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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 5/20/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 5/20/2026. In particular, claim 7 has been amended to limit the thermoplastic resin, and claims 15-18 are new. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claims 16 and 17 limit the amount of thermoplastic resin to 8 and 20 parts by mass with no lower limit, which is outside the scope of independent claim 1 that requires up to 100 parts by mass of the thermoplastic resin. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 7 requires that the thermoplastic resin (B) “is a copolymer of ethylene and an α-olefin and/or a copolymer of ethylene and an unsaturated carboxylic acid ester.” Independent claims 15 and 18 do not limit the thermoplastic resin (B) in the same way but rather only by it “having a reactive functional group.” Because not necessarily each polymer chain of the thermoplastic resin (B) is required to be modified with a reactive functional group for claims 15 and 18 (and present claims dependent therefrom), a thermoplastic resin including a blend containing a thermoplastic resin modified with a reactive functional group meets the thermoplastic resin (B) of claims 15 and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 7-9, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (CN 111925649, cited on IDS dated 1/28/2025) in view of evidence provided by Toriumi (US 7,358,289).
With respect to claims 7-9 and 15, Yu discloses a nylon composition comprising 40-70 parts by weight (pbw) of nylon, 0.1-0.6 lubricant, and 1-6 pbw compatibilizer. Example 1 includes nylon, a lubricant Evonik’s 6441P (siloxane compound identical to that exemplified in the specification as originally filed on page 28, compound (C-1) and therefore reads on claimed formula (1)) (paragraph 0043), and compatibilizer Sumitomo’s CG 5001 (paragraph 0044). From the original text, Table 1 on page 6, specifies that Example 1 includes 50 pbw nylon (A+B), 0.5 pbw lubricant (润滑剂), and 1 pbw compatibilizer (相容剂)—which is converted to 100 pbw nylon, 1 pbw lubricant, and 2 pbw compatibilizer. While Yu does not disclose that Sumitomo’s CG 5001 is a copolymer of ethylene and an unsaturated carboxylic acid ester, Toriumi provides evidence that Sumitomo’s CG5001 is an ethylene-glycidyl (meth)acrylate copolymer (col. 13, lines 60-62), i.e., a copolymer of ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester that has an epoxy functional group.
With respect to claim 11, Yu teaches molding the composition into an article (paragraph 0127).
With respect to claim 12, the composition is capable of being formed into a weld part because is the composition is a thermoplastic and can be remelted to form a weld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 111925649, cited on IDS dated 1/28/2025) in view of evidence provided by Toriumi (US 7,358,289) and further in view of Lee (US 6,733,854).
The discussion with respect to Yu and Toriumi in paragraph 7above is incorporated here by reference.
Yu discloses a nylon composition (abstract) and teaches adding compatible additives (paragraph 0034) however it fails to disclose the addition of a sulfonamide-based compound.
Lee discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising a “nylon plasticizer” added in an amount of about 0.1-20 wt % (abstract). Lee teaches that the nylon plasticizer is used to provide flexibility and includes sulfonamides such as ethyl toluene sulfonamide which reads on formula (2) when R’ is methyl (C1) and R is ethyl (C2) (col. 4, lines 49-53). In Table 1, sulfonamide nylon plasticizer is added in an amount of 0.8-13 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight nylon 6.
Given that both Yuand Lee are drawn to nylon molding compositions and further given that Lee teaches that nylon plasticizer is used to improve flexibility, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add that is ethyl toluene sulfonamide in an amount like claimed. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 111925649, cited on IDS dated 1/28/2025) in view of evidence provided by Toriumi (US 7,358,289) and further in view of Lee (US 6,733,854) and Commandeur (US 4,996,360).
Yu discloses a nylon composition comprising 40-70 parts by weight (pbw) of nylon, 0.1-0.6 lubricant, and 1-6 pbw compatibilizer. Example 1 includes nylon, a lubricant Evonik’s 6441P (siloxane compound identical to that exemplified in the specification as originally filed on page 28, compound (C-1) and therefore reads on claimed formula (1)) (paragraph 0043), and compatibilizer Sumitomo’s CG 5001 (paragraph 0044). From the original text, Table 1 on page 6, specifies that Example 1 includes 50 pbw nylon (A+B), 0.5 pbw lubricant, and 1 pbw compatibilizer—which is converted to 100 pbw nylon, 1 pbw lubricant (润滑剂), and 2 pbw compatibilizer (相容剂). While Yu does not disclose that Sumitomo’s CG 5001 is a copolymer of ethylene and an unsaturated carboxylic acid ester, Toriumi provides evidence that Sumitomo’s CG5001 is an ethylene-glycidyl (meth)acrylate copolymer (col. 13, lines 60-62), i.e., a copolymer of ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester that has an epoxy functional group.
Yu discloses a nylon composition (abstract) and teaches adding compatible additives (paragraph 0034) however it fails to disclose the addition of a sulfonamide-based compound.
Lee discloses a polyamide resin composition comprising a “nylon plasticizer” added in an amount of about 0.1-20 wt % (abstract). Lee teaches that the nylon plasticizer is used to provide flexibility and includes sulfonamides such as ethyl toluene sulfonamide. While Lee does not specifically disclose N-(n-butyl)benzenesulfonamide), Commandeur teaches that arylsulfonyl(alkyl)amides, specifically N-(n-butyl)benzenesulfonamide) is a heat stable plasticizer used in nylon-based compositions (abstract).
Given that Yu, Lee, and Commandeur are all drawn to nylon compositions and further given that Lee teaches that nylon plasticizer is used to improve flexibility, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a sulfonamide plasticizer such as well known N-(n-butyl)benzenesulfonamide) as taught by Commandeur in an amount like claimed. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Claims 7-9, 11, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervasi (US 5,939,512) in view of Yu (CN 111925649, cited on IDS dated 1/28/2025).
With respect to claims 7-9 and 15-17, Gervasi discloses a composition comprising a nylon and 5-25 wt % of a polyolefinic modifier (abstract; col. 18, lines 24-30), wherein the polyolefinic modifier is a blend of 25-75 wt % polypropylene and 25-75 wt % maleic-anhydride modified ethylene-butene copolymer (col. 3, lines 10-21), e.g., PLEXAR (col. 3, lines 37-40). Example 10 in Table 4A (col. 8, lines 35-45) includes 68.1 parts by weight (pbw) polyamide nylon, 7.3 pbw second polyamide, 6 pbw, 18 pbw PLEXAR (claimed thermoplastic resin), which provides for an amount of thermoplastic resin (B) of 24 phr (parts per hundred parts nylon) (applies to the amount of (B) present in independent claim 15) and an amount of maleic-anhydride modified ethylene-butene copolymer of 6-18 phr (based on range 25-75 wt % maleic-anhydride modified ethylene-butene copolymer in the polyolefinic modifier (applies amount of (B) present in independent claim 7).
Gervasi teaches adding a lubricant (col. 2, lines 28-31) but fails to disclose an organic-modified siloxane terminated with hydroxylalkyl groups at both ends.
Yu discloses a nylon composition comprising 40-70 parts by weight (pbw) nylon and 0.1-0.6 lubricant. Example 1 includes nylon and lubricant Evonik’s 6441P (siloxane compound identical to that exemplified in the specification as originally filed on page 28, compound (C-1) and therefore reads on claimed formula (1)) (paragraph 0043). From the original text, Table 1 on page 6, specifies that Example 1 includes 50 pbw nylon (A+B) and 0.5 pbw lubricant (润滑剂)—which is converted to 100 pbw nylon and 1 pbw lubricant.
Given that Gervasi is open to the use of a lubricant and further given that Yu teaches that a preferred lubricant is an organic-modified siloxane compound of claimed Formula (1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a polyamide composition comprising a polyamide, thermoplastic with a reactive functional group, and organic-modified siloxane compound within the claimed ranges. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
With respect to claim 11, Gervasi teaches that the composition is molded into samples (col. 8, lines 23-26).
With respect to claim 12, the thermoplastic composition taught by Gervasi and Yu is capable of being formed into a weld part because a thermoplastic necessarily can be remelted to form a weld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
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 VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights