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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-15 are pending as amended on December 8, 2025.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in the action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (page 7) that Lamberts (US 2019/0225750 A1) makes no mention of issues that arise with polyamides in high temperature, engine coolant, or brine solution environments and is silent to the aging capabilities of the polymer composition when both the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid are present in the polyamide. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, Lamberts teaches the claimed composition and the composition would be expected to satisfy the claimed aging properties. In particular, the instant abstract attributes the improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention after aging in aqueous solutions to the specific combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and Lamberts teaches the claimed combination of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. One would therefore expect the polyamide of Lamberts to similarly contribute to improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention of the composition after aging. In addition, Lamberts teaches a substantially similar composition prepared in a substantially similar manner as instant example 1, including the claimed combination of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid (see claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below). Because Lamberts teaches a substantially similar composition prepared by a substantially similar method and the instant abstract attributes the improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention after aging in aqueous solutions to the specific combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, it would be reasonable to expect the properties of the prior art composition to be similar to those of the instant composition, including the claimed mechanical properties.
Applicant argues (page 8) that Lamberts teaches that the 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane monomers of Lamberts are optionally present and are disclosed in lists of monomers. While Lamberts does not exemplify a polyamide derived from monomers including 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 because “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2123 [R-5] II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (reading on bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane) given that Lamberts teaches each one (Lamberts, [0078] and [0081]). The burden is shifted to applicants’ to show unexpected results for the claimed combination.
Applicant argues (page 8) that one of ordinary skill would have no reasonable expectation of successfully including the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and providing a polymer composition with the instantly claimed strength properties. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success may support a conclusion of nonobviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2143.02.II. As evidence, Applicant states that Lamberts does not teach or suggest that a polymer composition having a polyamide including both a cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane is capable of retaining flexural and/or tensile strength after aging the polymer composition. Lamberts teaches a diamine component comprising an aliphatic diamine and a cycloaliphatic diamine such as 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (Lamberts, [0040-0041] and [0081]). Lamberts further teaches a dicarboxylic acid component comprising terephthalic acid and a non-terephthalic acid that can include cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acids such as cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid (Lamberts, [0038-0039] and [0078]). One would therefore expect that a polyamide could be made using 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane as the cycloaliphatic diamine component and cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid as the cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid component. Therefore, one would know to make the composition with a polyamide of the claimed chemical structure based on the disclosure of Lamberts. Such a composition would be expected to have the claimed properties, as discussed above.
Applicant argues (end of page 8 through page 10) that the instant composition unexpectedly shows retention of mechanical properties after aging in accordance with claim 1. Applicant points to instant E1 and CE1-CE7. E1 comprises a polyamide derived from 1,6-diaminohexane, 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane, terephthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. The composition of E1 further comprises a maleic anhydride functionalized SEBS copolymer as the impact modifier, a stabilizer, a pigment, and glass fibers. The comparative examples use different polyamides, none of which are derived from 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. Applicant points out that E1 has a higher tensile strength retention than CE-1 and CE-6 and a higher flexural strength retention than CE3-CE7. Of the comparative examples, only CE4 differs by only the choice of polyamide. The other comparative examples differ in the choice of polyamide as well as other additives. Comparing E1 and CE4 demonstrates that a composition comprising a polyamide derived from 1,6-dimainohexane, 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane, terephthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid (PA1) has higher flexural strength after aging at 130 °C in a 26 wt% aqueous NaCl solution for 1,000 hours than a composition comprising PA 6T/6I/66.
Applicant argues that the instant examples unexpectedly show retention of mechanical properties after aging in accordance with claim 1, but does not explain what mechanical properties after aging would be expected. In addition, evidence of unexpected results has only been presented for a polyamide with unknown monomer ratios rather than showing criticality of the upper and lower bounds of the claimed monomer ratios. Applicant shows no examples where a composition comprising a polyamide derived from the claimed monomers including cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane does not meet the claimed mechanical properties after aging. Consequently, Applicant has not established unexpected flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution and/or unexpected tensile strength retention after aging in an aqueous polyol solution.
Furthermore, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. See MPEP 716.02(d). Claim 1 encompasses a broader range of compositions than instant E1. For example, claim 1 encompasses bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexanes other than 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane and a range of monomer ratios that extends beyond the unspecified single monomer ratio used in E1. Claim 1 also does not limit the chemistry of the reactive impact modifier or the content of the polyamide and reactive impact modifier in the composition. Claim 1 does not require the stabilizer, pigment, and glass fibers used in E1 and is open to components other than those used in E1. If Applicant wishes to overcome the present rejection by showing unexpected results, Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show that unexpected results would be obtained for all species encompassed by the present claims.
In comparing the instant examples to Lambert, Applicant argues (page 10) that because the comparative examples of the instant application are most similar to the examples of Lambert, one would have expected the combined addition of the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane in the polyamide of Lamberts to have similar aging capabilities to comparative examples CE1 and CE3-6. This argument does not support the demonstration of unexpected results because although Lamberts may exemplify compositions more similar to the instant comparative examples, Lamberts also teaches a composition comprising a polyamide and impact modifier as laid out in claim 1. Applicant has not provided evidence of a composition comprising the claimed impact modifier and polyamide that does not also meet the claimed mechanical properties.
With respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections over copending Application No. 17/923,529, copending Application No. 17/923,791, and copending Application No.17/988,013, Applicant states (pages 12-13) that “Given that the present application is pending and claim scope may vary, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance at this time. Applicant defers action on the double patenting rejection at this time and may file a terminal disclaimer upon indication of allowable subject matter.” Applicant is reminded that Applicants are required to respond to ALL rejections. This response is incomplete because a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action. See MPEP 804 I (B)(1). NO REJECTION CAN BE HELD IN ABAYENCE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberts (US 2019/0225750 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-12, Lamberts teaches a polymer composition (polyamide molding compositions, [0012]) comprising 35-68 wt% of a polyamide ([0013]) (claim 5), 1 wt.% to 10 wt.% an impact modifier ([0016]) (claim 7), and 18-30 wt.% of a glass fiber ([0015]), reading on the reinforcing agent of claims 9-10.
The polyamide reads on a derived from the polycondensation of monomers in a reaction mixture comprising a diamine component and a dicarboxylic acid component (polyamides of component (A) are preferentially formed from the following components: (A1) dicarboxylic acids… (A2) diamines, [0066-0070]).
Lamberts teaches a diamine component comprising 50-100 mol% of an aliphatic diamine having 6 carbon atoms ([0040]) and 0-50 mol% of a cycloaliphatic diamine having 6 to 20 carbon atoms ([0041]). As the aliphatic diamine, Lamberts teaches 1,6-hexanediamine ([0079]) and as the cycloaliphatic diamine, Lamberts teaches 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane ([0081]). The compound 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane reads on the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane of claim 1 and claim 3. Lamberts therefore teaches a diamine component comprising 50-100 mol% of 1,6-diaminohexane and 0-50 mol% of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane, wherein mol% is relative to the total moles of each diamine in the diamine component. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of 60-80 mol% of 1,6-diaminohexane and 20-40 mol% of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Lamberts further teaches a dicarboxylic component comprising 50-80 mol% of terephthalic acid ([0038]) and 20-50 mol% of a cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid having 8-20 carbon atoms ([0039]). As the cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid, Lamberts teaches cis- and/or trans-cyclohexane-1,4-dicarboxylic acid ([0078]), reading on 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. Lamberts therefore teaches a dicarboxylic acid component comprising 50-80 mol% of terephthalic acid and 20-50 mol% of 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, wherein mol% is relative to the total moles of each dicarboxylic acid in the dicarboxylic acid component. These ranges fall within the claimed ranges of 30-99 mol% of terephthalic acid and 1-70 mol% of 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid.
As the impact modifier, Lamberts teaches carboxylic acid-functionalized or carboxylic anhydride-functionalized copolymers ([0168] and [0178]), reading on reactive impact modifier. Lamberts exemplifies Kraton FG1901GT having a maleic anhydride grafting degree of 1.7% as a commercially available impact modifier that can be used in the composition ([0183]). The working examples of the instant specification also utilize Kraton FG1901GT as the maleic anhydride functionalized reactive impact modifier (instant specification, page 21, lines 13-14). Kraton FG1901GT reads on wherein the reactive impact modifier is a maleic anhydride functionalized impact modifier (claim 6).
Lamberts is silent as to the tensile strength reduction after aging in an aqueous polyol solution and the flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution.
However, the instant abstract attributes the improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention after aging in aqueous solutions to the specific combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and Lamberts teaches the claimed combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. One would therefore expect the polyamide of Lamberts to similarly contribute to improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention of the composition after aging. In addition, Lamberts teaches a substantially similar composition prepared in a substantially similar manner as the instant invention, including the claimed combination of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. Lamberts teaches a composition with 35-68 wt% of a polyamide with the monomer composition of claim 1, 1 wt.% to 10 wt.% of Kraton FG1901GT as an impact modifier, and 18-30 wt.% of a glass fiber. Instant example 1 has 61.44 wt.% of a polyamide derived from the monomers recited in claim 1, 3.2 wt.% of Kraton FG1901GT, and 33.2 wt.% of glass fibers as well as 0.66 wt.% of a stabilizer package and 1.5 wt.% of a pigment. Both the instant specification and Lamberts teach preparing the composition in an extruder (instant specification, page 19, lines 3-10; Lamberts, [0220]). Instant example 1 shows a tensile strength retention and a flexural strength retention well within the claimed ranges while properties within the claimed ranges are not reported for the comparative examples (see Table 2 and Table 3). Instant example 1 uses a polyamide derived from the claimed monomers, but the comparative examples comprise polyamides that are not derived from the claimed combination of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid (instant specification, page 21, lines 1-11 and Table 1). No examples of a composition satisfying claim 1 that does not meet the claimed mechanical properties have been provided.
Because Lamberts teaches a substantially similar composition prepared by a substantially similar method and the instant abstract attributes the improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention after aging to the specific combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, it would be reasonable to expect the properties of the prior art composition to be similar to those of the instant composition, including a tensile strength retention of at least 60% after aging in a 130°C, 50:50 ethylene glycol:water solution for 1000 hours (claims 1 and 11) and a flexural strength retention of at least 85% after heat aging in a 130°C, 26 wt.% aqueous NaCl solution for 1000 hours (claims 1 and 12). Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding claim 13, Lamberts teaches the polymer composition of claim 1. Lamberts further teaches an article comprising the composition of claim 1 wherein the article is an automotive component (The present invention relates to conductive thermoplastic polyamide molding compositions… and also to moldings produced from them and to the use… in the automobile sector, [0001]).
Regarding claim 15, Lamberts teaches the polymer composition of claim 1. Lamberts further teaches that the composition is used in moldings used in the automobile sector ([0001]). Lamberts further teaches moldings in the automobile sector in contact with coolants ([0215]). The instant specification states that engine coolant utilizes an aqueous polyol solution (instant specification, page 4, lines 6-7). Therefore, a molding comprising the composition of claim 1 in contact with coolants used in the automobile sector reads on wherein the polymer composition is in contact with an aqueous polyol solution.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberts (US 2019/0225750 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamai (US 2020/0062925 A1).
Lamberts teaches the polymer composition of claim 1. Lamberts further teaches additives (Lamberts, [0018]), but does not teach a halogen-free flame retardant.
However, Tamai teaches fire resistant polyamide resin compositions (Tamai, [0001]) useful in automotive applications (Tamai, [0002]). Tamai teaches the use of fire retardants to impart fire retardancy (Tamai, [0025]) and teaches that non-halogen based fire retardants are more preferred than halogen based fire retardants from the viewpoint of environmental impact and efficiency in imparting fire retardancy by their addition in small amounts (Tamai, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the additive of Lamberts for the halogen-free flame retardant of Tamai in order to impart fire retardancy on the composition. One would have been motivated to select this flame retardant because Tamai teaches that non-halogen based fire retardants are more preferred than halogen based fire retardants from the viewpoint of environmental impact and efficiency in imparting fire retardancy by their addition in small amounts (Tamai, [0025]). Lamberts in view of Tamai therefore teaches the polymer composition of claim 1, further comprising a halogen-free flame retardant.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberts (US 2019/0225750 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kranbuehl (US 2004/0045620 A1) and Fish (US 2006/0111487 A1).
Lamberts teaches the polymer composition of claim 1 and further teaches an article comprising the polymer composition (molding, Lamberts, [0001]).
Lamberts does not teach wherein the article is a sub-sea oil and gas component.
However, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, polymer compositions comprising polyamides were known to be useful in components used in sub-sea oil and gas applications, as evidenced by Kranbuehl and Fish. Kranbuehl teaches polyamide liners as gas-oil-water barriers in pipes used to transport gas, oil, water, and mixtures thereof (Kranbuehl, [0004]). Kranbuehl further teaches use in a sub-sea environment (Kranbuehl, [0004]). Fish teaches that polyamides are used in undersea oil pipes (Fish, [0003]) because of their good physical properties and chemical resistance.
Based on the disclosures of Kranbuehl and Fish, use of polymer compositions comprising polyamides was known in pipes and liners for pipes useful in sub-sea oil and gas applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have incorporated the polymer composition of claim 1 into a pipe or a liner for a pipe for use in sub-sea oil and gas applications in order to provide a gas-oil-water barrier. One would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a pipe or pipe liner useful in sub-sea oil and gas applications because Lamberts teaches moldings in the form of a film or a hollow body and teaches that such moldings can be used in contact with fuel (Lamberts, [0215]). A pipe or pipe liner comprising the composition of claim 1 and useful in sub-sea oil and gas applications reads on an article comprising the polymer composition (PC) of claim 1, wherein the article is a sub-sea oil and gas component.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3, and 5-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 13 of copending Application No. 17/923,529 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, and 5-13 are obvious over reference 1, 3, 6-8 and 13 in view of Van Den Poel (US 2020/0115551 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7 and 11-12, reference claim 1 depends from reference claim 1 and teaches a polymer composition (PC) (ref claim 1, line 1) comprising: a polyamide (PA) (ref claim 1, line 3) wherein the polyamide (PA) is derived from the polycondensation of monomers in a reaction mixture comprising (ref claim 1, lines 6-7): a diamine component (A) comprising: 20-95 mol% of a C4 to C12 aliphatic diamine and 5-80 mol% of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (ref claim 1, line 8-12 and ref claim 5, line 2) and a dicarboxylic acid component (B) comprising: 30-100 mol% of terephthalic acid and 0-70 mol% of 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid (ref claim 1, lines 13-17). A C4 to C12 aliphatic diamine includes a C6 aliphatic diamine. As a C6 aliphatic diamine, one would immediately envisage 1,6-diaminohexane. The ranges of 20-95 mol% of C6 aliphatic diamine and 5-80 mol% of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane overlap with the claimed ranges of 60-80 mol% of 1,6-diaminohexane and 20-40 mol% of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane. The ranges of 30-100 mol% terephthalic acid and 0-70 mol% 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid overlap with the claimed ranges of 30-99 mol% terephthalic acid and 1-70 mol% 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reference claim 1 does not teach a reactive impact modifier (IM).
However, Van Den Poel teaches heat and electrically resistive resin compositions comprising polyamides (Van Den Poel, abstract) and impact modifiers (Van Den Poel, [0099]). Van Den Poel teaches that impact modifiers improve the impact strength of the resin composition (Van Den Poel, [0104]) and exemplifies a maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin impact modifier. Van Den Poel further teaches that impact modifiers are present in an amount of 5 wt% to 50 wt% (Van Den Poel, [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have combined the polymer composition of reference claim 1 with the maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin impact modifier of Van Den Poel in order to improve the impact strength of the composition. A maleic anhydride functionalized impact modifier reads on the reactive impact modifier of claim 1 and claim 6. A concentration of reactive impact modifier in the range of 5-50 wt% overlaps with the claimed range of 1 wt.% to 20 wt.% in claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reference claim 1 is silent as to the flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution and the tensile strength retention after aging in an aqueous polyol solution.
However, the instant abstract attributes the improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention after aging in aqueous solutions to the specific combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and reference claim 1 teaches the claimed combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. In addition, Applicant has not provided evidence of a composition satisfying claim 1 that does not meet the claimed mechanical properties. One would therefore expect the polyamide of reference claim 1 to similarly contribute to improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention of the composition after aging, resulting in a composition with the claimed flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution and/or the strength retention after aging in an aqueous polyol solution (claims 1 and 11-12).
Reference claim 3 depends from reference claim 1 and reads on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, reference claim 6 depends from reference claim 1 and teaches wherein the polyamide concentration is from 20 wt.% to 85 wt.%, overlapping with the claimed range of 5 wt.% to 80 wt.%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reference claim 7 depends from reference claim 1 and reads on claims 9-10.
Reference claim 8 depends from reference claim 1 and reads on claim 8.
Reference claim 13 depends from reference claim 1 and reads on claim 13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, and 15 of copending Application No. 17/923,791 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-13 are obvious over reference claims 1, 6-9, and 15 in view of Van Den Poel (US 2020/0115551 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6-7 and 11-12, reference claim 1 teaches a polymer composition (PC) (ref claim 1, line 1) comprising: a polyamide (PA) (ref claim 1, line 2) wherein the polyamide (PA) is derived from the polycondensation of monomers in a reaction mixture comprising (ref claim 1, lines 5-6): a diamine component (A) comprising 20-95 mol% of 1,6-diaminohexane and 5-80 mol% of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane that is 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (ref claim 1, line 7-18) (claim 3) and a dicarboxylic acid component (B) comprising 30-99 mol% of terephthalic acid and 1-70 mol% of a 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid (ref claim 1, lines 20-22).The ranges of 20-95 mol% of 1,6-diaminohexane and 5-80 mol% of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane overlap with the claimed ranges of 60-80 mol% of 1,6-diaminohexane and 20-40 mol% of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reference claim 1 does not teach a reactive impact modifier (IM).
However, Van Den Poel teaches heat and electrically resistive resin compositions comprising polyamides (Van Den Poel, abstract) and impact modifiers (Van Den Poel, [0099]). Van Den Poel teaches that impact modifiers improve the impact strength of the resin composition (Van Den Poel, [0104]) and exemplifies a maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin impact modifier. Van Den Poel further teaches that impact modifiers are present in an amount of 5-50 wt% (Van Den Poel, [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have combined the polymer composition of reference claim 1 with the maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin impact modifier of Van Den Poel in order to improve the impact strength of the composition. A maleic anhydride functionalized impact modifier reads on the reactive impact modifier of claim 1 and claim 6. A concentration of reactive impact modifier in the range of 5-50 wt% overlaps with the claimed range of 1-20 wt.% in claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reference claim 1 teaches that the polymer composition comprises a tensile strength retention after heat aging of at least 80% (last 2 lines of reference claim 1), but is silent as to the flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution and the tensile strength retention after aging in an aqueous polyol solution.
However, the instant abstract attributes the improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention after aging in aqueous solutions to the specific combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and reference claim 1 teaches the claimed combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. In addition, Applicant has not provided evidence of a composition satisfying claim 1 that does not meet the claimed mechanical properties. One would therefore expect the polyamide of reference claim 1 to similarly contribute to improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention of the composition after aging, resulting in a composition with the claimed flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution and/or the strength retention after aging in an aqueous polyol solution (claims 1 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, reference claim 6 depends from reference claim 1 and teaches wherein the polyamide concentration is from 20 wt.% to 85 wt.%, overlapping with the claimed range of 5 wt.% to 80 wt.%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reference claims 7-9 depend from reference claim 1 and read on claims 9-10.
Reference claim 15 is an article comprising the composition of reference claim 1 and reads on claim 13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-12, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 12, and 14 of copending Application No. 17/998,013 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, and 15 are obvious over reference claims 1, 5, 12, and 14 in view of Van Den Poel (US 2020/0115551 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6-7 and 9-10, reference claim 1 teaches a polymer composition (PC) (ref claim 1, line 1) comprising: a polyamide (PA) (ref claim 1, line 2) and from 5 wt% to 70 wt.% of a reinforcing agent relative wherein the reinforcing agent is a glass fiber or a carbon fiber (claims 9-10).
The polyamide (PA) is derived from the polycondensation of monomers in a reaction mixture comprising (ref claim 1, lines 5-6) a diamine component (A) comprising: 20-95 mol% of 1,6-diaminohexane and 5- 80 mol% of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane which is 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane or 1,4-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (claim 3), wherein mol% is relative to the total moles of each diamine in the diamine component (ref claim 1, line 7-19). A range of 20-95 mol% overlaps with the claimed range of 60 mol% to 80 mol% and a range of 5-80 mol% overlaps with the claimed range of 20 mol% to 40 mol%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Reference claim 1 further teaches a dicarboxylic acid component (B) comprising: 30-99 mol% of terephthalic acid and 1-70 mol% of a 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, wherein mol% is relative to the total moles of each dicarboxylic acid in the dicarboxylic acid component (ref claim 1, lines 20-24).
Reference claim 1 further teaches wherein the polymer composition has a tensile strength retention of at least 85% after heat aging in an aqueous polyol solution (ref claim 1, last 3 lines) (claim 1).
Reference claim 1 does not teach a reactive impact modifier (IM).
However, Van Den Poel teaches heat and electrically resistive resin compositions comprising polyamides (Van Den Poel, abstract) and impact modifiers (Van Den Poel, [0099]). Van Den Poel teaches that impact modifiers improve the impact strength of the resin composition (Van Den Poel, [0104]) and exemplifies a maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin impact modifier. Van Den Poel further teaches that impact modifiers are present in an amount of 5-50 wt% (Van Den Poel, [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have combined the polymer composition of reference claim 1 with the maleic anhydride functionalized polyolefin impact modifier of Van Den Poel in order to improve the impact strength of the composition. A maleic anhydride functionalized impact modifier reads on the reactive impact modifier of claim 1 and claim 6. A concentration of reactive impact modifier in the range of 5-50 wt% overlaps with the claimed range of 1-20 wt.% in claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reference claim 5 depends from reference claim 1 and reads on claim 5.
Reference claim 12 depends from reference claim 1 and reads on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, reference claim 1 is silent as to the flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution.
However, the instant abstract attributes the improved flexural strength retention after aging in aqueous solutions to the specific combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and reference claim 1 teaches the claimed combination of the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane and the cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid. In addition, Applicant has not provided evidence of a composition satisfying claim 1 that does not meet the claimed mechanical properties. One would therefore expect the polyamide of reference claim 1 to similarly contribute to improved tensile strength retention and flexural strength retention of the composition after aging, resulting in a composition with the claimed flexural strength retention after aging in a brine solution and/or the strength retention after aging in an aqueous polyol solution.
Reference claim 14 is an article comprising the composition of reference claim 1 and reads on claim 15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDRA DESTEFANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
/AUDRA J DESTEFANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766