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
Applicant's election with traverse of the process species per claim 30 in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a lack of unity requirement was not required in the PCT proceeding and claims 30 and 31 are variants of each other. This is not found persuasive because the actions in the PCT do not dictate the US proceedings and claims 30 and 31 differ in that the former requires the introduction of a comonomeric mixture into the extruder whereas the latter requires the introduction of a polymer and a monomer. Moreover, applicants have not submitted evidence or identified such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admitted on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 29 and 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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
Claim 30 is 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.
In claim 30, step (a), there is no express antecedent basis for the diamine (I), diacid (II) and comonomer (III).
In claim 30, step (c), it is unclear whether “the material conveyed by the conveying screws” refers to the comonomer mixture being polycondensed.
In claim 30, step (d), it is unclear whether the plug is made from the polycondensed material per step (c).
In claim 30, it is unclear how the narrower recitation “notably to monomer vapors which may be generated” further limits the antecedently-recited broader recitation of “vapors”.
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 WO 2020/201327 (Jeol).
Jeol discloses a polyamide powder comprising recurring units X, Y and Z represented by formula (1) for producing 3D printed objects
PNG
media_image1.png
145
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein unit X is formed from 1,4-aminomethylcyclohexanecarboxylic acid (1,4-AMCC) (meets Applicants’ q unit wherein G is a cyclic alkylene), unit Y can be formed from an aromatic diamine [0033] and a C4-13 dicarboxylic acid [0031] (meets Applicants’ n unit), unit Z is formed from an aminocarboxylic acid (also meets Applicants’ q unit wherein G is an acyclic alkylene), nx ranges from 10 to 90 mol%, ny ranges from 0 to 90 mol% and nz ranges from 0 to 90 mol% and nx+ny+nz ≤ 100 mol% (e.g., abstract, [0002], [0037-0038], examples, claims). Notably, the polyamide may be in powder form and used in the production of 3D printed objects [0078-0081].
In essence, Jeol differs from claim 19, in not expressly setting forth a working example of a polyamide containing a unit Y formed from an aromatic diamine. Notably, Jeol’s polyamides per examples E4 and E5 [0096] contain 40% of unit X formed from 1,4-AMCC and 60% of a unit Y formed from a C6 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid (adipic acid) and an aliphatic diamine (hexamethylenediamine or dodecamethylenediamine) rather than an aromatic diamine. To the extent Jeol clearly discloses [0033-0033] aromatic diamines, such as m-phenylene diamine, as functional diamine alternatives to the exemplified aliphatic diamines hexamethylenediamine or dodecamethylenediamine, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to instead use an aromatic diamine in the production of Jeol’s Examples E4 and E5. The modified polyamide would have the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
145
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein unit X is formed from 1,4-AMCC (meets Applicants’ q unit wherein G is a cyclic alkylene), unit Y is formed from m-phenylene diamine and adipic acid (meets Applicants’ n unit wherein x is 0, R1-R4 are each H and L is -(CH2)s when s is 0), nx = 0.4, ny = 0.6, nz = 0 and nx+ny+nz =1 (meets Applicants’ n+p+q contents). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297. Notably, Jeol’s polyamide comprising units X, Y and optionally Z meets Applicants polyamide wherein p = 0 and q ≠ 0 and n ≥ 0.1.
As to claim 20, Jeol’s above-described polyamide is prepared from m-phenylene (meets Applicants’ diamine (I) wherein x = 0, R1-R4 are each H and L is –(CH2)0), adipic acid (meets Applicants’ diacid (II) wherein y is 4) and 1,4-AMCC (meets Applicants’ aminoacid (III)).
As to claim 21, Jeol’s above-described polyamide is prepared from m-phenylene diamine.
As to claim 22, Jeol’s above-described polyamide is prepared from adipic acid.
As to claim 23, Jeol’s above-described polyamide includes from 40 mol% 1,4-AMCC.
As to claim 24, Jeol’s above-described polyamide includes unit X derived from the aminoacid 1,4-AMCC.
As to claim 25, Jeol’s polyamide preferably has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 5,000 to 20,000 g/mol [0026]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to prepare a polyamide having a Mn or at least 10,000 g/mol for its expected additive effect.
As to claim 26, Jeol does not require the presence of a filler.
As to claim 27, Jeol discloses the optional use of additives such as plasticizers, colorants, etc. [0063].
As to claim 28, Jeol’s polyamides are prepared by polycondensing the respective monomers [0045].
As to claim 32, Jeol provides for the production of 3D printed objects from the polyamide powder [0078-0081].
As to claims 33 and 34, to the extent Jeol discloses the production of similarly-constituted polyamides, it would be expected that such would be governed by the same properties.
As to claims 35 and 36, Jeol discloses the production of 3D printed objects via additive manufacturing processes [0078-0081] such as 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 Jeol’s 3D objects from any conventional additive manufacturing process inclusive of that presently claimed.
As to claim 37, Jeol’s above-described polyamides may further contain a unit Z derived from an aminocarboxylic acid having at least 7 carbon atoms, such as 11-aminoundecanoic acid and 13-aminotridecanoic acid [0036] for their expected additive effect.
Process claim 30 has not been included in this rejection because Jeol provides no disclosure or motivation to form a plug.
Conclusion
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