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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10 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.
There is no express antecedent basis for the epoxy group.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0176232 (Brace).
Brace discloses a thermoplastic innerliner composition comprising:
50 to 70 pbw of a polyamide resin such as an aliphatic copolyamide PA6/66 (meets Applicants’ copolymerized polyamide (A-1) and overlaps content thereof);
10 to 30 pbw of an α-olefin graft copolymer such as a maleic anhydride modified ethylene-octene copolymer (meets Applicants’ impact resistant material (C) and overlaps content thereof); and
10 to 30 pbw of an olefin-based ionomer (meets Applicants’ ionomer (B) and overlaps content thereof) (e.g., abstract, [0013-0016], [0069-0081], examples, claims).
Brace sets forth Composition 1 (Table 1) meeting all of the presently claimed compositional requirements, except for the copolyamide content. Illustratively, said composition comprises:
58.50 pbw PA 6/66 (meets Applicants’ copolymerized polyamide (A-1) but not content thereof));
20 pbw maleic anhydride modified ethylene-octene copolymer 1 (meets Applicants’ impact resistant material (C) ethylene-α-olefin copolymer modified with a carboxylic acid anhydride and content thereof);
20 pbw ethylene-based ionomer (meets Applicants’ ionomer (B) and content thereof);
1.0 pbw synthetic waxes; and
0.50 pbw thermal stabilizer (meets Applicants’ heat resistant agent (D) per claim 2 and content thereof).
In essence, Brace’s exemplified composition differs from claims 1, 2 and 4 in that the 58.50 pbw PA 6/66 content is slightly below the presently claimed 60-85 wt.%. Brace, however, discloses the use of up to 70 pbw polyamide resin (A) [0016]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to increase the PA6/66 content to up to 70% (meets Applicants’ copolymerized polyamide (A-1) and content thereof)) for its expected additive effect and with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 5, by being silent relative to the relative viscosity defining the aliphatic copolyamide, Brace implicitly suggests that any relative viscosity can be successfully used. Thus, absent evidence of unusual or unexpected results, no patentability can be seen in the presently claimed subject matter.
As to claims 6 and 7, by being silent relative to the MFR defining the α-olefin graft copolymer and olefin-based ionomer components, Brace implicitly suggests that any MFR can be successfully used. Thus, absent evidence of unusual or unexpected results, no patentability can be seen in the presently claimed subject matter.
As to product-by-process claim 8, it is not seen that the patentability of the presently claimed product depends on its method of production. Given that the claimed product appears to the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964.
As to claim 9, Brace discloses films for pneumatic tires which would necessarily come into contact with a high-pressure gas.
As to claim 10, Brace exemplifies maleic anhydride modified ethylene-octene copolymer.
As to claim 11, Brace’s exemplified composition does not contain an aromatic polyamide.
As to claim 12 and 13, it would have been within the purview of Brace’s inventive disclosure [0016], and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use lower contents of the maleic anhydride modified ethylene-octene copolymer 1 and ethylene-based ionomer, e.g., falling within the scope of the presently claimed amounts, for their expected additive effect and with the reasonable expectation of success. Differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating criticality for the claimed ranges. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully 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. Upon further consideration, it believed that the teachings of US 2016/0176232 (Brace) are more pertinent to the newly-amended content of aliphatic copolymerized polyamide (A-1) than those of previously-relied on WO 2019/117072 (Yamashita)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 Kelley can be reached on 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765