Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/763,564

STRETCHABLE AND ANTI-PILLING FLEXIBLE TEXTILE MATERIAL BASED ON BLOCK COPOLYMER

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
May 13, 2020
Examiner
NGUYEN, HA S
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arkema France
OA Round
6 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
36%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
341 granted / 599 resolved
-8.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -21% lift
Without
With
+-21.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 599 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2025 has been entered. Election/Restriction Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16, 27, 29-32, are elected as cited in the reply filed on 12/02/2022. Applicant has also elected with traverse the species of PA11 for the polyamide block, and PTMG for the flexible block, which are encompassed by claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16, 27, 29-32, which are examined below. Claims 8, and 28, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Response to Amendment The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 13, 27, 29, and 30, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0049363 A1 to Tebbe et al. (hereinafter Tebbe) and in further view of US 2015/0218731 A1 to Mitadera et al. (hereinafter Mitadera) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments. The previous rejection of Claim(s) 7, 9-13, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0049363 A1 to Tebbe et al. (hereinafter Tebbe) in further view of US 2015/0218731 A1 to Mitadera et al. (hereinafter Mitadera), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of JP 2017-095616 A to Honma. (hereinafter Honma) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments. The previous rejection of Claim(s) 14 and 16, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0049363 A1 to Tebbe et al. (hereinafter Tebbe) in further view of US 2015/0218731 A1 to Mitadera et al. (hereinafter Mitadera), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of CA 2,313,192 A1 to Voigt et al. (hereinafter Voigt) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites “wherein said textile material is formed form a composition comprising from 15% to 99.9 wt% by weight of said block copolymer…from 0.1% to 49% by weight of at least one other component…and/or from 0.1% to 10% by weight of additives…” The “and/or” makes the claim unclear as to what is required in the composition, such as if the “other component” and the “additives” are both optional components or if the “other component” is required and the “additives” is an optional component. It appears the claim should read that the composition comprises said block copolymer and at least one other component and/or additives, which would clarify the claim to require one of either the other component or the additives. 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, 3-7, 10-14, 16, 27, and 29-32, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0203037 A1 to Naka et al. (hereinafter Naka) and in further view of CA 2,313,192 A to Voigt et al. (hereinafter Voigt). Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 10-14, 16, 27, and 29-32, Naka teaches a mixture of 60 parts or polyether block amide copolymer PEBAX MV1041SA01, 40 parts of polyether block amide copolymer PEBAX 6333SA01, 1 part of styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer (SMA), 0.6 parts of an antioxidant, 5 parts of a titanium oxide filler, 0.3 parts of an ultraviolet absorbent, and 0.3 parts of a light stabilizer, wherein the mixture is melted and mixed and produced into resin pellets (para 70). The resin pellets are then used to form a raw yarn comprising a filament having a diameter of about 20 microns (para 70), which meets the claimed textile material. It is known in the art that the above PEBAX MV1041SA01 is a block copolymer with 75 wt% PA12 hard segment and 25 wt% PEG soft segment, and PEBAX 6333SA01 is a block copolymer with 80 wt% PA12 and 20 wt% PTMEG, which meets the claimed block copolymer with no aromatic diamine cited in claims 1, 5-7, 10-14. The above also correlates to 93.3 wt% of block copolymer, 0.9 wt% of a SMA, and 5.8 wt% of additives, which meets the claimed wt% cited in claim 31 and 32, and meets claim 14 because the “and/or” appears to make the other components to be optional. Naka further teaches the above fibers can be used in fabrics for clothing (para 63-65), may be weaved with other fibers such as polyamide (PA) fibers (para 66), which meets claims 16, and 27. The above filaments are also known in the textile art to be defined as “continuous length fibers” and meets the length/diameter ratio and infinite length cited in claims 29 and 30. Naka also teaches the fibers may further include other resin such as polyamide resins or polyester resins (para 47-48). Naka does not explicitly teach wherein the copolymer is end blocked with a polycarbodiimide. However, Voigt teaches a thermoplastic moulding composition used in mono- and multi-filaments, fibres and nonwoven and woven fabrics (page 1, ln 1-13), comprising a biodegradable polymer and at least one stabilizer (page 2, ln 4 to page 3, ln 5) and may further include fillers, and additives, and other thermoplastic blend partners such as polyester or polyamides (page 11, ln 30 to page 13, ln 11), and is used in the field of filaments, fibers, and fabrics for clothing and/or textiles. (page 13, ln 32 to page 14, ln 3), which is the same field of polyamide molding compositions for textile and fibers as the claimed invention. The stabilizer is used in a preferable amount of 0.05-5 wt% of the total mixture (page 2, ln 7-15) and is preferably a carbodiimide. (page 3, ln 5-8). Voigt also teaches wherein the polymer includes polyether-amides, polyester-amides, and/or polyether-ester-amides (page 3, ln 21-27), that are built up in block form from polyethylene glycol or polytetrahydrofurans (page 8, ln 13-19), dicarboxylic acids, and caprolactone sand/or amino carboxylic acids (page 7 to page 8). Specifically in the examples, Voigt teaches melt kneading 90 wt% of a polyester-amide (BAK 1095) or polyether-ester-amide (BAK 2195), with 10 wt% of a hydrolysis stabilizer polycarbodiimide, Stabaxol P, P100 and/or P200, (See examples, Table 1, page 15, ln 1-25). The above Stabaxol meets the claimed polycarbodiimide having the claimed amounts and mw cited in claims 1, 3-4. Voigt further teaches the above polycarbodiimide, when melt-mixed with the polyether-amides and/or polyester-amides, will increase the thermooxidative stability by reducing the end group contents of the degradable plastics and achieving hydrolytic stability (page 10, ln 29-36). This meets the claimed chain end blocked, and urea bond and polydispersity because Voigt teaches a substantially identical composition obtained by the same process as the Applicant recites in their specification that the claimed invention is obtained by melt mixing the block copolymer with the polycarbodiimide in an extruder and is then extruded, which is further evident by Voigt teaching that similarly, the polycarbodiimide will increase the thermooxidative stability by reducing the end group contents (i.e. chain end blocked) of the degradable plastics. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to further blend and melt mix the polyether block amide composition of Naka with the amount of polycarbodiimide stabilizer of Voigt because Voigt teaches the same field of polyamide molding compositions for textile and fibers as the claimed invention, and Voigt teaches the polycarbodiimide is a hydrolysis stabilizer because, when melt-mixed with the polyether-amides and/or polyester-amides, the polycarbodiimide will increase the thermooxidative stability by reducing the end group contents of the degradable plastics and achieving hydrolytic stability (page 10, ln 29-36). Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0203037 A1 to Naka et al. (hereinafter Naka) and in further view of CA 2,313,192 A to Voigt et al. (hereinafter Voigt), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of JP 2017-095616 A to Honma. (hereinafter Honma). Regarding claim 9, as cited above and incorporated herein, Naka and Voigt teaches claim 1. Naka teaches the polyamide is preferable a polyether block amide such as Pebax (para 23-24), and specifically uses PEBAX 6333SA01, which is block copolymer with 80 wt% PA12 and 20 wt% PTMG. Naka does not explicitly teach the block copolymer with 30-70 wt% PTMG block. However, Honma teaches mixing/kneading in an extruder 100 parts (95.23 wt%) of PEBAX 5533 SP with 5 parts (4.76wt%) of Stabaxol P (Se Example 3, Table 1, para 178), and extruded to form pellets and used to form a molding. (para 172-174). PEBAX 5533 SP is a block copolymer of nylon 12 hard segment and about 30wt% of PTMEG soft segment and meets the claimed polyetherimide block copolymer. Honma also teaches the resin composition comprises the above polyetheramide and the carbodiimide compound, additives (para 89), and the PEBAX provides for excellent dynamic properties and moldability with good compatibility with carbodiimide compounds. (para 69). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the PEBAX 5533 SP of Honma for the PEBAX 6333SA01 of Naka because Honma teaches the same field of use of extruded polyamide-based blends of the Applicant’s invention, and Honma also teaches the PEBAX 5533 SP provides for excellent dynamic properties and moldability with good compatibility with carbodiimide compounds. (para 69). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-3:45pm. 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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. /HA S NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2020
Application Filed
May 13, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
May 14, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 18, 2023
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2023
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 15, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 02, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595333
CURABLE ADHESIVE, BONDING FILM, AND METHOD OF BONDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595334
COMPOUND, MIXTURE, CURABLE RESIN COMPOSITION AND CURED PRODUCT THEREOF, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590222
TWO-COMPONENT POLYURETHANE COATING COMPOSITION, COATING FORMED FROM THE TWO-COMPONENT POLYURETHANE COATING COMPOSITION AND COATED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583963
POLYMERIZABLE COMPOSITION AND OPTICAL MATERIAL USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577348
PLASTICIZER AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
36%
With Interview (-21.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 599 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month