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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Groups II (claims 6-19) and III (claim 20) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2026.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaki et al (DE2831785B2, machine translation is referenced herein).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Isozaki teaches in Example 1 of a process of reacting 3 mol of dimeric fatty acid (molecular weight 700) with 2 mol of 1,4-diaminobutane (molecular weight 88) and 2 mol of dimethylaminopropylamine (molecular weight 102) to form a polyamide resin with a molecular weight of 2300, which contains a tertiary amino group at its end points; the resulting polyamide resin is further reacted with 2 mol of benzyl chloride (molecular weight 126.6) to form a polyamide resin having a quaternary ammonium salt residual content of 0.64/kg (1.6 per molecule) [0156].
The examiner submits that the above process is substantially identical to the method of making the claimed method of making a rheology modifier comprising a quaternary ammonium terminal polyamide recited in claims 6-9.
The dimeric acid with molecular weight 700 is a C44 dicarboxylic acid. However, Isozaki teaches that adipic acid and sebacic acid are equivalent to the dimeric acid [0080]. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Isozaki recognized f adipic acid and sebacic acid are equivalent to the dimeric acid for the same purpose in forming the polyamide, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute the dimeric acid with adipic acid or sebacic acid in Isozaki’s Example 1. Adipic acid (C6 dicarboxylic acid) and sebacic acid (C10 dicarboxylic acid) meet the claimed dicarboxylic acid having 4 to 36 carbon atoms (claim 7).
1,4-Diaminobutane (C4 diamine) reads on the claimed diamine having 2 to 34 carbon atoms (claims 7-8).
Dimethylaminopropylamine (C5 tertiary amine) reads on the claimed tertiary amine of dimethylaminoalkylamine having 2 to 12 carbon atoms (claim 7).
Benzyl chloride (C7 alkyl halide) reads on the claimed quaternary agent selected from the group consisting of an alkyl halide having 1 to 18 carbon atoms (claim 9).
Therefore, the resulting product must read on the claimed quaternary ammonium containing polyamide [B] having Formula (1).
A quaternary ammonium salt residual content of 1.6 per molecule means a portion of the terminal in the polyamide is not quaternary ammonium salt, or the polyamide resin comprises a mixture comprising a polyamide having quaternary ammonium salt at both terminals and a polyamide not having quaternary ammonium salt at both terminals, because theoretical quaternary ammonium salt content should be 2.0 per molecule in Formula (1). The polyamide having quaternary ammonium salt at both terminals reads on the claimed quaternary ammonium containing polyamide [B]. The polyamide not having quaternary ammonium salt at both terminals differs from the polyamide [B] and thus reads on the claimed polyamide wax [A] in claims 2 and 4.
The recited “rheology modifier” is a statement of intended use that imparts no additional structure beyond the claimed product and needs not be taught by the prior art to read on the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02(III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claims 3 and 5 are directed to a rheology modifier having a composition comprising a quaternary ammonium containing polyamide [B] having Formula (1) and an amide wax or a polyamide wax [A], wherein the amide wax or the polyamide wax [A] has Formula (2).
There is no prior art that teaches or makes obvious the aforementioned limitations as claimed.
The closest prior art is the disclosure of Isosaki et al (DE2831785B2). Isosaki teaches the quaternary ammonium containing polyamide [B] having Formula (1) and an amide wax or a polyamide wax [A], but does not teach that the amide wax or the polyamide wax [A] has Formula (2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights