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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and the species 11-aminoundecanoic acid and polyamide-11 in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that 1) the claims allegedly have unity of invention under statute, 2) “recycled composition” is also a common technical feature, 3) Nay does not describe inherent viscosities less than or equal to 1.50, and 4) Nay does not describe the problems/objectives set forth in the specification. This is not found persuasive.
In response, 1) Applicant rigidly interprets 37 CFR 1.475(b) in isolation without consideration of the entirety of 37 CFR 1.475. As is clearly stated within 37 CFR 1.475(a), the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. In the present case however, all common technical features shared between Groups I and II fail to make a contribution over the prior art and thus, they are not special technical features. Since there are no shared special technical features between Groups I and II, unity of invention is not present per 37 CFR 1.475(a). Since the requirements of 37 CFR 1.475(a) are clearly not met, consideration of whether or not the additional requirements of 37 CFR 1.475(b) are met is unnecessary. 2) As set forth in the restriction requirement, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 3) as set forth within the restriction requirement, Nay describes viscosities of 1.01-1.30 (Abstract; ¶ 20). The range falls within the claimed range. Even arguendo the reported viscosities are relative viscosities determined in 0.5% cresol (¶ 20), it would still correspond to inherent viscosities of ln (visc) / C ~ 0.0002 – 0.005 dl/g. 4) Whether or not various problems/features/objectives of the specification are described in the prior art are irrelevant with respect to consideration of shared claimed technical features.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6, 7, and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/13/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to a process of treating polyamides, but does not include associated steps of the process. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s express definition of “composition based on polyamides” as meaning a composition having a polyamide matrix is acknowledged (Page 3, Lines 30-31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 requires a specific inherent viscosity, but fails to specify what units the inherent viscosity range corresponds to. For instance, inherent viscosity (vol/mass) can be expressed as dL/g, mL/g, L/kg, ft3/lb, etc.
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, 3-5, 8-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Center (US 2013/0338261 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Center teaches methods of melt mixing polyamide compositions with one or more amino acid to create thermoplastic melt mixed compositions (Abstract). Examples are taught where polyamide composition, amino acid, and fillers and/or additives are supplied into an extruder, melt -kneaded in a molten state to obtain a second composition, and recovering the second composition (¶ 221-226; Tables spanning pages 12-17). Center teaches the amino acid can be used alone or in combination with polyepoxy, whereby the amino acid “tended to reduce melt viscosity” over the course of compounding (Abstract; ¶ 257). Compare also for instance the reported melt viscosities of Example 1 vs Comparative Example 2 of Table 1A. While Center does not describe the mechanistic details regarding how the amino acids reduce viscosity, the activity of such agents being “chain-cutting agents” is seen to be implied owing to the substantial decrease in melt viscosity, or alternatively a necessary characteristic particularly since there is no perceivable difference in structure between the amino acids of Center and what is indicated by the claims. Whatever inherent viscosity that results is deemed to be “targeted”. The phrase “intended to be recycled” is construed as a mere statement of purpose that does not confer any difference in structure between the initial polyamide compositions claimed and those taught by Center.
Regarding Claim 3, Center teaches polyamides with inherent viscosities on the order of 49 (¶ 236), which given a concentration of 0.5 wt% would be expected to yield an inherent viscosity well in excess of 1.50 dL/g [ μ(inh) = log (μ(rel)) / C ].
Regarding Claim 4, Center reports instances where decreases of melt viscosity of roughly 57% are apparent (Comparative Example 2 and Example 1 of Table 1A). While not reporting a decrease in terms of inherent viscosity of polyamide, it is nonetheless noted that Center describes substantially the same processes claimed using substantially the same materials. Given such, the position is taken that reductions of at least 10% in inherent viscosity are intrinsically present in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 8, Center teaches examples using 6-aminohexanoic acid (synonymous with aminocaproic acid) or 11-aminoundecanoic acid (Tables 1A, 1B, and 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Center teaches embodiments where 2 pbw amino acid is used relative to 60.2 pbw of polyamide composition (Table 1B), equivalent to 3.3 wt%.
Regarding Claim 10, Center teaches melt kneading at about 280-290 degrees C for a polyamide having a melting point of 263 degrees C (¶ 222, 236).
Regarding Claim 11, Center teaches batch processes can be used (¶ 181).
Regarding Claim 12, Center teaches a continuous extrusion process with 30-40 lb/h throughput (¶ 222).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Carter teaches various homo- and copolyamides such as PA6, PA66, and copolyamides comprising 6T and 66 monomers (¶ 233-237). PA11 species is described (¶ 98-99, 126, 130).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Center (US 2013/0338261 A1).
Center teaches methods of melt mixing polyamide compositions with one or more amino acid to create thermoplastic melt mixed compositions (Abstract). Examples are taught where polyamide composition, amino acid, and fillers and/or additives are supplied into an extruder, melt -kneaded in a molten state to obtain a second composition, and recovering the second composition (¶ 221-226; Tables spanning pages 12-17). Center teaches the amino acid can be used alone or in combination with polyepoxy, whereby the amino acid “tended to reduce melt viscosity” over the course of compounding (Abstract; ¶ 257). Compare also for instance the reported melt viscosities of Example 1 vs Comparative Example 2 of Table 1A. While Center does not describe the mechanistic details regarding how the amino acids reduce viscosity, the activity of such agents being “chain-cutting agents” is seen to be implied owing to the substantial decrease in melt viscosity, or alternatively a necessary characteristic particularly since there is no perceivable difference in structure between the amino acids of Center and what is indicated by the claims. Whatever inherent viscosity that results is deemed to be “targeted”. The phrase “intended to be recycled” is construed as a mere statement of purpose that does not confer any difference in structure between the initial polyamide compositions claimed and those taught by Center.
Regarding Claim 4, to the extent particular decreases in inherent viscosity are not described by Center, Center teaches greater reductions in viscosity follow increasing quantities of amino acid (see for instance Table 1B). Thus, the achieved viscosity is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable or optimal viscosity decreases within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable end compositions.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Center (US 2013/0338261 A1) in view of MacFarlane (U.S. Pat. No. 4,131,591).
The discussion regarding Center within ¶ 26-27 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 2, Center teaches embodiments where polyamide is provided in the form of pellets (¶ 235). Center differs from the subject matter claimed in that powders are not described. MacFarlane also pertains to the processing of polyamide compositions (Abstract) and notes it was known polyamides can be provided either in pellet or powder form for extrusion processing (Col. 3, Lines 30-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute polyamide pellets with powders, thereby predictably affording workable extruded polyamide compositions in accordance with the teachings of MacFarlane.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Center (US 2013/0338261 A1) in view of Tzoganakis (Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology).
The discussion regarding Center within ¶ 26-27 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 13, Center differs from the subject matter claimed in that preferred residence times are not described. Tzoganakis teaches that for reactive extrusion, the residence time can be controlled so as to give a desired degree of completion of the reaction (Pages 3-4). Tzoganakis notes residence times are typically 10-600 seconds, whereby less than 5 minutes is typical for commercial extruders with realistic barrel lengths (Page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize residence times of 5 minutes or less, because doing so would allow the use of commercial extruders with realistic barrel lengths as taught by Tzoganakis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759