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
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites two periods at the end of the claim. The Office suggests that Applicant delete the second period that is recited at the end of the claim. 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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation “A polyamide 56 composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent, wherein said polyamide 56 composition is subject to radiation crosslinking and said polyamide 56 composition has moisture absorption reduced by about 15 to about 55 % as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent” in lines 1-3, which is indefinite because it is unclear how “wherein said polyamide 56 composition is subject to radiation crosslinking” limits “A polyamide 56 composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent and said polyamide 56 composition has moisture absorption reduced by about 15 to about 55 % as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent”. The composition of the polyamide 56 composition is unclear because it could be interpreted as a product of radiation crosslinking a composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent, wherein said product has moisture absorption reduced by about 15 to about 55 % as compared to a composition comprising a polyamide 56 and not comprising a crosslinking agent, or it could be interpreted as a composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent, wherein said composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking, wherein said composition has moisture absorption reduced by about 15 to about 55 % as compared to a composition comprising a polyamide 56 and not comprising a crosslinking agent. Based on the specification of the instant application [0015-0017, 0033-0037], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “A polyamide 56 composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent, wherein said polyamide 56 composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking, and said polyamide 56 composition, after being subjected to radiation crosslinking, has moisture absorption reduced by about 15 to about 55 % as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “The composition of claim 1, wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose in the range of about 50 kGy to about 300 kGy” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because it is unclear how it further limits “The composition of claim 1”. Based on the interpretation of claim 1, for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose in the range of about 50 kGy to about 300 kGy”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “The composition of claim1, wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose of 100 kGy” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because it is unclear how it further limits “The composition of claim 1”. Based on the interpretation of claim 1, for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose of 100 kGy”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “The composition of claim 1, wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose in the range of about 75kGY to about to 200 kGy” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because it is unclear how it further limits “The composition of claim 1”. Based on the interpretation of claim 1, for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose in the range of about 75 kGy to about 200 kGy”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” in line 2, which is indefinite because “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” is not a known compound, which makes its composition unclear. Based on the specification of the instant application [0027], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate”.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” in line 1, which is indefinite because “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” is not a known compound, which makes its composition unclear. Based on the specification of the instant application [0027], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “The composition of claim 12, wherein said composition is subject to radiation crosslinking” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because it is unclear how it further limits “The composition of claim 12”. Based on the specification of the instant application [0027], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The composition of claim 12, wherein said composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “The composition of claim 13, wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose of 100 kGy” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because it is unclear how it further limits “The composition of claim 13”. Based on the interpretation of claim 1, for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The composition of claim 13, wherein said composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose of 100 kGy”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “A polyamide 56 composition having reduced water absorption comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent” in lines 1-3, which is indefinite because it is unclear how “as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent” limits “A polyamide 56 composition having reduced water absorption comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent” because it could be interpreted as “A polyamide 56 composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent, wherein the polyamide 56 composition has reduced water absorption as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent”, or it could be interpreted as “A polyamide 56 composition having reduced water absorption, wherein the polyamide 56 composition comprises a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent”. Based on the specification of the instant application [0015-0017, 0033-0037], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “A polyamide 56 composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent, wherein the polyamide 56 composition has reduced water absorption as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” in line 3, which is indefinite because “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” is not a known compound, which makes its composition unclear. Based on the specification of the instant application [0027], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “The polyamide 56 composition of claim 15, wherein said polyamide composition is subject to radiation crosslinking” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because it is unclear how it further limits “The polyamide 56 composition of claim 15”. The composition of the polyamide 56 composition is unclear because it could be interpreted as a product of radiation crosslinking the polyamide 56 composition of claim 15, or it could be interpreted as the polyamide 56 composition of claim 15, wherein said polyamide composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking. Based on the specification of the instant application [0015-0017, 0033-0037], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The polyamide 56 composition of claim 15, wherein said polyamide composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “The polyamide 56 composition of claim 17, wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose of 100 kGy” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because it is unclear how it further limits “The polyamide 56 composition of claim 17”. Based on the interpretation of claim 17, for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The polyamide 56 composition of claim 17, wherein said polyamide composition is able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose of 100 kGy”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” in line 2, which is indefinite because “trimethylpropane trimethacrylate” is not a known compound, which makes its composition unclear. Based on the specification of the instant application [0027], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate”.
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 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation “The composition of claim 12, wherein said composition is subject to radiation crosslinking” in lines 1-2, which fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because claim 1, from which it depends, recites the limitation “wherein said polyamide 56 composition is subject to radiation crosslinking” in lines 2-3, which is identical to the limitation recited in claim 13. 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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasui et al. (WO 2023/032780 A1, US 2024/0352230 A1 is English language equivalent and is used for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Yasui teaches a polyamide resin composition, which comprises an aliphatic polyamide resin and a crosslinking agent [0014], wherein as the aliphatic polyamide resin, there may be mentioned aliphatic homopolyamide resins [0028], wherein as the aliphatic homopolyamide resin, there may be mentioned polypentamethylene adipamide (polyamide 56) [0036], wherein a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], wherein the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], which reads on a polyamide 56 composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent, wherein said polyamide 56 composition is subject to radiation crosslinking as claimed.
The Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Yasui, namely that said polyamide 56 composition has moisture absorption reduced by about 15 to about 55 % as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent. However, Yasui teaches all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the polyamide 56 composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the resulting polyamide composition has reduced moisture absorption as compared to a polyamide 56 without a crosslinking agent [0001], that it is believed that the crosslinking agent reduces the distance between polymer chains in the amorphous phase thereby altering the flexibility of the chain and preventing the absorption and ingress of the water molecule in the chain [0033], and that by including crosslinking agents, the moisture absorption of polyamide 56 is mitigated and the rate of moisture absorption slows down [0036]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the polyamide 56 composition of Yasui. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 6, Yasui teaches that a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], and that the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], and since Yasui teaches all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above, Yasui’s polyamide resin composition must be able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose in the range of about 50 kGy to about 300 kGy, which reads on wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose in the range of about 50 kGy to about 300 kGy as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Yasui teaches that a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], and that the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], and since Yasui teaches all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above, Yasui’s polyamide resin composition must be able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose of 100 kGy, which reads on wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose in the range of 100 kGy as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Yasui teaches that a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], and that the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], and since Yasui teaches all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above, Yasui’s polyamide resin composition must be able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose in the range of about 75 kGy to about 300 kGy, which reads on wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose in the range of about 75kGY to about to 200 kGy as claimed.
Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasui et al. (WO 2023/032780 A1, US 2024/0352230 A1 is English language equivalent and is used for citation).
Regarding claim 15, Yasui teaches a polyamide resin composition, which comprises an aliphatic polyamide resin and a crosslinking agent [0014], wherein as the aliphatic polyamide resin, there may be mentioned aliphatic homopolyamide resins [0028], wherein as the aliphatic homopolyamide resin, there may be mentioned polypentamethylene adipamide (polyamide 56) [0036], which reads on a polyamide 56 composition comprising a polyamide 56 and a crosslinking agent as claimed.
The Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Yasui, namely that the polyamide 56 composition has reduced water absorption as compared to a polyamide composition without a crosslinking agent. However, Yasui teaches all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the polyamide 56 composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the resulting polyamide composition has reduced moisture absorption as compared to a polyamide 56 without a crosslinking agent [0001], that it is believed that the crosslinking agent reduces the distance between polymer chains in the amorphous phase thereby altering the flexibility of the chain and preventing the absorption and ingress of the water molecule in the chain [0033], and that by including crosslinking agents, the moisture absorption of polyamide 56 is mitigated and the rate of moisture absorption slows down [0036]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the polyamide 56 composition of Yasui. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 17, Yasui teaches that a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], and that the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], which reads on wherein said polyamide composition is subject to radiation crosslinking as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Yasui teaches that a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], and that the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], and since Yasui teaches all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 17 as explained above, Yasui’s polyamide resin composition must be able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose of 100 kGy, which reads on wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose of 100 kGy as claimed.
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.
Claims 2-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. (WO 2023/032780 A1, US 2024/0352230 A1 is English language equivalent and is used for citation) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yasui teaches the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], and that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl isocyanurate [0055], which optionally reads on wherein said crosslinking agent is triallyl isocyanurate as claimed.
Yasui does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said crosslinking agent is triallyl isocyanurate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be triallyl isocyanurate. The proposed modification would read on wherein said crosslinking agent is triallyl isocyanurate as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for improving ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation for Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl isocyanurate [0055], and that from the viewpoint of ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation, at least one kind that is triallyl isocyanurate is preferable [0056].
Regarding claim 3, Yasui teaches that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], and that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl isocyanurate [0055], which optionally reads on wherein said triallyl isocyanurate is present in the amount of 1 wt.% to 9 wt.% of the composition.
Yasui does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said triallyl isocyanurate is present in the amount of about 0.5 wt.% to about 3 wt.% of the composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be triallyl isocyanurate, and to optimize the amount of Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be 1 to 3% by mass in 100% by mass of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition. The proposed modification would read on wherein said triallyl isocyanurate is present in the amount of 1 wt.% to 3 wt.% of the composition as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for improving ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation for Yasui’s polyamide resin composition, and for optimizing sufficiency of cross-linking state, strength, tensile strength, tensile elastic modulus, impact resistance, elongation, and impact strength of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl isocyanurate [0055], that from the viewpoint of ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation, at least one kind that is triallyl isocyanurate is preferable [0056], that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is less than the above-mentioned range, cross-linking state is insufficient and strength such as tensile strength and tensile elastic modulus are inferior [0058], and that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is more than the above-mentioned range, it adversely affects impact resistance such as elongation and impact strength [0058].
Regarding claim 4, Yasui teaches that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], and that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl cyanurate, triallyl isocyanurate, and mixtures thereof [0055], which optionally reads on wherein said triallyl isocyanurate is present in the amount of 0 wt.% to 9 wt.% of the composition.
Yasui does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said triallyl isocyanurate is present in the amount of 0.5 wt. % of the composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be a mixture of triallyl cyanurate and triallyl isocyanurate, to optimize the amount of Yasui’s triallyl isocyanurate to be about 0.5% by mass in 100% by mass of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition, and to optimize the total amount of Yasui’s mixture of triallyl cyanurate and triallyl isocyanurate to be 1 to 9% by mass in 100% by mass of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition. The proposed modification would read on wherein said triallyl isocyanurate is present in the amount of 1 wt.% to 3 wt.% of the composition as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for improving ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation for Yasui’s polyamide resin composition, and for optimizing sufficiency of cross-linking state, strength, tensile strength, tensile elastic modulus, impact resistance, elongation, and impact strength of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl cyanurate, triallyl isocyanurate, and mixtures thereof [0055], that from the viewpoint of ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation, at least one kind that is triallyl cyanurate or triallyl isocyanurate is preferable [0056], that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is less than the above-mentioned range, cross-linking state is insufficient and strength such as tensile strength and tensile elastic modulus are inferior [0058], and that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is more than the above-mentioned range, it adversely affects impact resistance such as elongation and impact strength [0058].
Regarding claim 5, Yasui teaches the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mixed monomers [0054], and that at least one kind selected from the group consisting of triallyl cyanurate, triallyl isocyanurate, trimethylallyl isocyanurate, diallyl phthalate, and diallylbenzene phosphonate is preferable [0056], which optionally reads on the composition of claim 1, further comprising an additional crosslinking agent as claimed.
Yasui does not teach a specific embodiment of the composition of claim 1, further comprising an additional crosslinking agent. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be at least two kinds selected from the group consisting of triallyl cyanurate, triallyl isocyanurate, trimethylallyl isocyanurate, diallyl phthalate, and diallylbenzene phosphonate. The proposed modification would read on the composition of claim 1, further comprising an additional crosslinking agent as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for improving ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation for Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mixed monomers [0054], and that from the viewpoint of ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation, at least one kind selected from the group consisting of triallyl cyanurate, triallyl isocyanurate, trimethylallyl isocyanurate, diallyl phthalate, and diallylbenzene phosphonate is preferable [0056].
Regarding claim 9, Yasui teaches the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate are common [0054], which suggests trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, which suggests wherein said crosslinking agent is trimethylpropane trimethacrylate as claimed.
Yasui does not teach that said crosslinking agent is trimethylpropane trimethacrylate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate. The proposed modification would read on wherein said crosslinking agent is trimethylpropane trimethacrylate as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate are common [0054], which suggests trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate since it is a polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, is similar to trimethylolpropane triacrylate with a methyl group added to the triacrylate group, and is similar to EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate without being EO-modified or PO-modified. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 10, Yasui teaches that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate are common [0054], which suggests trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, which suggests wherein said trimethylpropane is present in an amount of 1 wt. % to 9 wt. % of the composition.
Yasui does not teach that said trimethylpropane trimethacrylate is present in the amount of about 0.5 wt. % to about 3 wt. % of the composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, and to optimize the amount of Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be 1 to 3% by mass in 100% by mass of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition. The proposed modification would read on wherein said trimethylpropane trimethacrylate is present in the amount of 1 wt. % to 3 wt. % of the composition as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate are common [0054], which suggests trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate since it is a polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, is similar to trimethylolpropane triacrylate with a methyl group added to the triacrylate group, and is similar to EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate without being EO-modified or PO-modified. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing sufficiency of cross-linking state, strength, tensile strength, tensile elastic modulus, impact resistance, elongation, and impact strength of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is less than the above-mentioned range, cross-linking state is insufficient and strength such as tensile strength and tensile elastic modulus are inferior [0058], and that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is more than the above-mentioned range, it adversely affects impact resistance such as elongation and impact strength [0058].
Regarding claim 11, Yasui teaches that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and mixtures thereof are common [0054], which suggests a mixture of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, or PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, which suggests wherein said trimethylpropane trimethacrylate is present in the amount of 0 wt. % to 9 wt. % of the composition.
Yasui does not teach that said trimethylpropane trimethacrylate is present in the amount of 0.5 wt. % of the composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be a mixture of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, or PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, to optimize the amount of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate in 100% by mass of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition to be about 0.5% by mass in 100% by mass of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition, and to optimize the total amount of the mixture of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, or PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate to be 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition. The proposed modification would read on wherein said trimethylpropane trimethacrylate is present in the amount of 0.5 wt. % of the composition as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and mixtures thereof are common [0054], which suggests a mixture of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, or PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate since trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate is a polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, is similar to trimethylolpropane triacrylate with a methyl group added to the triacrylate group, and is similar to EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate without being EO-modified or PO-modified. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing sufficiency of cross-linking state, strength, tensile strength, tensile elastic modulus, impact resistance, elongation, and impact strength of Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that the polyamide resin composition comprises 1 to 9% by mass of a crosslinking agent in 100% by mass of the polyamide resin composition [0014], that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is less than the above-mentioned range, cross-linking state is insufficient and strength such as tensile strength and tensile elastic modulus are inferior [0058], and that if the amount of the crosslinking agent is more than the above-mentioned range, it adversely affects impact resistance such as elongation and impact strength [0058].
Regarding claim 12, Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and mixtures thereof are common [0054], which suggests a mixture of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, or PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, which suggests the composition of claim 9, further comprising an additional crosslinking agent as claimed.
Yasui does not teach that the composition of claim 9 further comprises an additional crosslinking agent. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be a mixture of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, or PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate. The proposed modification would read on the composition of claim 9, further comprising an additional crosslinking agent as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and mixtures thereof are common [0054], which suggests a mixture of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, or PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate since trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate is a polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, is similar to trimethylolpropane triacrylate with a methyl group added to the triacrylate group, and is similar to EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate without being EO-modified or PO-modified. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 13, Yasui teaches that a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], and that the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], which reads on wherein said composition is subject to radiation crosslinking as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Yasui teaches that a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material is obtainable by irradiating active energy rays to a molded product of the polyamide resin composition [0021, 0022], and that the polyamide resin composition is able to be used as a polyamide resin composition crosslinked material by irradiating active energy rays to molded product consisting of the polyamide resin composition [0094], and since Yasui renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 13 as explained above, the polyamide resin composition that is rendered obvious by Yasui must be able to be subjected to radiation crosslinking that is provided in a dose of 100 kGy. Yasui therefore renders it obvious wherein said radiation crosslinking is provided in a dose of 100 kGy as claimed.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. (WO 2023/032780 A1, US 2024/0352230 A1 is English language equivalent and is used for citation) as applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Yasui teaches the polyamide 55composition of claim 1 as explained above. Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], and that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl cyanurate and triallyl isocyanurate [0055], which optionally reads on wherein said crosslinking agent is chosen from triallyl isocyanurate, and triallyl cyanurate as claimed.
Yasui does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said crosslinking agent is chosen from the group comprising triallyl isocyanurate, triallyl cyanurate, and trimethylpropane trimethacrylate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be triallyl cyanurate or triallyl isocyanurate. The proposed modification would read on wherein said crosslinking agent is chosen from triallyl isocyanurate and triallyl cyanurate as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for improving ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation for Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl cyanurate and triallyl isocyanurate [0055], and that from the viewpoint of ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation, at least one kind that is triallyl cyanurate or triallyl isocyanurate is preferable [0056].
Regarding claim 19, Yasui teaches the polyamide 56 composition of claim 15 as explained above. Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], and that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl isocyanurate [0055], which optionally reads on wherein said crosslinking agent is triallyl isocyanurate as claimed.
Yasui does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said crosslinking agent is triallyl isocyanurate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be triallyl isocyanurate. The proposed modification would read on wherein said crosslinking agent is triallyl isocyanurate as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for improving ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation for Yasui’s polyamide resin composition because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional allyl- based monomers [0054], that as the polyfunctional allyl-based monomer, for example, there are triallyl isocyanurate [0055], and that from the viewpoint of ease of crosslinking by electron beam irradiation, at least one kind that is triallyl isocyanurate is preferable [0056].
Regarding claim 20, Yasui teaches the polyamide 56 composition of claim 15 as explained above. Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate are common [0054], which suggests trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, which suggests wherein said crosslinking agent is trimethylpropane trimethacrylate as claimed.
Yasui does not teach that said crosslinking agent is trimethylpropane trimethacrylate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yasui’s crosslinking agent to be trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate. The proposed modification would read on wherein said crosslinking agent is trimethylpropane trimethacrylate as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yasui teaches that as the crosslinking agent, there may be mentioned polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer [0054], and that as the polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate are common [0054], which suggests trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate since it is a polyfunctional acrylic-based monomer, is similar to trimethylolpropane triacrylate with a methyl group added to the triacrylate group, and is similar to EO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and PO-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate without being EO-modified or PO-modified. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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.
/DAVID T KARST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights