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 .
The previous prior art rejection based on Brule et al (US 20100084616) in view of Fernagut et al (FR 3019181, cited herein with identical US 2018/0171140) and Brule et al in view of Gaymans et al (US 20050234215) maintained and therefore it is proper to make this rejection FINAL.
.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 21-22 and new claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brule et al (US 20100084616) in view of Fernagut et al (FR 3019181, cited herein with identical US 2018/0171140), both cited in the previous Office Action.
Amendment to claim 1 is noted. It includes limitations of canceled claim 2.
Brule discloses such filler as carbon nanotubes in Example 1. Secondary reference Fernagut teaches 0-20% wt. of such conductive filer as carbon nanotubes (see 0097).
Regarding new claim 26, Brule teaches a molding composition, comprising only semicrystalline polymer and nanotubes (see Example 1 at 0054).
Regarding new claim 27, Fernagut discloses a blend of 84.7% wt and 15% wt Pebax formed from PA11 and PTMG (see Table 1, Invention 1 at 0160).
In reference to new claim 28, Fernagut teaches 50% to 95% of at least one semicrystalline polyamide (see Abstract).
Regarding new claim 29, Fernagut discloses PA11:PEBA blend (see Example 1 at 0159).
In reference to new claim 30, Fernagut discloses a blend of 84.7% wt and 15% wt Pebax formed from PA11 and PTMG (see Table 1, Invention 1 at 0160). Thus, amount of polyether slightly higher than claimed amount (i.e. 7.5% wt. vs 7 % wt. claimed ). However, Fernagut teaches up to 95% of the semicrystalline PA-11 in the blend (see Abstract), effectively covering the claimed range.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Brule et al in view of Fernagut and further view of Gaymans et al (US 20050234215).
The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 9/11/2025 and is herein incorporated by reference.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brule et al in view of Fernagut et al as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 21-22 above, and further in view of Montanari et al (WO2017121961, published on 2017-07-20, cited herein with identical US 20180080583), necessitated by Amendment
Brule and Fernagut do not teach PEBA based on PA12 and homopolymer PA6.12
Montanari discloses a composition, comprising PEBA 12, in which the polyamide units are the same as those of PA12 , and PEBA - 6.12, in which the polyamide units are the same as those of PA6.12 (see 0058), such homopolyamide as polyamide- 12 (see 0060) and mixture of homopolymers and copolymers (see 0141).
Montanari teaches that the composition above has a very good bursting strength and impact resistance (see Table 1 at 0184) , which are the desired properties in conductive Brule’s composition (see Brule at 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Montanari’s polyamides in Brule’s composition in order to increase its bursting strength and impact resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Brule and Fernagut does not teach the polymer composition claimed.
Examiner disagrees. Brule and Fernagut in combination teach all components of the composition, claimed in independent claim 1 (see Non-Final Office Action issued on 9/11/2025).
Applicant states that Brule teaches an extensive amount of homo- and copolymers.
However, a genus does not always anticipate a claim to a species within the genus. However, when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) See also MPEP 2131.02.
Applicant argues that Brule and Fernagut do not teach the claimed amount of polyether fragment in the blend.
Examiner disagrees. Fernagut discloses a blend of 84.7% wt and 15% wt Pebax formed from PA11 and PTMG (see Table 1, Invention 1 at 0160). Thus, amount of polyether slightly higher than claimed amount (i.e. 7.5% wt vs 7 wt% claimed ). However, Fernagut teaches up to 95% of the semicrystalline PA-11 (see Abstract), effectively covering the claimed range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights