DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13, 17 and 25-29 are pending as amended on 8/24/2026. Claims 2, 4-12 and 25-29 stand withdrawn from consideration.
The modified grounds of rejection set forth below were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims. Therefore, this action is properly made final.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has been amended to delete formulas for structures IIa, IIb, IId, IIe, IIf and IIg. However, the definitions of several of the variables contained within the deleted structures have not been deleted from the claims. Claim 1 should be amended to delete the definitions of a, b, d, e, w, x, y, z, R1, R2, R3 and R13. Claim 13 should be amended to delete the definitions of R1 and R2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linemann (US 6680364).
As to claims 1 and 3, Linemann discloses an unsaturated water dispersible polyamide (UWDPA) having an Mn of 1000 to 10,000 g/mol (col 1, lines 62-67). Considering the low molecular weight, Linemann’s polyamide is considered an oligomer.
Linemann discloses a method of obtaining a UWDPA by reacting dicarboxylic acids (C and D) and diamines (B) in a 1:1 ratio in the presence of an ethylenic acid (a compound (E), see col 2, lines 20-23) to provide a UWDPA having one chain end which carries an unsaturated group from the acid (col 2, lines 24-32), adding a diamine to react with the other chain end of the UWDPA and give amine-containing termination (col 2, lines 34-36), and then reacting with one equivalent of ethylenic acid to amidify the -NH2 of the UWDPA and form a polyamide carrying two double bonds, one at each end of the chain (col 2, lines 37-41).
Linemann discloses suitable unsaturated compounds E which are able to introduce the unsaturated group at the polyamide chain end in col 4, lines 13-20, including acrylic and methacrylic acid. Terminal groups derived from reaction of either acrylic or methacrylic acid reacted with -NH2 groups on polyamide chain ends provides (meth)acrylamide-containing terminal moieties. See structure III in col 2, lines 40-41. Linemann discloses suitable diamine monomers B in col 3, lines 23-40. Linemann teaches that it is possible to use diamines such as Jeffamine D400 and Jeffamine D2000, and that their polyether chains increase the hydrophilicity of the resin (col 3, lines 31-36).
Arriving at an oligomer as presently recited (which comprises at least one polyamide block and at least one non-polyamide block; see “i” of instant claim 1) from Linemann’s disclosure requires utilizing a mixture of Linemann’s diamines (B) which includes Jeffamine D400 or D2000 (providing a polyether segment corresponding to at least one “non-polyamide” block, as presently recited) in combination with one or more of Linemann’s preferred diamines (see col 3, lines 37-40). The preferred diamine monomer(s), upon reaction with Linemann’s diacid monomers (C) and/or (D), provide at least one “polyamide block” as presently recited. (Note that the present claims are not limited in terms of each block length or number of each of the types of blocks in the oligomer.)
When preparing a polyamide having unsaturated groups at each end by reacting dicarboxylic acid and diamine monomers and acrylic or methacrylic acid as a terminator, as taught by Linemann, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized any suitable combination of diamine monomers named by Linemann, including a preferred named diamine in combination with Jeffamine D400 or D2000, in order to provide a polyamide have a desired content of polyether chains and a desired corresponding degree of hydrophilicity, thereby arriving at a (meth)acrylamide functionalized polyamide oligomer to instant (i) recited in claim 1. Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Linemann suggests an oligomer according to instant claims 13 and 17 for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Instant claims 13 and 17 further limit the definitions of some of the variables in formula IIc, however, the claims are not limited to an oligomer according to formula IIc. An oligomer according to “i.” recited in claim 1 remains encompassed by the dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (p 7) that the cited prior art no longer discloses or suggests an oligomer according to formula IIc in view of the amendments to claim 1 requiring R6 to be a divalent alkylene ether moiety, and requiring Rb (through which the terminal (meth)acryloyl groups are connected to the oligomer) to be a residue of an aromatic or cycloaliphatic diisocyanate. The examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previously set forth rejections, and the examiner is unaware of prior art which discloses or suggests an oligomer according to instant formula IIc, as recited in amended claim 1. As argued by Applicant, formula IIc now requires an oligomer backbone wherein every diamine residue (i.e., R6) within the repeating unit subscripted “c” is a divalent alkylene ether moiety. The claim further requires the residues Rb linking the oligomer backbone to the terminal (meth)acryloyl groups on each end to be cycloaliphatic or aromatic (Rb is defined as a residue of a diisocyanate, but the same divalent cycloaliphatic or aromatic residue structure within the final oligomer product could alternatively be provided by a diamine).
As set forth in the rejection above, Linemann discloses a diamine which provides a divalent alkylene ether moiety (Jeffamine). Linemann further discloses diamines which have a cycloaliphatic or aromatic residue (e.g., diaminocyclohexane, xyxlyenediamine; col 3, lines 23-30). While it is considered obvious to utilize a combination of diamine monomers when producing Linemann’s polyamide (as set forth in the rejection above), Linemann does not disclose or fairly suggest a process wherein only one diamine (Jeffamine) is used to form a polyamide backbone, and a different diamine (e.g., cyclohexanediamine or xylylenediamine) is used to link unsaturated groups to the polyamide chain ends. However, while embodiment “ii” recited in claim 1 is free of prior art, claim 1 also encompasses the alternative embodiment “i.” This embodiment is not free of prior art, for the reasons set forth in the rejection above.
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 RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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.
/RACHEL KAHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights