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 .
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-14, and 17-26 are pending as amended on July 24, 2026. Support for amended claims 1 and 12 is found [0007]. Support for amended claim 14 is found in [0080]. Claims 21-26 are new. Support for new claims 21-26 is found in [0135]; [0007]; [0078]; [0032]; [0028] and [0135]; and [0081], respectively.
Claims 2-3, 6, 11, and 15-16 are cancelled.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment removing the phosphorous level limitation and limiting the polyether amine content in the polyamide elastomer. Therefore, this action is properly made final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in the action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, with respect to the closest prior art of record (Langrick (US-2017/0283557-A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Langrick teaches at most 20 wt% of the polyether amine whereas amended claims 1 and 12 require greater than 20 wt% up to less than 80 wt%.
It is noted that the reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in the previous office action relied upon the phosphorous level limitation that has been removed from the amended claims. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pan (CN-109627435-A) and in view of Baumann (US 2003/0162899 A1).
Langrick is relied upon in the new rejections to suitable salt solution water contents. This teaching was not traversed in Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN-109627435-A, Cite No. 17 on 1/16/2024 IDS, English translation provided with this Office action).
Regarding claim 1, 5, 7, 9-10, and 22, Pan teaches a method of preparing a polyamide elastomer (page 2, lines 31-32). In example 4 (page 5, lines 26-35), Pan adds 779 g of hexamethylene diamine, 1233 g of adipic acid, 2000 g of amino terminated polyoxyethylene ether (Mn=1200), 400 g of distilled water, 50 g of sodium hypophosphite, and 32 g of biphenyltetracarboxylic acid to a polymerization vessel. The temperature is raised to 90 °C, then 190 °C, then 250 °C, and finally 270 °C. Then the reaction pressure is set to 100 Pa and the reaction is continued for 1 hour. The resulting polyamide elastomer has a melting point of 218 °C (Table 1, row 8).
Pan’s sodium hypophosphite reads on a phosphorous containing catalyst that is a salt of hypo-phosphorus acid (claim 9). The amino terminated polyoxyethylene ether is a diamine (page 3, lines 14-16), reading on the instant polyether amine containing 100% of primary amines (claim 10). The total mass of the monomers is about 4044 g (779+1233+2000+32=4044) and the polyamide elastomer therefore comprises about 49 wt.% (2000/4044=0.494) of the polyether amine (claim 22). The melting temperature of 218 °C satisfies claim 5. Pan’s teaching of increasing the temperature to 270 °C and then reacting at 100 Pa for 1 hour reads on reducing the pressure (100 Pa) in the reactor after a target temperature (270 °C) is reached to polymerize the salt solution and the polyether amine to form the polyamide elastomer.
Pan does not specify the order of mixing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have formed a mixture of hexamethylene diamine, adipic acid, polyether amine, water, sodium hypophosphite, and biphenyltetracarboxylic acid, as taught by Pan, by mixing Pan’s disclosed components together using any order of addition. Orders of addition include initially adding sodium hypophosphite to the reactor, followed by adding a mixture of hexamethylene diamine, adipic acid, biphenyltetracarboxylic acid, and water, and then finally adding the polyether amine. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing any order of mixing because the same desired combination of the components is ultimately obtained, and there is nothing of record to suggest that the order of mixing is critical to the process of preparing the mixture. Case law has established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facia obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP § 2144.04, IV. C.). A mixture of 779 g of hexamethylene diamine, 1233 g of adipic acid, 32 g of biphenyltetracarboxylic acid, and 400 g of distilled water has a solids content of about 84% ((779+1233+32)/(779+1233+32+400) = 2044/2444=0.836). The salt solution has about 50 wt.% (1233/2444=0.504) of a diacid having six carbon atoms (adipic acid) and about 32 wt.% (779/2444=0.319) of a diamine having six carbon atoms (hexamethylene diamine) (claim 7).
Regarding claim 4, Pan teaches the method of claim 1.
Pan does not anticipate the polyamide weight average molecular weight (Mw).
However, Pan teaches polyamide elastomers that would have a Mw range that overlaps with the claimed range of at least 12,000 g/mol. Pan’s polyether diamine can have a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 300-8,000 and account for 5-80 parts by weight of the polyamide elastomer (page 3, lines 14-25). As discussed above for claim 1, Example 4’s polyether diamine accounts for about 49 wt% of the polyamide elastomer. If even 1 polyether diamine chain of a Mn of about 6000-8000 was included in a polyamide elastomer in an amount of 49%, the Mw of the polyamide elastomer would be well within the claimed range (Mw is necessarily greater than Mn). If more than 1 polyether diamine chain was included in the polyamide elastomer in an amount of 49 wt%, the range of polyether diamine Mn corresponding to the claimed polyamide elastomer Mw would increase. Similarly, one could adjust the Mw of the polyamide elastomer by adjusting the polyether amine content within the range taught by Pan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have prepared the polyamide elastomer of Pan using any polyether diamine precursor Mn and content taught by Pan, including selecting a polyether diamine Mn and content that would produce a polyamide elastomer with a Mw that overlaps with the claimed range of at least 12,000 g/mol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 26, Pan teaches the polyamide elastomer of claim 1 with a melt temperature (Tm) of 218 °C.
Pan is silent as to the crystallization temperature (Tc) of the polyamide elastomer.
However, Pan’s polyamide elastomer would necessarily have a Tc below 185 °C and, consequently, a difference between the Tc and the Tm of at least 33 °C. Pan teaches a substantially similar polyamide elastomer prepared in a substantially similar manner. Both Pan and the instant examples (instant Table 1) teach polyamide elastomers derived from monomers including adipic acid, hexamethylene diamine, and a polyether amine. Both Pan and the instant examples are prepared from aqueous monomer solutions by increasing the temperature and reducing the pressure (Pan, page 2, lines 30-45). All of the instant examples have Tc in the range of 115.9-180.5 °C and Tm in the range of 196-230 °C (instant Table 2). No example has been provided of a polyamide elastomer that has a crystallization temperature above 185 °C. Pan’s polyamide elastomer is derived from similar monomers in a similar process and the Tm of 218 ° is within the same range as the instant examples. Therefore, there is reasonable basis to expect the properties of the prior art polyamide elastomer to be similar to those of the instant examples, including a Tc below 185 °C.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 2003/0162899 A1, Cite No. 14 on 1/16/2024 IDS) and evidenced by Bao (US-2023/0065894-A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Baumann teaches polyetheramide molding compositions that are suitable for the flexible articles ([0002]). In Example 1, Baumann demonstrates a method for producing a polyether amide ([0054]-[0059]). An autoclave is charged with 26.11 kg of hexamethylenediamine in the form of a 75% strength aqueous solution, 52.95 kg of 1,12-dodecanedioic acid, 25.55 kg of JEFFAMINE® D400, and 100 g of a 50% strength aqueous solution of hypophosphorous acid. The materials are heated to 220 °C and a pressure of 20 bar and held at these conditions for 2 hours. Then the melt is heated to 230 °C with continuous depressurization to atmospheric pressure and held for 1.5 hours. The vessel is then evacuated to 28 mbar over 3 hours and held for 3 hours at this pressure.
Hypophosphorous reads on a phosphorous containing catalyst (claim 9). JEFFAMINE® D400 has two primary amines (claim 10), as evidenced by Bao (Bao, [0093]). The total mass of the monomers is about 98 g (26.11*0.75+52.95+25.55 = 98.08) and the polyamide therefore comprises about 26 wt.% (25.55/98.08=0.26). Baumann’s method reads on reducing the pressure (continuous depressurization to atmospheric pressure then further reducing to 28 mbar) in the reactor after a target temperature (220 °C) is reached to polymerize the salt solution and the polyether amine to form the polyamide elastomer.
Baumann does not specify the order of mixing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have formed a mixture of hexamethylene diamine, 1,12-dodecanedioic acid, JEFFAMINE® D400, hypophosphorous acid, and water, as taught by Baumann, by mixing Baumann’s disclosed components together using any order of addition. Orders of addition include initially adding hypophosphorous acid to the reactor, followed by adding a mixture of hexamethylene diamine, 1,12-dodecanedioic, and water, and then finally adding the JEFFAMINE® D400. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing any order of mixing because the same desired combination of the components is ultimately obtained, and there is nothing of record to suggest that the order of mixing is critical to the process of preparing the mixture. Case law has established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facia obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP § 2144.04, IV. C.). A mixture of 26.11 kg of hexamethylenediamine in the form of a 75% strength aqueous solution and 52.95 kg of 1,12-dodecanedioic acid has a solids content of about 92% ((0.75*26.11+52.95)/(26.11+52.95)=0.917).
While not explicitly an elastomer, Baumann’s polyamide has polyamide and polyetheramine components and would therefore be expected to function as elastomers (see [0002] of instant specification).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 2003/0162899 A1, Cite No. 14 on 1/16/2024 IDS) evidenced by Bao (US-2023/0065894-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tarutani (US-2018/0086140-A1).
Baumann teaches the polyamide elastomer of claim 1.
Baumann does not explicitly teach the Mw of the polyamide elastomer.
However, Tarutani teaches suitable Mw for polyamide elastomers based on polyamide 612 and a polyamine (Tarutani, Abstract). The polyamine is a polyether amine (Tarutani, [0053]). Tarutani teaches that the Mw of the polyamide elastomer is preferably 20,000-250,000 (Tarutani, [0080]). When the Mw is 20,000 or more, an effect that excellent crack resistance can be obtained by entanglement of molecular chains is exhibited (Tarutani, [0081]). When the Mw is 250,000 or less, the melt viscosity is not too high and an effect that excellent injection moldability can be obtained is exhibited. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have prepared the polyamide elastomer according to Baumann having a Mw in the range of 20,000-250,000 as taught by Tarutani in order to balance crack resistance with injection moldability.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 2003/0162899 A1, Cite No. 14 on 1/16/2024 IDS) evidenced by Bao (US-2023/0065894-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Odian (Principles of Polymerization, Fourth Edition, Chapter 2, pages 39-197, 2004).
Baumann teaches the method of claim 1.
Baumann is silent as to the polydispersity index of the polyamide elastomer.
However, prior to the effective filing date a polydispersity index of about 2 was known to be typical for step polymerizations, as taught by Odian. Chapter 2 of Odian pertains to step polymerizations, including polyamides (Odian, page 39). Odian teaches that the polydispersity index approaches 2 in the limit of large extends of reaction based on the most probably distribution of Flory (Odian, page 82, last 6 lines). Odian further teaches that Flory distribution has been experimentally verified for polyamides and that a polydispersity index close to 2 has been found for many step polymerizations (Odian, page 83, lines 11-14).
Based on the teaching of Odian, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that a polydispersity index of about 2 is suitable and expected for polyamides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a polyamide elastomer according to Baumann having a polydispersity index of about 2, as Odian demonstrates this range as being suitable for similar step growth polymers and, in particular, polyamides. This represents the use of a suitable range of polydispersity index in a polyamide prepared by step growth. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarutani (US-2018/0086140-A1) in view of Langrick (US-2017/0283557-A1, cited with 3/24/2026 Office action).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9 and 22, Tarutani teaches a polyamide-based thermoplastic elastomer comprising a hard segment containing polyamide 612 and a soft segment containing a polyamine ([0021]). As the polyamine of the soft segment, Tarutani teaches a polyether diamine ([0053]). Tarutani’s polyamide-based thermoplastic elastomer reads on the instant polyamide elastomer. The polyamide elastomer has a weight average molecular weight of 20,000-250,000 ([0080]) (claim 4).
Tarutani further teaches a method of producing the polyamide elastomer ([0084]). Tarutani teaches that the polyamide elastomer can be synthesized by mixing and copolymerizing all the materials at once ([0086]). Examples of the polymerization method include a synthesis method in which melt polymerization at normal pressure and further melt polymerization under reduced pressure are performed ([0088]). A phosphorous-containing acid such as phosphoric acid, phosphorous acid, hypophosphorous acid, an alkali metal salt of a phosphorus-containing acid, and an alkaline earth metal salt of a phosphorous-containing acid can be used as a catalyst ([0091-0093]) (claim 9). The polymerization temperature is preferably 200-280 °C ([0089]). In example 1 ([0253-0255]), Tarutani demonstrates a polymerization of dodecanedioic acid, hexamethylene diamine, and a polyether diamine in purified water using sodium hypophosphite as a catalyst. The mixture is heated to 230 °C and the pressure reached 0.5 MPa. The pressure was gradually released and the mixture was stirred at 250 °C for 5 hours. In this example, Tarutani’s water content was 30% (150/(68.8+1.8+280+150)=150/500.6=0.3).
Tarutani’s Example 1 differs from claim 1 in that the order of mixing is not specified and the water content is above 20%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have formed a mixture of dodecanedioic acid, hexamethylene diamine, a polyether diamine, water, and phosphorous catalyst, as taught by Tarutani, by mixing Tarutani’s disclosed components together using any order of addition. Orders of addition include initially adding the phosphorous catalyst to the reactor, followed by adding a mixture of dodecanedioic acid, hexamethylene diamine, and water, and then finally adding the polyether diamine. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing any order of mixing because the same desired combination of the components is ultimately obtained, and there is nothing of record to suggest that the order of mixing is critical to the process of preparing the mixture. Case law has established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facia obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP § 2144.04, IV. C.).
Langrick does not teach a solids content greater than or equal to 80%.
However, Langrick teaches that controlling the water content is useful for controlling foaming. 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 (Langrick, [0008]). Langrick prefers that the polyether amine is added to the polymerization reaction mixture when the reaction contains less than 7% water (Langrick, [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have prepared the polyamide elastomer of Tarutani using the water content of less than 7% taught by Langrick in order to prevent severe foaming. A water content of less than 7% corresponds to a salt solution with a solids content greater than or equal to 93%.
Tarutani does not anticipate the claimed polytetramethylether diamine content.
However, Tarutani further teaches that the mass ratio (HS/SS ratio) of the hard segment (HS) to the soft segment (SS) is preferably 30/70 to 85/15 ([0071]). This corresponds to a polyether amine content of 15-70 wt.%. When the mass ratio of the hard segment is 30 or more, the crystallinity of the elastomer is not too low and when the mass ratio of the hard segment is 85 or less, the crystallinity of the elastomer is not too high ([0072-0073]). Based on the teachings of Tarutani one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the polyether amine content influences the crystallinity of the elastomer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the polyether amine content to 20-70 wt.% (claim 1) or 40-70 wt.% (claim 22). One would have been motivated to optimize the polyether amine content in order to optimize the crystallinity. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 5, Tarutani teaches the method of claim 1. Tarutani further teaches that the polyamide elastomer can have a melting temperature in the range of 100-350 °C. In Examples 2-5 Tarutani exemplifies melting temperatures in the range of 202-210 °C (Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Tarutani teaches the method of claim 1. Tarutani further teaches that the hard segment may further contain polyamide 66 ([0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Tarutani teaches the method of claim 1. Tarutani teaches a polyether diamine with the structure shown below ([0054]):
PNG
media_image1.png
66
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where XN and ZN are 1-20 and YN is 4-50 ([0055]). This polyether diamine has 100% primary amines.
Regarding claim 21, Tarutani teaches the method of claim 8. Tarutani further teaches that a polyether diamine can be prepared by diamination of polytetramethylene ether glycol ([0057]), reading on polytetramethylene ether diamine.
Tarutani does not anticipate a polytetramethylether diamine content of 50 wt.%.
However, Tarutani further teaches that the mass ratio (HS/SS ratio) of the hard segment (HS) to the soft segment (SS) is preferably 30/70 to 85/15 ([0071]). When the mass ratio of the hard segment is 30 or more, the crystallinity of the elastomer is not too low and when the mass ratio of the hard segment is 85 or less, the crystallinity of the elastomer is not too high. Based on the teachings of Tarutani one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the polyether amine content influences the crystallinity of the elastomer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the polyether amine content to 50 wt.%. One would have been motivated to optimize the polyether amine content in order to optimize the crystallinity. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 24, Tarutani teaches the method of claim 1. Tarutani further teaches that a polyether diamine can be prepared by diamination of polytetramethylene ether glycol ([0057]), reading on polytetramethylene ether diamine. Tarutani further teaches that the number average molecular weight is 600-3000 g/mol ([0066]).
Tarutani does not anticipate a polytetramethylene ether diamine with a molecular weight greater than 500 g/mol and less than 1,500 g/mol.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use any molecular weight within the range taught by Tarutani, including a molecular weight of 600-1500, because Tarutani teaches it. A range of 600-3000 g/mol overlaps with the claimed range of a molecular weight greater than 500 g/mol and less than 1,500 g/mol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 17-20 are allowable. Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten 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 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.
The closest prior art of record to claim 25 is Pan (CN-109627435-A), Baumann (US 2003/0162899 A1), and Tarutani (US-2018/0086140-A1) in view of Langrick (US-2017/0283557-A1).
Pan teaches the method of claim 1, as laid out above. Pan does not teach that the polyether diamine can be bis(3-aminopropyl) poly(tetramethylene ether glycol), as required by claim 25. Pan’s polyether diamines are amino polyoxypropylene ether or amino polyoxyethylene ether (page 3, lines 20-23).
Baumann teaches the method of claim 1, as laid out above. Baumann does not teach that the polyether diamine can be bis(3-aminopropyl) poly(tetramethylene ether glycol), as required by claim 25. Baumann’s polyetherdiamines can be derived from 1,4-butanediol ([0032]). This corresponds poly(tetramethylene ether glycol) block but, Baumann does not suggest the combination of poly(tetramethylene ether glycol) and bis(3-aminopropyl) functionalization.
Tarutani in view of Langrick teaches the method of claim 1, as laid out above. Tarutani teaches that the polyester amine may be polytetramethylether diamine ([0057]) with a number average molecular weight of 600-3,000 ([0066]). Tarutani also teaches a polyether diamine with the structure shown below ([0054]):
PNG
media_image1.png
66
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where XN and ZN are 1-20 and YN is 4-50 ([0055]). The YN block is polytetramethylene ether, but the XN and ZN groups are branched rather linear propyl groups, as is required for 3-aminopropyl groups. Modified Tarutani differs from claim 25 because Tarutani does not teach that the polytetramethylether diamine is bis(3-aminopropyl) poly(tetramethylene ether glycol).
The closest prior art of record to claim 12 is Langrick (US-2017/0283557-A1) and Tarutani (US-2018/0086140-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 is performed in an autoclave ([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 include phosphoric acid, phosphorous acid, and hypo-phosphorous acid ([0044]). After the polyetheramine is added to the autoclave, the autoclave is heated to about 245 °C and the pressure is reduced to atmospheric pressure ([0056]).
Langrick is silent as to the order of mixing the components of the aqueous solution and does not teach adding the catalyst 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. Langrick therefore teaches feeding a salt solution (aqueous solution of diacid and diamine) to a reactor (autoclave) having a phosphorous containing catalyst.
Langrick’s, 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 reduced pressure (reduced to atmospheric pressure).
Langrick differs from instant claim 12 in that Langrick does not teach a polyether amine content within the claimed range. Langrick’s maximum polyether amine content is 20 wt. % ([0005]) and therefore below the range recited in claim 12.
While polyamide elastomers with higher polyether amine contents were known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see the claim 1 rejections above), these polyamide elastomers are made according to methods that do not include a step of reducing the water content prior to adding the polyether amine. For example, Tarutani teaches a polyamide ester with a polyether amine content of 15-70 wt.% ([0071]). In example 1 ([0253-0255]), Tarutani demonstrates a polymerization of dodecanedioic acid, hexamethylene diamine, and a polyether diamine in water using sodium hypophosphite as a catalyst. The mixture is heated to 230 °C and the pressure reached 0.5 MPa. The pressure was released and the mixture was stirred at 250 °C for 5 hours, reading on reacting at a temperature of 250 °C under a reduced pressure.
Tarutani does not teach the steps of feeding a salt solution to a reactor having a phosphorous containing catalyst, reducing a water content in the reactor, and feeding a polyether amine to the reactor after the water content is reduced, as recited in claim 12. In order to arrive at the claimed method, one would need to adjust Taruani’s order of mixing and add a step of reducing the water content prior to mixing in the polyether amine. While Langrick teaches that delaying the polyether amine introduction into the polymerization process until the water content is reduced is useful for avoiding severe foaming (Langrick, [0008]), one of ordinary skill would not have had sufficient motivation to both modify Tarutani’s order of mixing and add Langrick’s step of reducing water content into the mixing method because Tarutani does not teach that foaming occurs.
Claim 12 is allowable. Claims 13-14 and 17-20 depend from claim 12 and are therefore allowable.
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 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
Prosecution Insights