DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 19, 2025 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 15-17, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grolman (US 2011/0124776) in view of Werner (U.S. Pat. 3,232,909) and Grutzner et al. (US 2012/0065339).
Regarding claims 1 and 7: Grolman teaches a continuous solid state process (abstract) for preparing a polyamide derived from diamine and dicarboxylic acids (para. 48). The process is a polymerization process since in solid state, a polymer is obtained that has a higher molecular weight than the prepolymer (last sentence of para. 48), indicating further polymerization. The process comprises feeding particulate material (para. 16) into a reactor column/flow-through installation (para. 17) that comprises multiple heating zones (para. 17). The heating zones further have gas outlets positioned in alternation with the heat zones (para. 37). Grolman teaches one or more heating zones (para. 17), which have gas outlets in alternation with the contact heater (para. 37). Three zones overlaps with one or more. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). One of the zones can be considered to be a residence zone since a gas-inlet is disclosed (para. 23). The granulate material is transported in the heating zones as a moving packed bed (para. 20). The granulate material undergoes polycondensation through the heated zones (para. 71). Since the reference teaches there are gas outlets (para. 37), the water vapor that is produced would be removed via the gas-outlet sections. The particulate material is discharged (para. 21) and retained in the solid state (para. 27).
Grolman does not teach solid diammonium dicarboxylate salt as the reactant. However, Werner teaches a similar solid state polymerization of polyamides using a solid diammonium dicarboxylate salt, such as hexamethylene diammonium terephthalate salt (col. 4 lines 45-50), which is derived from an aliphatic diamine/hexamethylene diamine and an aromatic dicarboxylic acid/terephthalate. Grolman and Werner are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid state polyamide reactions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the diammonium dicarboxylate salt of Werner in the process of Grolman and would have been motivated to do so since it is a less volatile reactant and leads to ease of shaping, as evidenced by Werner (col. 4 lines 53-70).
Grolman also does not disclose simultaneously adding gaseous diamine to the residence zone containing the condensed polyamide product via a first gas-inlet. However, Grutzner et al. teaches adding an amine gas to the solid phase postcondensation process of a polyamide (abstract). Grolman and Grutzner et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely forming polyamides via a solid state reaction. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the amine gas post-condensation to the polyamide and would have been motivated to do so since Grutzner et al. teaches the type of terminal groups are controlled and it reduces the remonomerization rate during extrusion and melting (para. 38).
While Grolman does not teach the melting temperature of the semi-crystalline semi-aromatic polyamide of at least 280 °C, mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II).
Regarding claim 2: Grolman teaches the particulate material is fed to the flow-through installation/reactor column (para. 19), and the particulate material is discharged (para. 21), while inert gas is applied to one or more of the zones (para. 23).
Regarding claim 3: Grolman teaches the basic claimed process as set forth above. Not disclosed is the gas pressure of the process. However, Werner teaches the pressure may be close to atmospheric (0 BarG) or up to 300 p.s.i.g (20.7 BarG) (col. 2 lines 5-10), which overlaps the claimed range. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the pressure of the process in Werner in the process of Grolman and would have been motivated to do so that since the reactor is pressurized, any leaks would not result in oxygen getting into the reactor.
Regarding claim 4: Grolman does not explicitly teach the temperature of the heat exchangers are heated to a temperature at least 15 °C below the melting temperatures. However, Werner teaches the temperature being about 20 °C below the melting point of any of the components (col. 2 lines 30-35). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to keep the temperature 20 °C below the melting points and would have been motivated to do so that the solid state polymerization process is maintained.
Regarding claim 5: Grolman teaches one or more heating zones (para. 17), which have gas outlets in alternation with the contact heater (para. 37). Four zones overlaps with one or more. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claims 8, 15-17, and 26: While Grolman does not teach the viscosity number or conversion of carboxylic acid groups into amide groups, mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II).
Regarding claim 27: Grolman teaches introducing a flow of inert gas into one or more heating zone (abstract).
Claim 6, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grolman (US 2011/0124776) in view of Werner (U.S. Pat. 3,232,909) and Grutzner et al. (US 2012/0065339) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Rulkens et al. (EP 2 951 147)
Regarding claims 6, 18, and 19: Grolman teaches the basic claimed process as set forth above. Not disclosed is the size of the granular material. However, Rulkens et al. teaches a similar process using particles of sub-micron to about 2 mm or less (pg. 2 lines 8-9). Grolman and Rulkens et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid state polyamide polymerization. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the particle size of Rulkens et al. in the process of Grolman and would have been motivated to do so to optimize the surface area, and therefore polymerization time of the process.
Claims 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grolman (US 2011/0124776).
Regarding claim 28: Grolman teaches a reactor column/flow-through installation (para. 17) for a continuous solid state polycondensation process (abstract, para. 48). The reactor comprises one or more heating zones (para. 17), which overlaps with the claimed range of three, and a residence zone/zone where “a flow of inert gas is applied in one or more of the heating zones” (para. 23). The zones comprise a heating section of static heat exchangers/array of heating plates (para. 18) and a gas-outlet section (para. 37) comprising gas-outlet devices. One zone also has a gas-inlet device (para. 23). The heating sections are alternated with the gas outlets (para. 37). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do three heating zones in the process and would have been motivated to do so since Grolman teaches one or more zones can be used, and three is more than one. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
The limitations directed to the intended use of the reactor column are given little patentable weight since what type of polymer the reactor is used for, or what type of gas is intended to be introduced at the gas inlet do not change the physical characteristics of the column or components of the column.
Regarding claim 29: Grolman teaches vertically oriented plate heat exchangers (para. 31).
Regarding claim 30: Grolman teaches a plurality of planar heat exchange elements that are regularly spaced from one another and distributed uniformly over the heating zone (para. 31).
Regarding claim 31: Grolman teaches gas outlets positioned in alternation with the contact heater (para. 37), meaning they are between two heating sections, and when there are multiple zones, are at least two arrays that are substantially evenly spread over a cross-section of the gas-outlet section.
Regarding claim 32: Grolman teaches an installation (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) The examiner notes that prior claims 20-25 have been canceled and now appear as new claims 28-32 for the given reason of maintaining claim set integrity. It appears “claim set integrity” means the preference for keeping all dependent claims together with their independent claim. However, these claims are not new, and are really amended claims that were previously claimed. It is much better for examiners to be able to see with strikethroughs and underlines what limitations were added and deleted from an amended claim than to be presented with new claims and have to figure out what new analysis has to be done and what was already presented. Further, for claim set integrity, at the time of allowance, the examiner renumbers the claims so that they appear in the patent as an independent claim followed by all of its dependent claims, and then followed by the next independent claim, etc. Therefore, the claim set integrity is adjusted at allowance.
B) Applicant’s argument that Grolman does not teach the newly claimed feature of simultaneously introducing the gaseous diamine into the residence zone after the polymer has already been formed is acknowledged. However, Grutzner et al. teaches this feature.
C) Applicants argue that the newly claimed feature of simultaneously introducing the gaseous diamine into the residence zone after the polymer has already been formed would also affect the patentability of the apparatus and not only the process of claim 1. However, the intended gas introduced via the gas inlets and indeed what type of polymer or at what stage of polycondensation the polymer is in are intended use of the reactor column claimed. Intended use does not affect the basic and novel characteristics of the apparatus.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767