Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/912,291

POLYAMIDE RESIN COMPOSITION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 16, 2022
Examiner
JOHNSTON, BRIEANN R
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UBE Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
491 granted / 1002 resolved
-16.0% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1063
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1002 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This office action follows a reply filed on October 17, 2025. Claims 9 and 21-22 have been amended. Claims 9-13 and 15-22 are currently pending and under examination. All previous rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have limited the reinforcing fibers to glass fibers having a circular cross-sectional shape, whereas the prior art cited on the record teaches away from circular glass fibers and prefers flat glass fibers. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is proposed below. The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 9-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006-205464 in view of CN 104592749, as evidenced by Nakamura (US 7,089,952) and Ono (US 2005/0234180). For convenience, the machine translations of JP ‘464 and CN ‘749 will be cited below. JP ‘464 teaches a fuel hose constructed of an inner layer comprising (A) maleic anhydride-modified polyolefin resin, exemplified as ER403 (p. 5), which as evidenced by Nakamura has an acid modification amount of 19.2 milliequivalent/kg (which is the same as 19.2 micromol/g) (col. 15, ll. 26-30), and an outer layer comprising a polyamide resin, where the inner layer has excellent adhesiveness to the adjacent polyamide layer (pp. 3 and 4). JP ‘464 teaches that the polyamide layer can include different polyamides, such as PA6, and teaches that the polyamide-based resin is blended as it is or with other components such as a plasticizer, impact resistance agent, etc., but does not teach the complete composition thereof. CN ‘749 teaches a polyamide resin suitable for use in fuel systems or automobile engines, comprising 20-55 wt% thermoplastic polyamide, specifically listed to include PA6 or PA66, having an amino end group concentration of at least 50 meq/kg, preferably at least 80 meq/kg (which is the same as 80 micromol/g), 5-30 wt% semi-aromatic polyamide resin, specifically listed to include PA6T/6I, 15-60 wt% glass fiber, and other auxiliary agents. CN ‘749 teaches that the polyamide composition has low moisture absorption, physical strength, excellent heat aging property. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the polyamide composition of CN ‘749 as the polyamide layer in the fuel hose of JP ‘464, as CN ‘749 teaches that the polyamide composition is suitable for use in automobile fuel systems and has excellent heat aging and physical strength even when in the presence of automobile fuel. While CN ‘749 does not specifically teach the cross sectional shape of the glass fiber, CN ‘749 goes on to teach that additional components can be added to the polyamide composition, which include carbon fibers and flat glass fibers. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the required glass fibers to be circular in cross-sectional shape. Alternatively, choosing a circular glass fiber is prima facie obvious. The ranges taught by CN ‘749 overlap with the claimed ranges, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. JP ‘464 in view of CN ‘749 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 9, 12-13, 15-18 and 21-22. As to claims 10 and 11, JP ‘464 nor CN ‘749 teach the dimensional change of the molded article, as claimed; however, the composition of CN ‘749 includes the same components as claimed in the claimed amounts. 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-07.2015] PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claims 19 and 20, the above prior art does not teach or suggest the resistance to calcium chloride, as claimed; however, a blend of polyamide 66 with aromatic polyamide, such as PA 6T/6I, provides a synergistic effect to provide excellent resistance to calcium chloride, as evidenced by Ono (p. 1, [0022]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been 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. 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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST. 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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. /Brieann R Johnston/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 16, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599545
DENTAL ADHESIVE COMPOSITION, DENTAL ADHESIVE MATERIAL, AND DENTAL ADHESIVE MATERIAL PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595385
INKJET INKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577371
OXIDATIVELY CURABLE COATING COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570829
PIPE MADE OF PEROXIDE-CROSSLINKED POLYETHYLENE OF HIGH UV STABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570828
CHARCOAL PRODUCTS MADE WITH PHENOLIC RESIN BINDER AND METHODS FOR MAKING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
49%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+33.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1002 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month