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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed June 30, 2026 are entered and have been fully considered. Applicant has corrected the issues with the abstract and drawings, therefore the previous objections are withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous 101, 112b, and 112d rejections, therefore they are withdrawn. Applicant has cancelled claims 2 and 4, the current pending claims are 1, 3, 5-14, 16-19. Due to the amended claim 1, the previous 102 rejection over Schubert is withdrawn.
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, 3, 5-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habraken et al, WO2019057849A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Habraken teaches a heat-resistant polyamide composition which includes a copolyamide (A) and an anhydride functional polymer (B), ¶[0005]. In table 3, page 29, Habraken blends 38.45 parts Copolyamide 1 with 20 parts Polyamide 2, the Copolyamide 1 is PA6/6.36 comprising 30 wt.% PA6.36, ¶[0081], which is an aliphatic copolyamide and reads on component A of claim 1. Copolyamide 1 makes up 56.17 wt.% of the blend with the Polyamide 2 in example 5, and therefore the other polyamide is less than 50 wt.% in the blend, which is calculated from 38.45 divided by the PA total, 38.45 + 20 = 68.45. Habraken teaches that the copolyamide (A) has a melting temperature of 150-210°C, ¶[0023], which reads on the claimed range for component A.
The Polyamide 2 used in example 5 is PA-6, ¶[0088], which does not read on the copolyamide of component B, but Habraken teaches the supplemental polyamide, (D), may be selected as any polyamide that is linked together through peptide bonds and that is formed from a polymerization reaction of amide monomers and lists polyamide 6T/6I among the suitable polyamides, ¶¶[0059-0060]. PA6T/6I is a semi-crystalline semi-aromatic copolyamide, and reads on claim 3. Habraken does not list its melting point, but because applicant states polyamide 6T/6I has a melting point greater than 250°C, page 4 lines 27-28 of the as-filed specification, then the polyamide 6T/6I of Habraken must also have a Tm>250°C and satisfies the claim.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute one material for another to obtain predictable results when the materials fulfill the same use and function, see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.), also see In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343; In re Jezel 158 USPQ 99.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Habraken but substitute the supplemental polyamide PA-6 in example 5 with the semi-crystalline semi-aromatic PA6T/6I with the motivation of producing the predictable result of another permutation of a heat-resistant polyamide composition as taught by Habraken because it is the simple substitution of one known polyamide for another that has the same use and function with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 16, Habraken teaches copolyamide (A) is made from the reaction of (i) a lactam and (ii) a monomer mixture, the monomer mixture includes at least one C32-C40 dimer acid and at least one C4-C12 diamine, ¶[0003, 0027]. The lactam is present from 15-84 wt.%, the monomer mixture is present from 16-85 wt.% ¶[0007], which reads on claims 5 and 16.
Habraken exemplifies PA6/6.36 for both copolyamide 1 and 2 in the examples, ¶¶[0081, 0090], which is a copolyamide of PA6 made from caprolactam, and PA6.36 made from hexamethylene diamine and C36 dimer acid. The amount of 6.36 in each of the copolyamides is 30 wt.% and 20 wt.% respectively, which in turn means that each copolyamide is 70 wt.% and 80 wt.% lactam respectively; both of which fall within the claimed ranges for A’ and B’ in claims 5 and 16.
The monomer mixture includes from about 45-55 mol% of the dimer acid (a), and about 45-55 mol% of the diamine (b), ¶¶[0029-0030], which reads on claim 6.
Regarding claims 7-10, Habraken teaches adding additional substances to the composition including fillers, ¶[0068], which reads on component C and C1 of claims 7 and 8. A zinc ionomer ¶[0092] is included in the composition of example 5, table 3 page 29, and ionomers are known impact modifiers, which reads on C2 of claim 9. Maleic anhydride functional polymer is included in the composition, abstract and ¶[0004], and is shown in example 5, table 3 page 29, which reads on the additional thermoplastic polymer C3 distinct from components A, B, and C2 of claim 10.
Regarding claims 11-14, 17-19, Habraken teaches the components of the compositions are mixed in a twin-screw extruder, extruded and pelletized. Then the pellets are dried and molded into plaques in an injection molding machine then formed into an article, ¶[0078]. The articles formed by injection molding reads on the claimed moldings of claims 17 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amended claim 1, the previous 102 rejection over Schubert is withdrawn. Schubert teaches aliphatic polyamides and lists individual polyamides that are derived from lactams, such as PA6, and states the copolymers of the aliphatic polyamides can be used, but there is no teaching of what the melting point would be when using the copolyamides and it is not obvious that a copolyamide made with the lactam-polyamides and another of the listed aliphatic polyamides will possess the required melting point <220°C.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 regarding the 103 rejection over Habraken have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument, page 11, that Habraken does not disclose a polyamide blend with the claimed semi-aromatic semicrystalline polyamide and the claimed aliphatic copolyamide, examiner reminds applicant that the prior art need not have an embodiment for every possible combination of ingredients disclosed. Applicant is arguing against an anticipation rejection, but the rejection is made under 103 obviousness. The PA6 in example 5 was not used in the rejection to read against the claims. Habraken specifically lists alternative supplemental polyamides in ¶[0060], which includes some semi-aromatic copolyamides, of which polyamide 6T/6I is specifically listed and is a semi-aromatic semicrystalline copolyamide which satisfies the melting point limitation, therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to use the polyamide 6T/6I because Habraken states it is suitable for the polyamide blend of the composition. Furthermore, applicant has not shown why it would not be obvious to select the polyamide 6T/6I when Habraken specifically teaches it.
The fact that Habraken discloses numerous types of supplemental polyamides which can be suitably selected to form a polyamide blend in the composition does not render any particular combination of disclosed polyamides less obvious. A reference is available for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Applicant’s argument that Habraken does not teach the specific combination of copolyamides with the specified melting points and that examiner has used the specification as a roadmap (i.e. hindsight), page 11-12, is unpersuasive. The rejection does not rely on applicant’s specification to provide the motivation to modify the prior art. Habraken independently teaches the same copolyamides that satisfy the claims, with examples in the claimed percent ranges. The rationale for the combination is that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one material for another to obtain predictable results when the materials fulfill the same use and function, see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Applicant’s specification was used to establish the melting point of the already identified copolyamide disclosed by Habraken. Applicant’s specification is not used to modify the teachings of Habraken, but to establish a factual property of a material specifically disclosed in the prior art. The melting point is an inherent property of the copolyamide and because Habraken discloses the specific copolyamide, PA6T/6I, and applicant’s specification identifies the same copolyamide as having a melting point greater than 250°C, the evidence establishes that the copolyamide disclosed by Habraken possesses the recited melting point, absent evidence that the copolyamide in Habraken differs in a relevant characteristic that would affect its melting point. Furthermore, applicant has not shown that the PA6T/6I of Habraken does not inherently possess the recited melting point.
Applicant’s argument of unexpected results is unpersuasive and not commensurate in scope with the claims. The data shows an improvement in physical properties in the inventive examples versus the comparative examples, such as the tensile modulus, but this isn’t entirely unexpected because semi-crystalline polyamides are known for having a higher tensile modulus than amorphous polyamides due to the crystalline domains, which increase stiffness/ rigidity and tensile strength; furthermore the compositions in table 2 contain 35% glass fiber which is known for improving physical properties and heat deflection.
Applicant points out example 3 in table 2 as having improved HDT, which does have the highest HDT, but the other two inventive examples made with the claimed copolyamides and in the claimed percent ranges, have similar HDT results to comparative example 1, which only has the PA6/6.36, therefore not all of the inventive examples have an unexpected HDT. The HDT result for example 3 shows there is a component causing the result besides what is claimed, such as the specific semi-aromatic semicrystalline polyamide, which is much narrower than what is claimed in claim 1.
Comparative example 2 has the PA6/6.36 and the amorphous polyamide which expectedly results in a lower HDT result than the others. Semicrystalline polyamides are known for having better heat deflection than amorphous polyamides, therefore the higher HDT results are not unexpected, but it is also unclear why the two inventive examples 1 and 2 are not much higher than the comparative example 1, but rather very similar, despite the comparative example 1 not having any semi-crystalline semi-aromatic polyamide.
Applicant states that the inventive compositions have improved barrier properties against fuels, which the specification states are shown in figure 2, but it appears in the drawings filed 6/30/2026 that the inventive example 3 has a higher permeation in comparison to the commercial Ultramid products and the comparative example 2. Only the comparative example 1 is higher than inventive example 3. It is unclear why comparative example 2 would have such drastically lower permeation because it has the amorphous polyamide and amorphous polymers in general have worse barrier properties than semi-crystalline polymers due to the higher amount of free volume from the random molecular arrangement. Unless examiner is mistaken, higher permeation means it is not a good barrier. According to the legend below the chart, it states the first dark column is ethanol, the second column is hydrocarbon and the third is the total, and it appears all but the comparative example 1 has near zero permeation of hydrocarbons. In summary, it is unclear how the inventive examples are better fuel barriers than the comparisons in Figure 2 because the inventive example has a very high permeation.
Additionally, the showing of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The results use specific copolyamides in blends with narrower percent ranges than what is claimed. Furthermore, applicant is citing unexpected results that pertain to the entire composition itself, which contains other ingredients such as glass fiber in Table 2, whereas claim 1 is directed only to the blend of copolyamides, and the composition is not claimed until claim 7. The scope of the claims is broader than the showing of unexpected results.
Therefore, because of the reasons stated above, the 103 rejection over Habraken is maintained.
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 VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM 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, 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.
/V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights