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.
Claims 3 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 3, line 4 recites “the concentration of urea functions in the composition” but does not recite a value and the claim simply ends with this phrase. It is unclear if an amount of urea functions within the composition is actually claimed. For the purpose of further examination, this claim will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation and that is that the concentration of urea functions in the composition can be any value.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitations "the molar ratio,” “the urethane functions,” “the NH2 amine functions,” and “the assembly” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “wherein a molar ratio of urethane functions to NH2 amine functions in the composition.”
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.
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, 3-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagawa et al. (JP 5741139) in view of Birkar et al. ("Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block Amide/Thermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion," Rubber Division, ACS, 186th Technical Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, October 14-16, 2014, Volume 2 of 3, pages 1037-1059). For convenience, the citations below for Akagawa et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 11, Akagawa et al. teaches a polyurethane resin composition comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane resin and a polyamide-based elastomer having polyamide units as hard segments and polyether units as soft segments (copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks), and an impact-resistant molded article comprising the composition (¶1). In the polyurethane resin composition, the thermoplastic polyurethane is present in an amount of 50 to 90% by weight (¶14), and the polyamide elastomer is contained in an amount of 50 to 10% by weight (¶15), amounts which overlap with those required by claim 6. The polyether amide elastomer (PAE1) used in the examples is prepared from 12-[AltContent: ][AltContent: ]aminododecanoic acid, an ABA-type triblock polyether diamine, a polyoxypropylenediamine, and adipic acid; and has a concentration of NH2 amine functions (evidence of amine chain ends) of 3.83 x 10-5 eq/g (see original document for this value), which is 0.0383 meq/g (¶87). This value for the amine functions falls within the range of 0.01 meq/g to 1 meq/g, as required by claim 4. Specifically, Example 3 teaches a polyurethane resin composition comprising 65 parts by weight of a thermoplastic polyurethane (Elastollan HM76D) and 35 parts by weight of the polyether amide elastomer (PAE1) (¶90). Because the copolymer carries amine chain ends, it can therefore be considered that a portion of the copolymer having polyamide blocks and polyether blocks reacts with a portion of the polyurethane, and that a portion of the copolymer is covalently bonded to a portion of the polyurethane by means of a urea function (¶87), as is required by claim 3. Further, the thermoplastic polyurethane is a copolymer having flexible blocks derived from a polyether block or a polyester block, and rigid blocks derived from 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (¶24, 25), as required by claim 10. Additionally, PAE1 comprises 84.9% by weight of polyamide 12 units (¶87), as required by claim 11.
Akagawa et al. does not teach that the composition has a tensile modulus at 23 °C of less than or equal to 170 MPa. The composition of Akagawa et al. has a tensile modulus of 1177 MPa and a Shore D hardness of 71 (Example 3, Table 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
236
20
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Birkar et al. teaches melt blends of a thermoplastic polyurethane with a polyether block amide prepared by twin screw extrusion, in which the thermoplastic polyurethane is Desmopan 9370A having a Shore D hardness of 22 and the polyether block amide is PEBAX 5533 having a Shore D hardness of 54 (Page 1040-1041). Birkar et al. teaches blends of thermoplastic polyurethane to polyether block amide weight ratios of 20/80, 40/60, 60/40, and 80/20, extruded at 210 °C and 150 rpm and injection molded at a melt temperature of 210 °C and a mold temperature of 35 °C (Page 1041, Table 1). The moduli of every one of these blends fall between approximately 1.5 and 15 MPa (Page 1054, Figure 9b), which is well below the claimed value of 170 MPa.
Akagawa et al. and Birkar et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of melt blended compositions of a thermoplastic polyurethane with a copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a thermoplastic polyurethane of low hardness, as taught by Birkar et al., for the thermoplastic polyurethane of the composition, as taught by Akagawa et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to adjust the hardness and elastic modulus of the composition to applicant’s desired value. Akagawa et al. teaches that a polyether ester amide elastomer can be mixed with a thermoplastic polyurethane in order to adjust the hardness and elastic modulus, and that such mixing makes it possible to adjust the hardness and elastic modulus of the mixture while also obtaining excellent appearance (¶2).
Additionally, the tensile modulus is a result-effective variable. The instant specification teaches that during the preparation of the composition it is possible to reduce the tensile modulus [AltContent: ]at 23 °C by increasing the number-average molar mass of the flexible blocks of the PEBA and/or of the TPU, by using as flexible blocks a material with a lower tensile modulus, by reducing the weight ratio of the rigid blocks relative to the flexible blocks, and by inducing a reaction between the PEBA comprising amine chain ends and the TPU (¶160-164, instant PG-PUB). The instant specification further teaches that the hardness of the thermoplastic polyurethane is set by the molar ratio of the isocyanate-reactive compound to the chain extender (¶113, instant PG-PUB). Applicant's own examples confirm the relationship. Composition No. 2 employs a thermoplastic polyurethane of Shore A 95 hardness and exhibiting a tensile modulus of 141.0 MPa while comparative composition No. 3 employs a thermoplastic polyurethane of Shore D 59 hardness at the same 50% by weight loading of the same copolymer and exhibits a tensile modulus of 193.6 MPa (Tables 1 and 2 of the instant PG-PUB). It is well known in the art to optimize result effective variables, such as tensile modulus. MPEP § 2144.05. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 8, Akagawa et al. and Birkar et al. do not explicitly teach that the composition has a tan δ at 23° C of less than or equal to 0.12, a density of less than or equal to 1.16, or a tensile set after 10 cycles at a strain of 30% of less than or equal to 15%. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., a tan δ at 23° C of less than or equal to 0.12, a density of less than or equal to 1.16, and a tensile set after 10 cycles at a strain of 30% of less than or equal to 15%, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the 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 there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 9, the molar ratio of the urethane functions to the NH2 amine functions of the composition is fixed by the quantities the references disclose, and falls within the claimed range of from 15 to 350 for any thermoplastic polyurethane. It is unnecessary to determine the precise urethane content of the thermoplastic polyurethane of Birkar et al. in order to find the limitation met.
Each diisocyanate residue of a thermoplastic polyurethane carries exactly two urethane linkages. The concentration of urethane functions of a 4,4′-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI, molecular weight 250.25 g/mol) based thermoplastic polyurethane is accordingly 7.992 multiplied by the weight fraction of that diisocyanate (calculated by Examiner; 2*1000/250.25 g/mol = 7.992). The concentration of NH2 amine functions of the copolymer of Akagawa et al. is 3.83 x 10-5 eq/g, which is 0.0383 mmol/g (¶87).
For the 60/40 blend of Birkar et al., the molar ratio is therefore 39.16 multiplied by the concentration of urethane functions of the thermoplastic polyurethane, expressed in mmol/g (calculated by Examiner; 0.60/(0.40 x 0.0383 mmol/g) = 39.16). The claimed range of from 15 to 350 corresponds to a concentration of urethane functions of from 0.38 to 8.94 mmol/g (calculated by Examiner; 15/39.16 = 0.38 and 350/39.16 = 8.94). No thermoplastic polyurethane lies outside that span as explained below.
The upper limit cannot be reached. A concentration of 8.94 mmol/g exceeds the theoretical maximum of 5.88 mmol/g, which is the urethane concentration of a hypothetical polymer consisting entirely of 4,4′-diphenylmethane diisocyanate and 1,4-butanediol with no soft segment whatever (calculated by Examiner; 2*1000/(250.25 + 90.12) = 5.88). The lower limit corresponds to approximately 4.8% by weight of diisocyanate (calculated by Examiner; 0.38/7.992 = 0.048), below which insufficient hard segment is present to form the physical crosslinks that make the material a thermoplastic polyurethane rather than a viscous liquid.
The same result obtains for the 40/60 blend of Birkar et al., for which the molar ratio is 17.41 multiplied by the concentration of urethane functions, so that the claimed range corresponds to from 0.86 to 20.11 mmol/g (calculated by Examiner; 0.40/(0.60 x 0.0383 mmol/g) = 17.41; 15/17.41 = 0.86 and 350/17.41 = 20.11). The softest thermoplastic polyurethane of fully documented composition in the art contains 17.4% by weight of diisocyanate, corresponding to 1.39 mmol/g, and Birkar et al. employs a harder grade than that, Desmopan 9370A being reported at a Shore D hardness of 22 (Page 1040).
Additionally, there is no evidence on the record to show that the composition of Akagawa et al. as modified by Birkar et al. does not possess the claimed ratio.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Akagawa et al. teaches injection molding the polyurethane resin composition to produce a molded article (¶88, 90), and Birkar et al. teaches injection molding test specimens at a melt temperature of 210 °C and a mold temperature of 35 °C (Page 1041). Claim 14 recites no particular article and therefore reads on any molded article of the composition.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagawa et al. (JP 5741139) in view of Birkar et al. ("Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block Amide/Thermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion," Rubber Division, ACS, 186th Technical Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, October 14-16, 2014, Volume 2 of 3, pages 1037-1059). For convenience, the citations below for Akagawa et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claim 2, Akagawa et al. and Birkar et al. teach a composition comprising at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks comprising amine chain ends, and at least one thermoplastic polyurethane, wherein the composition has a tensile modulus at 23 °C of less than or equal to 170 MPa as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. That rejection is incorporated herein by reference. Akagawa et al. teaches that the amine chain ends of the polyether amide elastomer react with the thermoplastic polyurethane (¶87), so that the composition is one obtained by the reaction of the copolymer with the thermoplastic polyurethane.
Moreover, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made
PNG
media_image2.png
276
20
media_image2.png
Greyscale
by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, there is no evidence on the record that the method of production produces a composition that is not the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art.
[AltContent: ]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagawa et al. (JP 5741139) in view of Birkar et al. ("Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block Amide/Thermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion," Rubber Division, ACS, 186th Technical Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, October 14-16, 2014, Volume 2 of 3, pages 1037-1059). For convenience, the citations below for Akagawa et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claim 12, Akagawa et al. and Birkar et al. teach a composition comprising at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks comprising amine chain ends, and at least one thermoplastic polyurethane, wherein the composition has a tensile modulus at 23 °C of less than or equal to 170 MPa as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. That rejection is incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, Akagawa et al. teaches mixing the polyether amide elastomer and the thermoplastic polyurethane and processing the mixture in the melt state to obtain the composition in pellet form (¶88), and Birkar et al. teaches twin screw extrusion of the two components at 210 °C (Page 1041). The recited step of shaping the mixture in the form of granules or powder is introduced by the word "optionally" and is therefore not a required step.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagawa et al. (JP 5,741,139) in view of Birkar et al. and Muller et al. (US 5,696,205).
Akagawa et al. and Birkar et al. teach a composition comprising at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks comprising amine chain ends, and at least one thermoplastic polyurethane, wherein the composition has a tensile modulus at 23 °C of less than or equal to 170 MPa as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. That rejection is incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above, Akagawa et al. teaches mixing the polyether amide elastomer and the thermoplastic polyurethane and processing the mixture in the melt state to obtain the composition in pellet form (¶88), and Birkar et al. teaches twin screw extrusion of the two components at 210 °C (Page 1041).
Akagawa et al. and Birkar et al. do not teach introducing precursors of the thermoplastic polyurethane into a reactor and synthesizing the thermoplastic polyurethane in the reactor in the presence of the copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks. Both references mix two finished polymers. However, Muller et al. teaches a process for the continuous production of a thermoplastic molding composition in which there are introduced into an extruder from 1 to 60% by weight of a preformed (co)polymer together with from 99 to 40% by weight of polyurethane-forming components comprising an organic diisocyanate, a linear polyol having terminal hydroxyl groups and a number average molecular weight of 500 to 5000, and a chain extender having a molecular weight of 60 to 500, the extruder operating under time and temperature conditions sufficient to bring about the formation of the thermoplastic polyurethane and its mixing with the (co)polymer, and the resulting mixture being discharged upon completion of the formation of the polyurethane (claim 1). Muller et al. teaches that the thermoplastic polyurethanes are produced continuously in a multi-shaft extruder in the presence of the (co)polymer and that the polyurethane-forming components may be added simultaneously in a one-shot method or in succession in a prepolymer method (Col. 6, lines 20-40). Polyamides are among the (co)polymers taught as suitable, and the extrudate is cooled in water, granulated, and dried (Col. 4, line 64 to Col. 5, line 2; Col. 6, lines 66-67).
[AltContent: ]Akagawa et al., Birkar et al., and Muller et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic polyurethane compositions containing a second polymer prepared by extrusion. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the thermoplastic polyurethane in the extruder in the presence of the copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks, as taught by Muller et al., in the preparation of the composition, as taught by Akagawa et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a chemical bond between the two components of the composition. Prissok et al. (WO 2020/083900; English equivalent US 2021/0380805 for citations) teaches that polyamide block copolymers such as polyether amide, for example Pebax, consist of an aliphatic polyamide building block and a polyetherol unit which are in most cases introduced into the polymer through terminal amine groups, and that mixtures of thermoplastic polyurethane and polyamide are blends produced from granule mixtures in an extruder or kneader whose use is compromised by the absence of a chemical bond between the components (¶2-4). Akagawa et al. already teaches that the amine chain ends of the polyether amide elastomer react with the thermoplastic polyurethane to form a urea function (¶87), and forming the polyurethane in the presence of the copolymer rather than afterwards would predictably extend that bonding throughout the composition.
The recited step of shaping the composition in the form of granules or powder is introduced by the word "optionally" and is therefore not a required step. However, Muller et al. nonetheless teaches granulating the extrudate. The tensile modulus of the composition is addressed above by reference. Additionally, with regard to the tensile modulus, the Office notes that the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/555,991 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1 and 6, claim 1 of the reference application teaches a composition comprising, relative to the total weight of the composition from 40% to 95% by weight of at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks, and from 5% to 60% by weight of at least one thermoplastic polyurethane, said composition having a tensile modulus at 23 °C of less than or equal to 150 MPa.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the reference application teaches a composition obtained by the reaction of from 40% to 95% by weight of at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks, and from 5% to 60% by weight of at least one thermoplastic polyurethane or thermoplastic polyurethane precursors, relative to the total weight of the composition, said composition having a tensile modulus at 23 °C of less than or equal to 150 MPa.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of the reference application teaches that at least one portion of the copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks is covalently bonded to at least one portion of the thermoplastic polyurethane by a urethane function.
Regarding claim 5, claim 7 of the reference application teaches that the composition has a tan δ at 23 ºC of less than or equal to 0.12.
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 of the reference application teaches that the composition has a density of less than or equal to 1.12.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of the reference application teaches that the thermoplastic polyurethane is a copolymer containing rigid blocks and flexible blocks, wherein the flexible blocks are chosen from polyether blocks, polyester blocks, polycarbonate blocks and a combination thereof; and/or the rigid blocks comprise units derived from diphenylmethane-4,4′-diisocyanate and/or from hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 of the reference application teaches that the polyamide blocks of the copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks are polyamide 11, polyamide 12, polyamide 10, polyamide 6, polyamide 6.10, polyamide 6.12, polyamide 10.10 and/or polyamide 10.12 blocks; and/or the polyether blocks of the copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks are polyethylene glycol blocks and/or polytetrahydrofuran blocks.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 of the reference application teaches a process for preparing a composition, comprising the following steps: mixing from 40% to 95% by weight of at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks in the melt state and from 5% to 60% by weight of at least one thermoplastic polyurethane in the melt state, relative to the total weight of the composition; and optionally, shaping the mixture in the form of granules or powder; wherein the composition has a tensile modulus at 23° C. of less than or equal to 150 MPa.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 of the reference application teaches a process for preparing a composition, comprising the following steps: introducing into a reactor from 5% to 60% by weight of precursors of at least one thermoplastic polyurethane, relative to the total weight of the composition; introducing into the reactor from 40% to 95% by weight of at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks, relative to the total weight of the composition; synthesizing the thermoplastic polyurethane in the reactor in the presence of the copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks, so as to obtain a composition made of thermoplastic polyurethane and of copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks; and optionally, shaping the composition in the form of granules or powder; wherein the composition has a tensile modulus at 23 °C of less than or equal to 150 MPa.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of the reference application teaches an article consisting of, or comprising at least one element consisting of the composition.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of the reference application teaches a process for manufacturing an article comprising the following steps: supplying the composition; injection molding said composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Correspodence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights