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 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. Claim 4 is 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. The use of parentheses, i.e. (mass ppm) and (% by mass) , renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the limitations enclosed in parentheses are required or optional. It is also unclear how the content s of the higher fatty acid metal salt and carbon black are being determined /calculated . For the purposes of further examination, Claim 4 will be interpreted as setting forth a ratio of a content of the higher fatty acid metal salt in the polyamide-based resin bead, in mass ppm , to a content of the carbon black in the polyamide-based resin bead, in % by mass , is 50 to 3000. 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 , 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2011/134996 to Kriha et al. (hereinafter Kriha). For the purposes of examination, citations for Kriha are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in March 2026. Regarding Claim s 1 and 3 . Kriha teaches a method for producing a granule which is based on polyamide and pre-foamed, i.e. a polyamide-based resin expanded bead. The method comprises pre-foaming/expanding the polyamide granule/bead with a physical blowing agent [00 11 ] – [0015]. The polyamide-based resin bead may comprise carbon black [0160], which is set forth as a coloring pigment in instant Claim 3. The polyamide-based resin bead also preferably comprises a lubricant. A preferred lubricant is aluminum stearate [0094] – [ 0095], which a higher fatty acid metal salt having 18 carbon atoms in which the metal is aluminum. The granule/bead comprises in particular 0.1 to 1 weight percent (1,000 to 10,000 ppm) of a lubricant [0094], e.g. the higher fatty acid metal salt. Regarding Claim 6 . Kriha teaches the method for producing a polyamide-based resin expanded bead according to Claim 1, wherein the polyamide-based resin constituting the expanded bead may have a melting point of 210°C [0179]. Regarding Claim 7 . Kriha teaches the method for producing a polyamide-based resin expanded bead according to Claim 1 but is silent regarding its average cell diameter. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Kriha teach es a process employing all of the claimed steps and processing conditions, as well as the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a polyamide-based resin expanded bea d having an average cell diameter in the instantly claimed range , would implicitly be achieved by a process employing all of the claimed steps and processing conditions, as well as the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. See In Re Spada , 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties using only the claime d process employing the claimed steps, processing conditions, and ingredients in the claimed amounts. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2011/134996 to Kriha et al. (hereinafter Kriha). For the purposes of examination, citations for Kriha are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in March 2026. Regarding Claim 8 . Kriha teaches a granule which is based on polyamide and pre-foamed, i.e. polyamide-based resin expanded bead [0008] – [0015]. The polyamide-based resin bead may comprise carbon black [0160], which is set forth as a coloring pigment in instant Claim 3. The polyamide-based resin bead also preferably comprises a lubricant. A preferred lubricant is aluminum stearate [0094] – [0095], which a higher fatty acid metal salt having 18 carbon atoms in which the metal is aluminum. Kriha is silent regarding the average cell diameter of the polyamide-based resin expanded bead. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Kriha teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a polyamide-based resin expanded bea d having an average cell diameter in the instantly claimed range, would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada , 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. 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. Claims 2 , 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/134996 to Kriha et al. (hereinafter Kriha) , as applied to Claim 1 above. Again, f or the purposes of examination, citations for Kriha are taken from a machine translation of the document obt ained from the European Patent Office website in March 2026. Regarding Claim 2 . Kriha teaches the method for producing a polyamide-based resin expanded bead according to Claim 1. Kriha teaches the granule /bead may have a content of additional additives (C), e.g. the coloring pigment, of preferably up to 30 weight ([0093] , [0158], and [0160 ]). While this range is not identical to the instantly claimed range for the content of the coloring pigment in the polyamide-based resin bead of 0.5 to 10% by mass, it does overlap. It has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding Claim 4 . Kriha teaches the method for producing a polyamide-based resin expanded bead according to Claim 1 , wherein t he granule/bead comprise s in particular 0.1 to 1 weight percent (1,000 to 10,000 ppm) of a lubricant [0094], e.g. the higher fatty acid metal salt. Kriha further teaches the granule may have a content of additional additives (C), e.g. the coloring pigment, of preferably up to 30 weight ([0093], [0158], and [0160]). A ratio of a content of the higher fatty acid metal salt in the polyamide-based resin bead, in mass ppm, to a content of the carbon black in the polyamide-based resin bead, in % by mass, can therefore be calculated to be preferably at least 30 . While this range is not identical to the instantly claimed range for the ratio of the content to carbon black of 50 to 3000 , it does overlap. It has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding Claim 5 . Kriha teaches the method for producing a polyamide-based resin expanded bead according to Claim 1, wherein the granule/bead ha s a bulk/apparent density of up to 900 g/l (kg/m 3 ). While this range is not identical to the instantly claimed range for the apparent density of the bead of 10 to 300 kg/m 3 , it does overlap. It has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05) Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3305 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7026 . 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. /MELISSA A RIOJA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764