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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claims 1 and 12, “part” should read “parts.”
In line 1 of claim 6, “having” should read “has.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10, and 12-20 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 8 recites the limitation "elastomer concentrate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 1, but claim 1 does not recite an elastomer concentrate.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the limitation "elastomeric aliphatic polyether diamine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 10 depends from claim 1, but claim 1 does not recite an elastomeric aliphatic polyether diamine. Claim 19 depends from claim 12, but claim 12 does not recite an elastomeric aliphatic polyether diamine. For the purposes of examination, the elastomeric aliphatic polyether diamine is interpreted as the polyether amine.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the water" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that because claims 13-20 ultimately or directly depend from claim 12, they are rejected along with claim 12 because they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 12, including those that are indefinite.
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 9 and 18 are 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 9 depends from claim 1 and contains the limitation “the phosphorous containing catalyst is phosphoric acid, phosphorous acid, hypo-phosphorous acid, phenylphosphonic acid, phenylphosphinic acid and/or salts thereof.” This limitation does not require all of the limitations of claim 1 because claim 1 requires that the catalyst has “a phosphorous level of 5 to 1000 ppm based on the total weight of the catalyst,” but the catalysts recited in claim 9 have higher phosphorous levels. For example, hypo-phosphorous acid has 1 atom of phosphorous and a molecular weight of about 66 g/mol, so phosphorous is present in an amount of about 23 wt.% or 230,000 ppm based on the weight of the catalyst.
Similarly, claim 18 depends from claim 12, but requires that the catalyst is “a hypo-phosphorous acid and salts thereof.” Claim 12 requires that the catalyst has “a phosphorous level of 5 to 1000 ppm based on the total weight of the catalyst,” but hypo-phosphorous acid and salts thereof have a higher content of phosphorous than 1000 ppm (~230,000 ppm for hypo-phosphorous acid).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 11 are allowed. Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 8-10 and 13-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As of the date of this office action, no prior art references, whether considered individually or in combination have been identified to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103. In particular, the examiner is not aware of a method of making a polyamide elastomer than makes use of a phosphorous containing catalyst having a phosphorous level from 5 to 1000 part by million based on the total weight of the catalyst.
The closest prior art of record is Langrick (US-2017/0283557-A1).
Langrick teaches a method of producing a polyamide that addresses the problem of severe foaming by delaying the polyether amine introduction into the polymerization process until the water content is reduced ([0008]). While not explicitly elastomers, the polyamides of Langrick have polyamide and polyetheramine components and would therefore be expected to function as elastomers (see [0002] of instant specification). The method comprises (a) heating an aqueous solution of diacid and diamine to convert at least a portion of the diacid and diamine to polyamide and (b) removing water from the aqueous solution to at least partially concentrate the solution, followed by (c) adding polyetheramine and (d) heating the solution to further polymerize the diacid, diamine, and polyetheramine ([0005]). The polymerization process is performed in an autoclave vessel ([0029] and [0055]). Langrick teaches that the aqueous solution can further comprise a catalyst ([0005]) and exemplifies adding the salt, water, and catalyst to the autoclave ([0108]). The catalysts suggested by Langrick include phosphoric acid, phosphorous acid, and hypo-phosphorous acid ([0044]), reading on phosphorous containing catalysts. After the polyetheramine is added to the autoclave vessel, Langrick teaches heating the autoclave to about 245 °C and reducing the pressure to atmospheric pressure ([0056]).
Langrick is silent as to the order of mixing the components of the aqueous solution and does not explicitly teach that the catalyst is added to the reactor before the salt solution. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used any order of mixing, including placing the catalyst in the reactor prior to adding the salt solution of the diacid, diamine, and water, in order to arrive at Langrick’s teaching an aqueous solution comprising a catalyst in an autoclave. Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. Langrick therefore teaches feeding a salt solution (aqueous solution of diacid and diamine) to a reactor (autoclave) having a phosphorous containing catalyst.
With respect to claim 12, Langrick teaches feeding a salt solution to a reactor having a phosphorous containing catalyst. Step (b) reads on reducing the water content in the reactor. Step (c) reads on feeding a polyether amine to the reactor after the water content is reduced. Step (d) reads on polymerizing the salt solution and the polyether amine at a temperature of 245 °C under a reduced pressure of atmospheric pressure (claim 13) to form the polyamide elastomer.
With respect to claim 1, Langrick further teaches an evaporative stage that can be done in a separate vessel to increase the concentration of the salt solution from about 50% to about 85% ([0029]). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have increased the concentration of the salt solution of diacid, diamine, and water to a solids content of 85 wt.% prior to adding the salt solution to the autoclave. Langrick therefore teaches a method comprising feeding a salt solution having a solids content of 85% (claim 6) to a reactor having a phosphorous containing catalyst; feeding a polyether amine to the reactor (step (c)); and reducing the pressure in the reactor once a target temperature (245 °C) (claim 2) is reached to polymerize the salt solution and the polyether amine to form the polyamide elastomer (step (d)). The reduced pressure is atmospheric pressure (claim 3).
Langrick teaches that the polyetheramine is a polyether diamine (claims 11 and 20) ([0038]). The polyether diamine exemplified in [0038] has 100% primary amines and therefore reads on claim 10, but not the 70% primary amines of claim 19. The diacids of Langrick include adipic acid and dodecandioic acid and the diamines of Langrick include hexamethylene diamine ([0030]) (relevant to claims 7-8 and 17).
With respect to water content reduction, the polyetheramine is most preferably added when the water content in the reaction mixture is less than 7% water ([0055]). At the beginning of the previous reaction stage (C3), the water content is typically 20% ([0055]). A reduction from 20 wt.% water to 7 wt.% water is a reduction of about 65 wt.% (claim 16).
Langrick teaches specific catalysts such as phosphoric acid, phosphorous acid, hypo-phosphorous acid, and salts thereof ([0044]) (claim 9) that are also suggested by the instant specification in [0069]. The content of 10 ppm to 1,000 ppm by weight of catalyst in the composition taught by Langrick ([0044]) corresponds to 0.001-0.1 wt.%. This range overlaps with the range of 0.005-2.5 wt.% suggested by the instant specification in [0069]. While Langrick does not anticipate the combination of a hypophosphoric acid and salts thereof required by claim 18, it would have been obvious to use any mixture of catalysts taught by Langrick, including a combination of a hypophosphoric acid and salts thereof because Langrick teaches these catalysts and teaches mixtures of catalysts.
Instant claims 1 and 12 are not obvious over Langrick because Langrick does not teach a phosphorous containing catalyst having a phosphorous level from 5 to 1000 part by million based on the total weight of the catalyst. The phosphorous containing catalysts taught by Langrick have much higher phosphorous levels than recited in the instant claims. For example, hypo-phosphorous acid has 1 atom of phosphorous and a molecular weight of about 66 g/mol, so phosphorous is present in an amount of about 23 wt.% or 230,000 ppm based on the weight of the catalyst.
Claims 1 and 12 are free of prior art. Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and are therefore also free of prior art. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12 and are therefore also free of prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDRA DESTEFANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/AUDRA J DESTEFANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766