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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10-19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments introduce new matter into claims 1 and 5.
The limitation “(Mn)” in claim 1 is not supported by the original specification. The specification does not disclose the type of molecular weight.
The original specification does not support 20-80 wt% of an elastomeric aliphatic polyether and also comprising a polytetramethylether diamine and/or a polyethylene oxide diamine. The polytetramethylether diamine and/or a polyethylene oxide diamine are the elastomeric polyether in the original specification.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10-19, and 27 are 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. The elastomer concentrate of claim 1 is indefinite. The applicant, in the Remarks of 11/15/2025 describes the claimed concentrate as a reaction product of the components in the concentrate. However, that is not the customary meaning in the art. The customary meaning of a concentrate is a high loaded masterbatch formulation, which would include claimed components a. and b. in a mixture. While the applicant may act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must disavow the full scope of a claim term in the specification, and must clearly set forth a special definition of the term “concentrate” in the specification. See MPEP 2111.01(IV). The instant specification discloses that the elastomer concentrate is obtained reacting the aliphatic polyether with a dicarboxylic acid, a diamine and optionally a lactam.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dowe et al. (2011/0165358).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, and 6: Dowe et al. teach a polyamide composition comprising 75 parts by weight of polyamide 12 and 25 parts by weight of an elastomer concentrate comprising PEA [0053-0055], which is prepared by reacting: 47.452 kg of laurolactam, 4.781 kg of dodecanedioic acid and 42.767 kg of Elastamine RP-2005 [0050] and has the claimed molecular weight [0029; Examples]. The reaction product of Dowe et al. produces the disclosed elastomer concentrate, which is how the claimed is being interpreted, instead of a blend of a. and b.
Regarding claim 14: Dowe et al. teach calcium stearate [0052].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12-18 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowe et al. (2011/0165358) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12: Dowe et al. teach from 20 to 95 parts polyamide and from 5 to 80 parts polyetherimide [0011].
The ranges overlap taught overlap the claimed ranges.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select PA66 as the polyamide [0012] in Dowe et al.
Regarding claims 14-15: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select montan waxes as the lubricant [0022] in Dowe et al.
Regarding claim 16: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add copper complexes as the stabilizer [0019] in Dowe et al. to provide heat stability.
Regarding claims 17 and 27: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant, such as carbon black [0017] to the composition of Dowe et al. to obtain the desired color.
Regarding claim 18: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a crystallization accelerator (nucleating agent) [0016] as a usual additive to the composition of Dowe et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowe et al. (2011/0165358) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above further in view of Uchida et al. (2003/0023008).
Dowe et al. teach a crystallization accelerator [0016], but fails to teach a claimed compound.
However, Uchida et al. teach that talc is effective to enhance the crystallization rate of polyamides [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use talc as taught by Uchida et al. as the crystallization accelerator in Dowe et al. to enhance the crystallization of the polyamide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-31 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant states that the “concentrate” is synthesis of the claimed components and not a blend. However, that is not the customary meaning in the art. The customary meaning of a concentrate is a high loaded masterbatch formulation, which would include claimed components a. and b. in a mixture. While the applicant may act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must disavow the full scope of a claim term in the specification, and must clearly set forth a special definition of the term “concentrate” in the specification. See MPEP 2111.01(IV).
With regard to Dowe, the applicant has alleged that Dowe fails to teach the claimed concentrate polyamide. This is not persuasive because Dowe teaches dodecanediodic acid, which is a component of polyamide 612. The indefiniteness in the claim is causing a difference interpretation between the applicant and the Office.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763