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 Status
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Nakai et al (WO 2020/085360 A1; references are directed to the US equivalent publication US 20220033584 A1).
Nakai et al discloses a method of manufacturing a flexible polyamide comprising reacting an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid (A1) having 18 or more carbon atoms, an aliphatic diamine (B1) having 18 or more carbon atoms, a dicarboxylic acid (A2) having 12 or less carbon atoms, and a diamine (B2) having 12 or less carbon atoms [p. 0011-0018, 0023].
Nakai et al. fails to disclose a method of polymerizing (A1), (B1) and a reaction product of (A2) and (B2). Rather, Nakai et al exemplifies a method of simultaneous polymerizing components (A1), (B1), (A2), and (B2) [p. 0090-0091], which represents a change in sequence of adding ingredients and reaction steps to achieve the polyamide. Turning to the general teachings, Nakai et al discloses that the method for producing the polyamide is not particularly limited [p. 0047]. In light of this, it has been found that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a polyamide by a polymerizing (A1), (B1) and a reaction product of (A2) and (B2), as taught by Nakai.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Nakai et al (WO 2020/085360 A1; references are directed to the US equivelant publication US 20220033584 A1) is the closest prior art of record.
The primary reason for allowance is that applicants’ comparative examples 1 and 2 show that the polyamides prepared in the manner of Nakai et al do not meet the claimed crystalline melting enthalpy or elongation recovery rate, despite having a nearly identical composition [Nakai et al examples 1 and 5]. These unexpected results result from the applicants exemplified two-step method of preparing the polyamide by polymerizing: (1) a reaction product of component (A) and the component (B), with (2) a reaction product of component (C) and component (D). Similar processes are known in the art, see Hoekstra (US 2017/0152382 A1), however, the examiner has not located any prior art, alone or in combination, that would teach or suggest that the composition of Nakai et al would meet the claimed property limitations if prepared in a two-step manner.
Hoekstra (US 2017/0152382 A1) et al teaches a process for the preparation of semi-crystalline semi-aromatic polyamide from a semi-aromatic polyamide (A) and polyamide (B) [p. 0001]. Hoekstra teaches polyamide (A) and polyamide (B) are produced at relative low temperature, and said components polyamide (A) and polyamide (B) are exposed to a high temperature only for a short time during the melt mixing step. Even though polyamide (A) has a melting temperature even higher than that of the resulting Co-PA, its preparation is carried out at a temperature far below the melting temperature of the Co-PA, in a direct solid-state process, thereby significantly reducing the possible occurrence of side reactions. The absence of aliphatic dicarboxylic acids, or essentially so, during the preparation of polyamide (A) allows the use of relative high reaction temperatures, still below the melting temperature of the salt, meanwhile still achieving a relative high reaction rate and relative short reaction times. Polyamide (B) has a melting temperature, or glass transition temperature, that is lower than that of the resulting Co-PA, and therefore can be obtained from any suitable polymerization process, such as a melt polymerization process or a solution process, or a combination thereof, or even a direct solid state polymerization process carried out at more moderate process conditions. The high melting temperature of polyamide (A) and the consequent high temperature at which the melt-mixing in step (c) is done, results in a relatively short reaction times for the transamidation [p. 0009]. Hoekstra teaches that, overall, less side reactions occur and the risk of gelation is reduced in each of the individual steps as well as in the overall process. Hoekstra further teaches the effects of the process are that a copolyamide with a high melting temperature is obtained in an efficient manner, with reduced problems of sticking or even preventing sticking, compared to processes wherein the corresponding copolyamide is prepared starting from all the monomers combined in a single mixture, the occurrence of side reactions is limited and the copolyamide can be obtained with a high molecular weight with a reduced risk of gelation [p. 0008]. Hoekstra is silent with respect to process having effects on the crystalline melting enthalpy and elongation recovery rate.
Furthermore, Rulkens et al (US 2017/0298181 A1) teaches a method of preparing alternating copolyamides, wherein the alternating copolyamides have a melting temperature of at least 15° C above the melting point of the statistical copolymer and a melt enthalpy of at least 10 J/g higher than melt enthalpy value of the statistical copolymer. However, Rulkens et al is silent with respect to elongation recovery rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM.
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.
/HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766