DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernagut et al (US 2018/0171140).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 9, 16, and 18:
Fernagut discloses a polyamide molding composition comprising (A) 50-95% of a semicrystalline polyamide, (B) 5-50% of a semicrystalline copolyamide, optional components (C) and (D), and (E) 0-5% of additives including stabilizers, wherein percentages are by weight [abstract; 0001; 0026-0037]. The (A) semicrystalline polyamide is at least one selected from a group including PA610 [0041; 0059; 0154]. Other polyamides include PA11, PA12, PA612, or PA1212 [Id.]. The (B) copolyamide comprises a polyamide-polyether block copolymer, wherein the polyamide block is aliphatic and the polyether block includes polytetramethylene glycol (PTMG) (polyTHF), wherein the polyamide block is at least 50% by weight of the copolymer and the polyether block is at least 15% by weight [0062; 0068; 0113-0116]. The (E) stabilizer includes HALS [0103].
Fernagut discloses composition comprising the claimed components in amounts that overlap with the presently claimed amounts. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select amounts of the components, including amounts falling within the claimed range, to provide a molding composition within the scope of Fernagut’s teaching, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Fernagut teaches the use of PA610 as component (A). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this polymer as component (A) (i.e., 100% of component (A)) to provide a composition in accordance with the reference’s teaching.
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 17:
Although the present claims further limit component (B), they do not require its presence. Therefore, Fernagut meets the claimed limitations. Note that Fernagut teaches the use of another polyamide in amounts of 0-20% by weight [0060].
Regarding claim 8:
Fernagut teaches component (E) can further comprise phosphite antioxidants [0103]. Inventive Example 1 uses 0.2% of IRGAFOS 126 phosphite antioxidant [Table 1]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further add a phosphite antioxidant, including in amounts presently claimed, to provide a composition according to the reference having the stabilizing properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claims 10 and 19:
Although the present claims further limit component (F), they do not require its presence. Therefore, Fernagut meets the claimed limitations. Note that Fernagut teaches the use of another polyamide in amounts of 0-20% by weight [0060].
Regarding claims 11-14:
Fernagut discloses mixing the components and further molding/extruding the resulting material [0156-0157].
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chacko et al. (US 5,153,275) in view of Fernagut et al (US 2018/0171140).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 9, 16, and 18:
Chacko discloses polyamide molding compositions (abstract; 1:17+; 1:60+). The compositions comprise 70-98 wt% of a polyamide and 2-30% of a block copolymer of poly(amide-ether) (2:27+). A preferred polyamide is PA610 (Id.). Preferred poly(amide-ether) copolymers include polyamide blocks based on PA6 or PA12 and polyether blocks based on polytetramethylene glycol (polyTHF) (2:59+). Examples include block copolymers sold under the name PEBAX 3533 (6:22+). This is the same material used in the present invention (present specification at lines 33-41 of page 4), and therefore clearly meets the claimed weight ratio of the two blocks. The composition further teaches the use of light stabilizers (4:25+).
Chacko is silent with regard to a hindered amine light stabilizer.
Such compounds were known in the art to have utility. For example, Fernagut discloses a polyamide molding composition comprising (A) 50-95% of a semicrystalline polyamide, (B) 5-50% of a semicrystalline copolyamide, optional components (C) and (D), and (E) 0-5% of additives including stabilizers, wherein percentages are by weight [abstract; 0001; 0026-0037]. The (E) stabilizer includes HALS [0103].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known light stabilizer, including HALS, to provide improved resistance (stability) to degradation caused by light.
Furthermore, with regard to the claimed weight amounts of each component, the combination of Chacko and Fernagut discloses a composition comprising the claimed components in amounts that overlap with the presently claimed amounts. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select amounts of the components, including amounts falling within the claimed range, to provide a molding composition in accordance with the prior art teachings, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Chacko teaches the use of PA610 as component (A). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this polymer as component (A) (i.e., 100% of component (A)) to provide a composition in accordance with the reference’s teaching.
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 17:
Although the present claims further limit component (B), they do not require its presence. Therefore, Chacko modified by Fernagut meets the claimed limitations. Also note that Fernagut teaches the use of another polyamide in amounts of 0-20% by weight [0060].
Regarding claim 8:
Chacko is silent with regard to the use of phosphites, however, Fernagut teaches component (E) can further comprise phosphite antioxidants [0103]. Fernagut’s Inventive Example 1 uses 0.2% of IRGAFOS 126 phosphite antioxidant [Table 1]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further add a phosphite antioxidant, including in amounts presently claimed, to provide a composition according to the reference having the stabilizing properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claims 10 and 19:
Although the present claims further limit component (F), they do not require its presence. Therefore, Chacko modified by Fernagut meets the claimed limitations. Note that Fernagut teaches the use of another polyamide in amounts of 0-20% by weight [0060].
Regarding claim 11:
Chacko teaches the composition is made by melt blending the components (4:29+).
Regarding claims 12-14:
Chacko teaches molding and extruding various articles (1:17+; 1:60+). Molding includes injection molding (4:40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 1 requires component (A) to comprise PA610 or mixtures of PA610 (p5).
The examiner agrees with Applicant that the amendments to claim 1 require PA610 or mixtures of PA610 with particular other polyamides.
Applicant argues Fernagut is deficient because it fails to meet the required component (A) (p6).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejections, Fernagut discloses the use of PA610 or mixtures thereof with other polyamides.
Applicant argues Comparative Example 1 and Example 1 of the present application provide a direct comparison which demonstrates significantly improved results (p7).
The examiner notes that the main difference between Comparative Example 1 and Example 1 is the lack of polyamide polyether block copolymer in Comparative Example 1. This showing does not demonstrate a nonobvious difference in the prior art of previously applied Fernagut or newly cited Chacko because both references already disclose and require polyamide polyether block copolymer in their compositions.
Applicant argues any provided comparisons do not need to match the prior art cited by the examiner (p7). Applicant argues the examples of the present application meet the requirements for such comparisons and demonstrate the patentability of the present invention (p8).
The examiner respectfully submits, however, that the comparison of Comparative Example 1 and Example 1 only demonstrates the criticality of the presence of polyamide polyether block copolymer. The prior art, however, already acknowledges the criticality of this component in its compositions, and so the presence of this component cannot form the basis of patentability of the claimed invention. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights