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 .
This communication is responsive to claim set filed 09/01/2023 and Response to Restriction filed 05/18/2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending. The elected claims 1-12 are under consideration is this Office Action. The non-elected claims 13-21 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seignobos et al. (EP3608349 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Seignobos teaches particulate polyamide composition comprising particulate copolyimide has a mean particle diameter D90 between 50 µm and 150 µm (claim 7), overlapping the claimed 100 µm or less. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. (See MPEP 2144.05 I ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Seignobos.
Seignobos further teaches the particulate polyamide composition comprising at least one particulate copolyimide obtained by polycondensation of a monomer mixture comprising monomers (a-1) and (a-2) (claim 1), wherein the monomers (a-1) are selected from at least one aliphatic carboxylic diacid (a-1.1) and at least one aliphatic diamine (a-1.2) ([0025]), and wherein the preferred aliphatic diamines (a-1.2) have a general formula (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
97
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R2 and R3 are hydrogen, R4 is preferably C2 to C10 aliphatic hydrocarbon group (0031]); and wherein the preferred aliphatic dicarboxylic acids (a-1.1) have the formula of:
PNG
media_image2.png
96
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R1 is preferably a C2 to C10 aliphatic hydrocarbon group ([0029]). Seignobos furthermore teaches the comonomers (a-2) including a cycloaliphatic group ([0037]), wherein the preferred cycloaliphaticdiamine is isophorone diamine (example 1).
One ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer that a polycondensation of the aforementioned monomers would produce copolyamides comprising the claimed recurring units RPA1 and RPA2.
Moreover, Seignobos teaches the particulate polyamide composition has a peak melting point between 220°C and 300°C (claim 5), overlapping the claimed 150 to 260 °C. The Example 1 of Seignobos has the ΔT of 270C.
Althouh Seignobos is silent on the glass transition temperature of the particulate copolyimides, Seignobos discloses that the particulate polyamide compositions are for powder bed fusion applications for the preparation of three-dimensional articles. One ordinary skilled artisan has to adjust the glass transition temperature of the copolyimide to a proper range because if the glass transition temperature is too low, the polyamide particles become sticky, causing loss of flow; on the other hand, if the glass transition temperature is too high, the final products are likely associated with inferior mechanical properties. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art must balance the conflicting requirements of processibility and mechanical properties of final products associated with the glass transition temperature of the copolyimide particulates, and therefore the glass transition temperature, would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed glass transition temperature range cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the glass transition temperature of the copolyimide particulates , to for balancing the processibility and mechanical properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding Claim 2, Seignobos teaches the particulate copolyamide has a D50 between 10 µm to 100 µm (ab.), overlapping the claimed 45 μm or less.
Regarding Claim 3, Seignobos teaches the particulate copolyamide has a D10 between 10 and 40 µm, falling within the claimed at least 1 µm.
Regarding Claim 4, the overlapping portion of D90 of Seignobos is 50 µm and 100 µm, the overlapping portion of D10 of Seignobos is 10 and 40 µm, therefore, the particle distribution range of D10 to D90 can be 40 µm and 60 µm.
Regarding Claim 5, isophorone diamine reads on C6-C16 cycloaliphatic diamine. Seignobos teaches the preferred aliphatic diamines can be linear and R4 is preferably C2 to C10 aliphatic hydrocarbon group (0031]), overlapping the claimed C6-C16 cycloaliphatic diamine. Seignobos furthermore teaches the aliphatic carboxylic diacid is a linear or branched C3 to C22 aliphatic carboxylic diacid ([0029]), overlapping the claimed C10-C14 linear or branched aliphatic dicarboxylic acid.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Seignobos teaches preferred aliphatic dicarboxylic acid is a C4 to C12 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid ([0029]) which includes sebacic acid; the preferred aliphatic diamine hexamethylene diamine ([0036]); the preferred cycloaliphaticdiamine is isophorone diamine (example 1). The polycondensation of the aforementioned monomers would produce poly(hexamethylene sebacamide) and poly(isophorone sebacamide).
Regarding Claim 8, Seignobos teaches the particulate copolyamides comprising 85 to 98 mol% of repeating units obtained from at least one aliphatic carboxylic diacid and at least one aliphatic diamine and 2 to 15 mol% of repeating units obtained from aromatic carboxylic diacids, aromatic diamines, and cycloaliphatic carboxylic diacids (claim 1), thus, the relative molar concentration of recurring unit RPA1 to recurring unit RPA2 is from 5:1 to 49:1, overlapping the claimed at least 60/40.
Regarding Claim 9, As discussed at Claims 6-7, Seignobos discloses copolyamides of poly(hexamethylene sebacamide) and poly(isophorone sebacamide). Seignobos further teaches the monomer mixture comprising 85 to 98 mol% of the monomers of at least one aliphatic carboxylic diacid and at least one aliphatic diamine and 2 to 15 mol% of monomers including cycloaliphatic diamines (claim 1), therefore, the amount of poly(isophorone sebacamide is at most of 15 mol%, overlapping the claimed poly(hexamethylene sebacamide) being 70 to 95 mol% and poly(isophorone sebacamide) being 5 – 30 mol%.
Regarding Claim 10, , Seignobos teaches the particulate copolyamide has a peak melting point between 220°C and 300°C (claim 5), one ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer that the melting temperature overlaps the claimed 180° C to 240° C.
Regarding Claim 11, as discussed in Claim 1, the corresponding R3 is a cycloaliphatic group, the dicarboxylic acid is a C4 to C12 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, such as adipic acid ([0036]), thus, the corresponding R4 is an alkyl group.
Claims 1-4, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US20160083564).
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 12, Oda teaches a polyamide resin composition comprising polyamide (A) (ab.), wherein the polyamide (A) is prepared through polymerization of monomers of an amino acid, a lactam or a diamine and a dicarboxylic acid ([0058]). Oda further teaches the polyamide (A) contains a diamine unit containing a C8 arylene group, a dicarboxylic acid unit containing C2-C18 linear aliphatic group and a dicarboxylic acid unit containing an aromatic group ([0026-27] and [0029-30]). The C8 arylene group reads on the claimed R3. The C2-C18 linear aliphatic group and the aromatic group read on the claimed R4. Thus, polyamide (A) contains the claimed RPA2 structure. Oda furthermore teaches the polyamide (A) further contains a unit of:
PNG
media_image3.png
71
168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein p is mostly preferred from 5 to 12 ([0244]), falling within the claimed R9. Thus, the polyamide (A) contains the claimed RPA3 structure.
Moreover, Oda teaches the polyamide has a Tg of 60 to 1400C ([0258]), overlapping the claimed no more than 1000C.
Although Oda is silent on the claimed particle sizes, Oda discloses that the polyamide resin composition has a free volume of 0.0545 nm3 or less. This requires small polyamide particle size; however, too small particle size can disrupt chain packing and increase free volume. Thus, One ordinary skilled artisan has to adjust the particle size of the copolyimide to a proper range for achieving a desired free volume range; and therefore the particle size, consequently, the claimed D90, D50, D10 and distribution range, would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed particle size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the size of polyamide (A), to obtain a desired free volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Although Oda is silent on the Tm Peak and the difference between Tm peak and Tc peak, Both too low Tm Peak and Tc peak would cause molding difficulties, for example, a polyamide composition with too low Tm peak has high melt viscosity; a polyamide composition with too low Tc peak can cause ejection deformation. One the other hand, both high Tm peak and Tc peak require higher energy consumption. Thus, One ordinary skilled artisan would have to adjust Tm peak and Tc peak of the copolyimide to a proper range for balancing moldability and energy consumption; and therefore the Tm peak and Tc peak, consequently, the difference between the Tm peak and Tc peak, would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed Tm peak and the difference between Tm peak and Tc peak cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Tm peak and the difference between Tm peak and Tc peak , for a balanced moldability and energy consumption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).).
Regarding Claim 10, Oda teaches the polyamides have Tm from 190 to 2700C ([0259]), encompassing the claimed 180 to 2400C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUIHONG QIAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights