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 .
The 112b rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn, since claim 20 has been cancelled.
All 102 and 103 rejections from the previous action have been withdrawn in view of applicants amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4,6,7,9-11,17-19,22-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spies et al- WO 2020035455 in view of Nelliappan WO 2018187079 and in further view of Loy et al WO 2020096778.
The Spies et al reference discloses a thermoplastic molding material (page 3) comprising:
a) 38.8-98.8% bw of a polyamide, which preferred to be polyamide 6 (see page 6),
b) 0-50% bw of a polyethylene/olefin based elastomer (see bottom of page 6),
c) 0.2-50% bw of a copolyimide made from:
A') 15-84% bw of at least one lactam, caprolactam being especially preferred (page 13, line 18),
B') 16-85% bw of a monomer mixture: B1') at least one C32-40 dimer acid (Pripol 1013 page 17, line),
B2') at least one C4-12 diamine, preferably hexamethylene diamine (page 18 line 15), The specific amounts of each above can be 67% bw caprolactam, 5% bw of hexamethylene diamine, and 28% bw of C36 dimer acid, see page 26, line 41-PA6/6.36 copolymer.
Spies discloses the molded articles that can be made from the disclosed blend are fibers or films, see page 2 1st paragraph.
Spies lacks the disclosure of 1) the claimed termination/capping of the branched polyamide and 2) the claimed viscosity of the branched polyamide component.
Nelliappan discloses almost the exact same branched copolyamides, see formula of page 13 compared to the same of 0010 of the present specification, which contains amine end group concentration of 15-40 mmol/kg and a carboxyl end group conc of 15-40 mmol/kg, see 0014.
Hence, being made in same manner and having the same structure one skilled in art would have expected the end group concentrations to be same/similar based on the above similarities. Additionally, the reference teaches chain termination to cease/control the chain propagation which in turn controls the molecular wight (MWT), such as amine or carboxyl group containing compounds, see 0046, such as acetic acid and cyclohexylamine. Those compounds are generally mixed and are generally monofunctional, see 0047. The reference teaches that when the chain termination is done and controlled, it allows for MWT control, melt stability and viscosity control see 0007 (which would be expected by one skilled in the art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made, to include chain terminating agents to the branched polyamide of Spies, to increase the polymer melt stability and control the MWT, which in turn would allow control of the viscosity of the polyamide, as taught by Nelliappan.
Loy discloses making fiber products from polyamides, specifically polyamide-6 and it's well known variants. These fibers are produced by spinning, wherein Loy teaches the viscosity to be greater than 40, and preferably 40-90 FAV.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have controlled the FAV viscosity of the polyamides of Spies to be 40 or more, or preferably 40-90, who also suggests the making of polyamide fibers, since Loy teaches these values as ideal for a fiber spinning process.
With respect to claims 22-29, which each require a different property be a greater value when compared to the polyamide-6 and branched polyamide alone. It is the examiners position that since the modified Spies reference makes obvious applicants invention, that the proposed blends of Spies would inherently possess such improvements.
Applicants’ arguments
Applicants’ argue that Nellippan which contains termination of polyamides, results in a much higher viscosity which is fundamentally different from what is present in the independent claims of the present invention.
The examiner agrees that viscosity is much higher than what is claimed, but disagrees that it is “fundamentally different” from the claimed invention. Further, such difference does not undermine the the overall teaching of Nellippan, which is described above, i.e. chain termination is well known for branched polyamides, and allows for MWT control, in turn which allows for viscosity control. Nellippan teaches that the viscosity is a result effective variable that is easily manipulated and controlled.
This in turn leads us to the teachings of Loy, which is shows that the claimed viscosity in polyamides is well known, and generally applied during the fiber making process. Applicants argue that Loy is not applicable since it is to merely a linear polyamide 6 material. Although this is true, the examiner reminds applicants’ that claim 1 of the present invention can be 95 wt% of polyamide 6 and 5 wt% of the branched polyamide. Therefore, since the majority of applicants invention is polyamide 6, any teachings related to polyamide 6 compositions would applicable to the present invention. Such an argument is without merit.
The remainder of applicants’ arguments revolve around the overall combination suggested, and ho it would not be seen by one skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The examiner disagrees, since in the “big picture” look at the difference between the claimed invention and prior art above is 1) the chain termination and 2) viscosity control of a component via MWT. Both issues have been shown to be prima facie obvious, and would be considered routine by one of ordinary skilled in the art.
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 RANDY P GULAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1302. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4pm.
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 P 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.
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights