamide where Y is a cycloaliphatic diamine such as PACM 20 and Z is an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid such as sebacic acid or dodecanedioic acid.
The semicrystalline monomer (equivalent to the claimed X.X’) represents at least 70 wt% of the polyamide blocks (p. 2, [0037]), indicating that the comonomer (equivalent to the claimed Y.Z) will be present in amounts of greater than 0 wt% up to 30 wt%. This range can be used to calculate a molar ratio of the exemplary monomers disclosed at page 2.
One X.X’ pair is PA-6,12 derived from hexamethylenediamine and 1,12-dodecanedioic acid (p. 2, [0030]) and one Y.Z pair is derived from PACM 20 and C12 diacid (p. 2, [0036]). These monomer pairs will contribute individual repeating units X.X’ having a molecular weight of 310 and repeating units Y.Z having a molecular weight of 351.
Based on these values, when 70 wt% of X.X’ units are present, the X.X’ and Y.Z segments will be included in a molar ratio of approximately 2.63:1. This ratio will increase as the amount of X.X’ units increases, indicating that Malet teaches toward a X.X’/Y.Z molar ratio which overlaps the claimed range of 5:1 to 25:1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Malet’s copolymers are described as being transparent (Title). The recited “having a transparency such that the transmittance at 560 nm through a 2-mm thick sheet is at least 85%,wherein the injection molded article exhibits a haze <15% in accordance with ASTM D1003 standards” are properties of the product. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present.
Malet does not conduct a Ross Flex fatigue test on articles formed from the copolymers. Nevertheless, Malet as applied above results in injection molded articles formed form copolymers identical to those of the claims and sharing the property of transparency. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the injection molded articles described above will necessarily exhibit the claimed result when subjected to a Ross Flex fatigue test.
Alternatively, Malet remains as applied above. Malet teaches that the copolymers described above are particularly useful in forming sports shoes (p. 1, [0001]). Malet does not expressly teach the claimed degree of flex resistance measured in a Ross Flex fatigue test.
Eustache teaches that the Ross flex test is a fatigue test used to evaluate the longevity of materials when repeatedly stressed in flexion (p. 8, [0140]). Products passing 150,000 cycles in the Ross flex test are described as exhibiting good fatigue strength (p. 8, [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize through routine experimentation the fatigue strength of Malet’s injection molded articles in order to obtain products that meet or exceed 150,000 cycles in a Ross flex test. Eustache identifies this as a benchmark indicating good fatigue strength for compositionally similar copolymers used in the same application (i.e. sports shoes). One of ordinary skill in the art would at once recognize the need for adequate fatigue strength measured by repeated flexion in this application. Optimizing the fatigue strength of Malet’s articles would carry with it a reasonable expectation of success given the compositional similarities between Malet and Eustache and the fact that both references use similar compositions in the same applications. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 3, the semicrystalline monomer (equivalent to the claimed X.X’) represents at least 70 wt% of the polyamide blocks (p. 2, [0037]), indicating that the comonomer (equivalent to the claimed Y.Z) will be present in amounts of greater than 0 wt% up to 30 wt%. No other structural elements are required, indicating that the portions of Malet’s polyamide corresponding to the claimed X.X’ and Y.Z will make up 100 wt% of the polyamide blocks.
Regarding Claim 4, the block copolymer includes 10-40 wt% of polyether blocks (p. 3, [0045]), indicating that the polyamide blocks will be present in amounts of 60-90 wt%.
Regarding Claim 8, the polyamide blocks have a Mn of 1000-3000 (p. 3, [0042]) and the polyether blocks have a Mn of 300-1100 (p. 3, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 11, Malet is silent with respect to the physical properties of a polyamide as described above measured under the claimed conditions. Nevertheless, Malet as applied above is structurally and compositionally identical to the claimed copolymer. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the embodiments of Malet applied above will necessarily possess the claimed physical properties.
Regarding Claim 12, Malet’s polyamide may be formed by a 2-step process. In a first step, polyamide blocks are prepared by condensation of the monomers described above (equivalent to the claimed X, X’, Y, and Z) in the presence of a dicarboxylic acid chain stopper. In a second step, the polyamide blocks are reacted with the polyether in the presence of a catalyst (p. 3, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 13, the polyamide may also be formed by a 1-step process in which all reactants (i.e. the diacids and diamines corresponding to the claimed X, X’, Y, and Z and the PTMG polyether) are combined and reacted in the presence of a dicarboxylic acid chain stopper and a catalyst (p. 4, [0060]).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Malet’s copolymers are transparent (Title) and are used to form articles including sports shoes (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, Malet’s copolymers are described as transparent (Title). Although Malet does not expressly disclose transparency measured according to the ISO 13468 standard, the prior art copolymers as applied in the rejection of Claims 1 and 2 above are compositionally identical to the claimed copolymer.
Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Malet’s copolymers as applied to Claim 1 above will necessarily possess the claimed degree of transparency when measured under the specified conditions.
Regarding claims 20-23, the recited melting point and crystallinity are properties of the product. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Malet’s copolymers as applied to Claim 1 above will necessarily possess the claimed melting point and crystallinity when measured under the specified conditions.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 15-17 and 19-23 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustache.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17 and 19, Eustache teaches copolymers having polyamide (PA) blocks and polyether (PE) blocks (Abstract). The copolymers are used in the manufacture of articles such as sports shoes (p. 1, [0003]) through methods including injection molding (p. 1, [0008]).
The PA blocks are of the X.Y type where X is a diamine and Y is a diacid (p. 1, [0016]). Preferred PA blocks include PA 6.10 and PA 6.12 (p. 1, [0017]). These represent PA blocks based on hexamethylenediamine (an aliphatic diamine) and either sebacic or dodecanedioic acid (aliphatic diacids). PA 6.10 and PA 6.12 read on the claimed X.X’ pair.
The PA blocks may also include comonomers {Z} including equimolar mixtures of X1 and Y1, which are diamines and diacids different from X and Y (p. 4, [0066]). The comonomers are included in a proportion up to 50 wt% with respect to the combined PA block monomers (p. 4, [0067]).
Suitable diamines other than hexamethylenediamine used in the preferred PA 6.10 and PA 6.12 units include bis(4-aminocyclohexyl)methane (BACM), bis(3-methyl-4-aminocyclohexyl)methane (BMACM), 2,2-bis(3-methyl-4-aminocyclohexyl)propane (BMACP) (p. 3, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select any of these cycloaliphatic diamines as the X1 diamine, as they are expressly recognized as being suitable for use in Eustache’s copolymers. These cycloaliphatic diamines read on the claimed Y.
It would have been further obvious to select dodecanedicarboxylic acid as the Y1 monomer when PA 6.10 blocks are present, or to select sebacic acid as the Y1 monomer when PA 6.12 blocks are present, as these dicarboxylic acids are both recognized as generally suitable (p. 3, [0057]) and are present in preferred PA units described above. These aliphatic dicarboxylic acids read on the claimed Z.
It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. X1.Y1 units based on the aforementioned cycloaliphatic diamines and aliphatic dicarboxylic acids read on the claimed Y.Z units. A copolymer comprising Eustache’s X.Y and X1.Y1 PA units reads on a copolyamide of the X.X’/Y.Z type as claimed.
As indicated above, the X1.Y1 units in Eustache’s copolymer are most preferably present in amounts of 100 wt% or less with respect to the combined PA block monomers. The X1.Y1 units have a maximum molecular weight of 336 g/mol when IPDI and sebacic acid are selected. The X.Y units have a minimum molecular weight of 310g/mol when PA 6.12 is selected. This indicates that the X1.Y1 units are present in a maximum amount of 9.3 mol%, equivalent to a X.X’/Y.Z ratio as defined in Claim 1 of about 9.75:1.
This ratio will increase as the molecular weight of Eustache’s X1.Y1 units increases and the molecular weight of the X.Y units decreases. Thus, Eustache teaches toward a range of 9.75:1 or higher, which overlaps the claimed range of 5:1 to 25:1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Eustache further teaches that the Ross flex test is a fatigue test used to evaluate the longevity of materials when repeatedly stressed in flexion (p. 8, [0140]). Products passing 150,000 cycles in the Ross flex test are described as exhibiting good fatigue strength (p. 8, [0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize through routine experimentation the fatigue strength of injection molded articles formed from the composition described above in order to obtain products that meet or exceed 150,000 cycles in a Ross flex test. Eustache identifies this as a benchmark indicating good fatigue strength, and one of ordinary skill in the art would at once recognize the need for adequate fatigue strength measured by repeated flexion in applications such as sports shoes. Optimizing the fatigue strength of articles formed from the composition described above would carry with it a reasonable expectation of success given the fact that similar compositions employed in Eustache’s examples and suggested for use in the same applications exhibit properties within this range. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Eustache is silent with respect to the claimed physical properties (transparency, haze, melting point, crystallinity). Nevertheless, as discussed above, modification of Eustache as applied above results in injection molded articles formed from a compositionally identical copolymer and exhibiting a Ross flex fatigue test result falling within the claimed range. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Eustache as applied above will necessarily result in the claimed physical properties.
Regarding Claim 4, PA blocks are present in amounts of 4-80 wt% and PA blocks are present in amounts of 20-96 wt% (p. 4, [0075]).
Regarding Claim 8, the Mn of the PA blocks is 500-10,000 and the Mn of the PE blocks is 400-1,000 (p. 3, [0043] and [0045]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the PE block may be PTMG (polytetramethylene glycol), PPG (polypropylene glycol), or PEG (polyethylene glycol) (p. 3, [0044]).
Regarding Claim 16, Eustache teaches that suitable diamines include 1,10-decamethylenediamine (p. 3, [0058]) and suitable diacids include sebacic acid (p. 3, [0057]). When these monomers are selected for the X.Y block, the result will be PA 10.10. Eustache also teaches BMACM (p. 3, [0058]) and sebacic acid (p, 3, [0057]). When these monomers are selected for the X1.Y1 block, the result will be PA BMACM.10.
Regarding claims 20-23, the recited melting point and crystallinity are properties of the product. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Eustache’s copolymers as applied to Claim 1 above will necessarily possess the claimed melting point and crystallinity when measured under the specified conditions.
Claims 12 and 13 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustache in view of Malet.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Eustache remains as applied to Claim 1 above. Eustache generally teaches two-step processes involving reaction of a PE block with an already-formed PA block, or a one-step process involving mixing PE blocks with the PA block monomers and optionally a chain-limiting agent (p. 4-5, [0081]). Eustache further teaches forming articles by injection molding compositions formed by these methods (p. 1, [0008]). Eustache does not teach the use of a catalyst.
In the same field of endeavor, Malet remains as applied at pages 3-5 above. Malet teaches a copolymer that is compositionally similar to that of Eustache and that is used to injection mold similar articles including sports shoes.
Malet’s polyamide may be formed by a 2-step process. In a first step, polyamide blocks are prepared by condensation of the monomers described above (equivalent to the claimed X, X’, Y, and Z) in the presence of a dicarboxylic acid chain stopper. In a second step, the polyamide blocks are reacted with the polyether in the presence of a catalyst (p. 3, [0052]).
Alternatively, Malet’s polyamide may also be formed by a 1-step process in which all reactants (i.e. the diacids and diamines corresponding to the claimed X, X’, Y, and Z and the PTMG polyether) are combined and reacted in the presence of a dicarboxylic acid chain stopper and a catalyst (p. 4, [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form Eustache’s copolymers through either of the methods disclosed by Malet as they represent more specific versions of the processes generally described by Eustache and are shown to be suitable for forming compositionally similar copolymers used in the same applications. Modification in this way reads on Claims 12 and 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762