DETAILED ACTION
The examiner assigned to the current application has been changed. The new examiner's name and contact information are stated at the end of this action. Applicant is requested to take note of the change.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/6/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamura (JPH08-100116) as evidenced by Nylon PA11 Data Sheet. As the JP reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation. A translation of Table 3 of Okamura is included below.
Okamura teaches resin compositions for sliding members (¶ 1) and gives an example having 62 wt% nylon 66, 6 wt% linkron, 1.6 wt% nylon 11, and 0.4 wt% MMHD and another example having 88 wt% nylon 66, 9 wt% linkron, 2.4 wt% nylon 11, and 0.6 wt% MMHD (Table 3). Nylon 66 is synonymous with PA66 and is a polyamide corresponding to the claimed first polyamide (see instant specification, pg. 6, ln. 28-30 and pg. 7, ln. 22-25). Nylon 11 is synonymous with PA11 and is a polyamide corresponding to the claimed second polyamide (see instant specification, pg. 8, ln. 5-10). Nylon 66 has a melting point of 260˚C (instant specification, pg. 27, ln. 6-7). Nylon 11 has a melting point of 181˚C (see data sheet). This is a difference of about 79˚C. Linkron is a silane modified polyolefin (¶ 11) and meets claimed component (c). MMHD is a high density polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride having a MFR of 1.0 g/10 min (¶ 19) and meets claimed component (c). The amounts of 62 wt% nylon 66, 6 wt% linkron, and 1.6 wt% nylon 11 fall in the ranges of claims 1, 3, 6-8. Nylon 66 and nylon 11 are both aliphatic polyamides. One or the other of linkron and MMHD corresponds to the claimed auxiliary additive of claim 14.
PNG
media_image1.png
647
1070
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 2017/0137623).
Nakagawa teaches polyamide resin compositions for sliding durability (¶ 1) which includes 50-100 mass% of a polyamide resin (A) and a 0-50 mass% of a polyamide resin (B) having a lower melting point by 20˚C or more (¶ 13). Nakagawa teaches 1-10 pbm of a modified polyolefin resin (C) and 1-15 pbm carbon fiber (D) and 0-5 pbm styrene/glycidyl methacrylate copolymer (E) (¶ 14). Examples of the polyamide resin (A) include polyamide 66 and polyamide 46 (¶ 19-20, Table 1). Examples of the polyamide resin (B) include polyamide 6 and polyamide 11 (¶19, Table 1). Nakagawa teaches examples using polyamide 66 and polyamide 6 (Table 1). Nakagawa teaches the polyolefin resin has function groups including anhydride groups (¶27) and gives an example using Modic DH 0200 (¶ 52, Table 1).
Polyamide 66 is a AABB type polyamide and polyamide 6 is an AB type polyamide (see instant specification, pg. 8).
Nakagawa teaches amounts and melting temperature difference which overlap claimed ranges. It is well settled that where prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05; In re Harris, 409, F3.d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). In light of the cited patent case law, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Nakagawa suggests the amounts and melting temperature difference. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Nakagawa. See MPEP 2123.
The difference in melting points between polyamide 66 and polyamide 6 is about 31˚C. Nakagawa teaches that polyamide 46 and polyamide 11 can be used (¶ 19) which would give a difference in melting points in an amount that meets claim 16. It would have been obvious to use polyamide 46 and/or polyamide 11 because Nakagawa teaches these are suitable polyamides (¶ 19) and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 2017/0137623) as evidenced by Midorikawa (JP 2013-084587). As the JP reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
The discussion with respect to Nakagawa above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Nakagawa does not explicitly recite the melt flow rate of the polyolefin. However, Nakagawa teaches using Modic DH 0200 (¶ 52, Table 1) which has a melt flow rate of 0.5 g/10 min. See Midorikawa, ¶ 110.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection over Nakagawa presents a position of overlapping ranges. Applicant argues that the claimed composition and amounts provides excellent sliding characteristics combined with advantageous wear and impact resistance. In other words, Applicant argues that the instant invention provides unexpected results over Nakagawa.
It is noted that the claims are rejected over Okamura in an anticipation rejection and evidence of secondary considerations do not overcome an anticipation rejection. See MPEP 2131.04.
Turning to the allegations of unexpected results, any allegations of unexpected results have to satisfy the requirements of MPEP 716.02, including MPEP 716.20(d) (commensurate in scope) and MPEP 716.02(e) (comparison with closest prior art).
In this case, the closest prior art includes Okamura which teaches the examples decribed above where one example has 88 wt% nylon 66, 9 wt% linkron, 2.4 wt% nylon 11, and 0.6 wt% MMHD. This corresponds to 88 wt% AABB polyamide, 2.4 wt% AB polyamide and 9 wt% modified polyolefin. These amounts are very close to inventive example EX XI having 86.5 wt% PA46, 2 wt% PA 6 and 10 wt% MAH-EP.
Thus, as the inventive data is not compared to the closest prior art and does not satisfy MPEP 716.02(e) and for this reason, the allegations of unexpected results are not persuasive.
The data presents EX I – EX III where PA 46 is used in 75-89wt%, PA 6 is present in 4.5 wt%, and MAH-EP is present in 5, 10, and 19 wt%. EX IV - EX VI and EX XVI-XVIII use 89, 84, 75, 86.5, 84, 78.5 wt% of PA 66, 4.5, 2, 10 wt% PA 6 and 5, 10 and 19 wt% MAH-EP. Examples EX VII-IX use 75, 84, and 89 wt% PPA, 4.5 wt% PA 6, and 5, 10, and 19 wt% MAH-EP. Examples EX X-EXV use 78.5-87.5 wt% PA 46, 1-10 wt% PA6 and 10 wt% MAH-EP.
To summarize, for polyamide (a), PA 46, PA 66, and PPA are used in amounts of 75-89 wt%, for polyamide (b) PA 6 is used in amounts of 2-10 wt%, and for polyolefin (c) MAH-EP is used in amounts of 5, 10 and 19 wt%.
The species of PA 46, PA 66, and PAA are not representative of the genus “aliphatic polyamides, semi-aromatic polyamides and copolyamides or mixtures thereof.” PA 46 and PA 66 are both aliphatic polyamides derived from C6/C4 or C6/C6 precursors. There is no evidence that these are representative of the entire genus of aliphatic polyamides, which can include long chain groups such as C12/C12 and mixtures such as C4/C12 groups. PPA is a copolyimide of 6T/4T/6I and contains terephthalate and isophthalate groups (aromatic groups) and C6 and C4 aliphatic groups. There is no evidence that this is representative of the entire genus of semi-aromatic polyamides which includes species having greater than C6 aliphatic groups and can include different aromatic groups such as naphthalene units or only terethphalate groups.
The only polyamide (b) present in the examples is PA6, which is an aliphatic polyamide. There is no evidence on the record that this is representative of the entire genus of aliphatic polyamides, which include, for example, those with long chain group such as a C12 group. Additionally, PA6 is not representative of the genus of copolyamides because only a single type of monomeric unit is present in PA6.
Additionally, the data is not commensurate in scope with the amounts present. Notably, the range of the first polyamide is 60-95 wt%, while the data gives examples at 75-89 wt%. There is no indication that the data at 60 wt% and 95 wt% performs more like the examples at 75-89 wt% than at 74 wt% or 96 wt%. Additionally, the claimed range of polyolefin is 0.5-35 wt% which is not represented by the data which has data points at 5, 10, and 19 wt%.
In view of this, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data and the allegations of unexpected results are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764