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
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups have unity of invention because they are linked by common technical features. This is not found persuasive because, while the groups share common technical features, these features do not make a contribution over prior art, as set forth in the restriction requirement of March 6, 2026. “Where a group of inventions is claimed in an application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” 37 CFR 1.475(a).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “30 wt.% to 60 wt.%” in line 3. Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence or more. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken to read as “30 wt% to 60 wt%”.
Claim 4 recites “30 wt.% to 50 wt.%” in lines 2-3. Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence or more. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken to read as 30 wt% to 50 wt%”.
Claim 8 recites “30 wt.% to 40 wt.%” in line 2Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence or more. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken to read as “30 wt% to 40 wt%”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 8 in rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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. Claim 8 is directed toward a “terminated polyamide…comprising glass fibers.” Because glass fibers are part of a composition rather than the structure of the polyamide itself, claim 8 does not narrow the scope of the polyamide itself.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sudo et al (JP 2018/009157 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claims 1-2: Sudo teaches a terminated polyamide (para. 0008) with a weight average molecular weight of 20,000-40,000 (para. 0074-0075), wherein multiple working examples have a weight average molecular weight of 30,000 (Table 1, Ex. 1, 3-5, 8; Table 5, Ex. 36-38).
Although Sudo does not explicitly teach the formic acid viscosity of the polyamide, the formic acid viscosity depends on the molecular weight of the polyamide. The weight average molecular weight and polydispersity index (Mw/Mn) of the terminated nylon 6 taught by Sudo fall within the ranges of the instant invention (Table 1), indicating that the polyamide of Sudo is substantially similar to the instant invention. Therefore, the formic acid viscosity will also fall within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 3: Sudo teaches that the polyamide has carboxyl end groups (para. 0011). Sudo further teaches termination with formula (I) and formula (II) (para. 0009).
Referring to Equation 6 of the instant specification (para. 0027), the percentage of carboxyl end group termination is equal to ((Equilibrium COOH ends – Terminated COOH ends)/(Equilibrium COOH ends))*100. The equilibrium COOH ends is taken to be the sum of the terminated and non-terminated COOH ends of the polyamide.
In table 1, Sudo teaches a working example having a carboxy end content of 69 mol/t and a modified carboxy end content (modified with formula (I), Jeffamine M1000) of 41 mol/t (Table 1, example 4). Based on calculations, the percentage of carboxyl end group termination is 37wt%.
Regarding Claim 4: Sudo teaches that the polyamide has amine end groups (para. 0011). Sudo further teaches termination with formula (I) and formula (II) (para. 0009).
Referring to Equation 5 of the instant specification (para. 0027), the percentage of amine end group termination is equal to ((Equilibrium NH2 ends – Terminated NH2 ends)/(Equilibrium NH2 ends))*100. The equilibrium NH2 ends is taken to be the sum of the terminated and non-terminated NH2 ends of the polyamide.
In table 1, Sudo teaches a working example having a NH2 end content of 66 mol/t and a modified amine end content (modified with formula (II), benzoic acid) of 46 mol/t (Table 1, example 4). Based on calculations, the percentage of amine end group termination is 41wt%.
Regarding Claim 5: Sudo teaches a relative viscosity of 1.3-3 (para. 0012), with several working examples having a relative viscosity in the range of about 2-2.5 (Table 1, Ex. 3-4, 6-7).
Regarding Claim 6: Sudo does not explicitly teach the MFI of the polyamide. However, the MFI of a polymer is dependent on its molecular weight. The weight average molecular weight and polydispersity index (Mw/Mn) of the terminated nylon 6 taught by Sudo fall within the ranges of the instant invention (Table 1), indicating that the polyamide of Sudo is substantially similar to the instant invention. Therefore, the MFI will also fall within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 7: Sudo teaches multiple working examples having a Mw/Mn of 2.0 (Table 1, Ex. 1, 3-5, 8; Table 5, Ex. 36-38).
Regarding Claim 8: Sudo teaches a composition containing the terminated polyamide and 40-100 phr of glass fibers (para. 0114-0119). Sudo further teaches a working example containing 30wt% of a glass fiber (Table 5, Ex. 38; para. 0141, C-2 glass fiber).
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amici (US 2015/0045494 A1) teaches low-viscosity terminated polyamides.
Facinelli et al (US 2010/0227973 A1) teaches low-viscosity polyamides.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights