DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 5/18/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to recite the second polyamide is lineare, adjust the amounts of comonents and to recite the MFR of the polyolefin (c). This presents the claims in a manner with a scope not previously examined. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the AB polyamide is linear. There is no explicit support in the instant specification for a linear AB polyamide and no implicit support has been found. Applicant cites to prior claim 2 and pg. 15 and pg. 11 for support, however, these portions provide support for the amount of the polyamide, not the limitation ‘linear’. Therefore, claim 1, and all dependent claims, contain new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 2017/0137623) as evidenced by Midorikawa (JP 2013-084587).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The discussion presented in the previous Office Action is hereby incorporated by reference.
Applicant argues that the Declaration filed on 5/18/2026 explains the significance of the recited polymer components and the criticality of the second polyamide having a melting temperature which is at least 20˚C lower than the first polyamide.
This is not persuasive because this feature is taught by Nakagawa at ¶ 13: “wherein melting point is lower than melting point of the crystalline polyamide resin (A) by 20˚C or more”. Furthermore, the claims are directed to a composition, not a process.
The Declaration discusses the high shear force indicated with high torque at Tables 2-4 of the Declaration which illustrate that torque (and thus high shear force) decreases and the viscosity number (VN) increases with the amount of second polyamide added. Table 3 of the Declaration provides data that shows the relationship of the amount of the PA6 with the VN and torque. The data presented in the Declaration shows these as linear relationships.
It is noted that the Declaration presents torque and VN data of CEX B, CEX C, CEX E, and CEX G. However, these are compositions that do not contain any PA6, which is taught by Nakagawa.
The Declaration compares the reaction of PA AB (Genus A) with the reaction of PA AABB (Genus B) where in Genus A, branching is excluded and in Genus B, branching is present. Then the Declaration compares Ex II and VII with CEX B and CEX G as illustrative of these genuses.
This discussion in the Declaration is not persuasive as it argues the criticality of the presence of the PA AB and the necessity of having a lower melting point than the PA AABB. However, this feature is explicitly taught by the prior art.
Turning to the Remarks filed on 5/18/2026, Applicant argues that the examples include 0, 20 or 40 mass% of PA 6 and 2.5 mass% of modified polyethylene (C). Applicant notes that the broad teaching of 0-50 wt% polyamide B.
Applicant argues that the ranges in the instant invention are critical because it confers excellent sliding characteristics and that an amount of PA6 over 10 wt% gives significant loss in yield strength and wear resistance.
Applicant also notes that absence of PA6 decreases processability. This is not persuasive because the prior art teaches the presence of PA6.
Turning to the data for PA6 over 10 wt% gives significant loss in yield strength and wear resistance, Applicant directs attention to Table 4.
Table 4 gives five examples, where EX XVI uses 2wt% PA 6, EX XVII uses 4.5wt% PA 6, EX XVIII uses 2wt% PA 6, CEX J uses 15wt% PA 6, and CEX K uses 0wt% PA 6. These examples give a yield strength (MPa) of 27, 26, 25, 24, and 28 respectively and a wear resistance of +, +, +, -, and + respectively. The wear resistance data is qualitative, not quantitative and is therefore subjective based on the record. It is unclear at what point the wear resistance goes from being “+” to “-“ and whether there is a trend or not. Given this, the data is not persuasive.
The yield strength data does not show unexpected results. Rather, this shows a clear trend where the amount of PA 6 added decreases the yield strength. This is contrary to MPEP 716.02(a) which requires greater than expected results as evidence of non-obviousness. Furthermore, this is a logical conclusion in view of the discussion presented by the Declaration. When no PA 6 is present, there is more ‘branching’ which leads to an increase in strength due to the crosslinks present. As PA 6 is incrementally added, less branching (less crosslinking) is present, leading to a decrease in strength and an increase in processability. This is because crosslinked polymers typically have higher strengths and are more easily processed (see paragraphs 11 and 15 of the Declaration).
As the prior art teaches overlapping ranges and the allegations of unexpected results are not persuasive because the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data and because the data presented appears to show predictable results, the rejection over Nakagawa is maintained.
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 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
Prosecution Insights