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 under Muller et al. (US 6036962) and evidences by Morgan et al. (Interfacial Polycondensation. XIII. Viscosity-Molecular Weight Relationship and Some Molecular Characteristics of 6-10 Polyamide, J. Polymer Sci., Part A, Vol 1, pp 1147-1162, 299 (1963)) and Kory et al. (US 20160137782) and over Priedeman (US 20180030234) in view of Muller as evidences by Morgan and Kory 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 1-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Muller et al. (US 6036962) and evidences by Morgan et al. (Interfacial Polycondensation. XIII. Viscosity-Molecular Weight Relationship and Some Molecular Characteristics of 6-10 Polyamide, J. Polymer Sci., Part A, Vol 1, pp 1147-1162, 299 (1963)) and Kory et al. (US 20160137782), all cited in previous Office Action.
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priedeman (US
20180030234), cited in previous Office Action in view of Muller as evidences by Morgan and Kory.
Amendments to claims 1, 5 and 15 and new clams 16 and 17 are noted.
The Amendments solely drawn to a clarification of claims content.
In reference to claim 16, Priedeman discloses a water dispersible material is being in filament form (see 0011).
Regarding claim 17, Muller teaches laurolactam as a monomer (see 2:50).
The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 7/29/2025 and is herein incorporated by reference
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Muller’s viscosity measurements are not equivalent to Applicant’s ones. Thus, Examiner’s assumption that Muller actually discloses a polymer with the same viscosity range is incorrect.
Examiner disagrees. Both Morgan’s and Applicant’s viscosity data represent the expression of polymer molecular weight. While Examiner provides some evidence that molecular weights in both cases are low (i.e. oligomeric range), Applicant fails to provide any correlation between IV value and molecular weight range of the polymer.
Applicant argues that there is no reason one skilled in the art would modify the cosmetic film of Muller in a manner to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Examiner disagrees. Content of claims 1-17 does not indicate the method of using a water dispersible polyamide.
Note that Priedeman (US 20180030234) teaches a copolyamide for additive manufacture, while Muller discloses a cosmetic composition. However, Muller’s polymer structure allows to achieve the properties desired in Priedeman’s application.
For instance, required transparency of Priedeman’s additive can be achieved using Muller’s copolyamide (see Non-Final Office Action).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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