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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 29 and 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 30 and 37 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.
Claim 30 is indefinite for depending upon claim 20. That is, claim 30 depends from claim 28 (line 1) which in turn depends from claim 19, not claim 20.
In claim 30, step (a), there is no express antecedent basis for the diamine (I), diacid (II) and comonomer (III).
Claim 37 is indefinite for reciting cyclic diamines which are outside the J-containing diamine per claim 19.
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.
Claims 19-28 and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0347915 (Oda) in view of US 2020/0010627 (Gramlich).
Oda discloses [0015] a granulated (powder form) polyamide comprising an aromatic diamine unit of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
65
139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a linear aliphatic dicarboxylic acid unit of formula
PNG
media_image2.png
40
105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and an aromatic dicarboxylic acid unit of formula
PNG
media_image3.png
41
86
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Oda’s granulated polyamides preferably have a particle size of 2 to 8 mm [0096].
In Example 6 (Table 1), Oda expressly sets forth polyamide granules having a particle size of 3 mm comprising units from metaxylene diamine (100 mol%), adipic acid (94 mol%) and isophthalic acid (6 mol%), which polyamide would have the structural units
PNG
media_image1.png
65
139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
41
86
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
65
139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
40
105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(meets Applicants’ PA formula wherein J is based on metaxylene diamine, E is based on isophthalic acid and/or adipic acid, L is a -(CH2)- moiety, R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each H, x is 0, y is 6, q is 0 and p + n = 1) . Notably, Oda’s Example 6 does not comprise a filler component (meets Applicants’ 0 wt.% filler embodiment).
In essence, Oda differs from claims 19 and 26 in not expressly disclosing that the granulated polyamide is 3D printable. In this regard, Oda states that the polyamide granules can be used to form coating films [0140]. Thus, given that Oda’s exemplified polyamide granules appear to be structurally the same as the presently claimed polyamide powder and are also useful for forming coatings, it would be expected that the former would also be capable of being 3D printable. This is particularly so given that it is known that polyamide powders having a similar particle size are used in selective laser sintering, per Gramlich (e.g., abstract, [0015])
As to claims 20-22 and 24, Oda’s exemplified polyamide is prepared from metaxylene diamine (meets Applicants’ diamine (I) wherein L is a -(CH2)- moiety, x is 0, and R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each H), adipic acid (meets Applicants’ diacid (II) wherein y is 6) and the aromatic diacid (III) isophthalic acid.
As to claim 23, Oda’s exemplified polyamide is prepared from 6 mol% isophthalic acid.
As to claim 25, Oda discloses the polyamide granules have a number average molecular weight (Mn)of from 2,000 to 13,000 [0015]. Thus, it would have been within the purview of Oda’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to prepare a granulated polyamide having a Mn of at least 10,000 with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 27, it is within the purview of Oda’s inventive disclosure [0113] to further include an additive, such as a stabilizer for its expected additive effect.
As to claim 28, Oda’s granulated polyamide is obtained by polycondensation [0066] .
As to claim 32, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to produce 3D printed articles from Oda’s polyamide granules as per Gramlich with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 33 and 34, to the extent Oda discloses the production of similarly-constituted polyamides, it would be expected that 3D printed articles produced therefrom, per Gramlich, would be governed by similar properties.
As to claims 35 and 36, Gramlich discloses the production of 3D printed articles via selective laser sintering, which is a type of powder bed fusion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to prepare Oda’s 3D articles from a powder bed fusion process with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 37, it is within Oda’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to formulate polyamides further containing a unit from another diamine [0040] (inclusive of those presently claimed), another dicarboxylic acid [0041] ] (inclusive of those presently claimed), or a lactam [0041] (which hydrolyzes into the amino acids presently claimed) with the reasonable expectation of success.
Process claim 30 has not been included in this rejection because Oda provides no disclosure or motivation to form a plug.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over WO 2020/201327 (Jeol). Claim 19 has been amended to recite that the structural units q and p no longer comprise cyclic alkylene. In contradistinction, Jeol requires a cyclic alkylene structural unit.
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 Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights