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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutsuda (US 20130318835, US Patent Reference #2 from IDS dated 3/1/2024).
Regarding Claim 1,
Mutsuda teaches a resin composition that can be formed into a sheet and joined to a crosslinked rubber (Abstract) which contains a polyamide polymer with a melting temperature that is preferably between 175 and 250 °C (Paragraph 63), containing the range of 180 to 230 °C of the instant claim. Mutsuda further teaches that high temperatures cause deformation of the resulting product while low temperatures result in prolonged vulcanization time and poor adhesion (Paragraph 7), providing the ordinarily skilled artisan with motivation to use materials with a melting temperature within the stated range. As a result, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Mutsuda also teaches that the composition can include a thermoplastic elastomer comprised of a polyamide block and a polyether block (Paragraphs 53 and 54) and that this elastomer can be mixed in at a ratio of polyamide to elastomer of preferably between 80:20 and 55:45 (Paragraph 63), which overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Mutsuda teaches that adjusting this ratio allows for control of the flexural modulus (Paragraph 64). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different use cases would require differing levels of flexibility in the composition and would adjust the composition in order to meet the requirements for the desired use case. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Finally, Mutsuda teaches that the polyamide portion of the composition preferably has an amino group concentration of 55 to 100 mmol/kg (Paragraph 68) which Mutsuda teaches results in improved adhesion with the rubber layer in the final component (Paragraph 67).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3,
Mutsuda teaches a composition (Paragraph 195) containing 70% of a polyamide with an amino group concentration of 65 mmol/kg (Paragraph 175) and 30% of the elastomer ZE0900 with an amino group concentration of 42 mmol/kg (Paragraph 181) which affords a composition with an amino group concentration of 58.1 mmol/kg (Paragraph 195), meeting the requirements of the instant claims.
Regarding Claim 4,
Mutsuda teaches that any polyamide with a melting temperature of 175 to 250 °C is useful in the composition (Paragraph 61) and specifically mentions polyamide 612 (Paragraph 61), meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5,
Mutsuda teaches that the polyamide resin components have a flexural modulus, which reads on a bending modulus, of usually between 600 and 2500 MPa determined using ISO 178 (Paragraph 77), which overlaps with the range of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different use cases would require differing levels of flexibility in the composition and would adjust the composition in order to meet the requirements for the desired use case. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 6,
Mutsuda teaches that the composition is used to form a resin sheet (Paragraph 99).
Regarding Claim 7,
Mutsuda teaches that the resin sheet of the composition is adhered to a crosslinked rubber sheet (Paragraph 103) which Mutsuda further teaches is done by bringing the sheet in contact with an uncrosslinked rubber followed by crosslinking (Paragraph 157).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Montanari (FR 2902435 and English equivalent US 20100140846) teaches compositions using the polyamides required by the instant application in combination with elastomers such as Pebax, Vestamid and Ubesta variants for use in athletic equipment such as shoes and boots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights