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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 3/17/2024 and 7/2/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “Polyamide X comprises polyamide units AB/AC/AE/DB/DC/DE/F, characterized in that, in addition to the polyamide unit AC, at least one further polyamide unit is selected from the group consisting of AB, AE, DB, DC, DE, and F” which renders the claim indefinite for the following reason. The recitation of “at least one further polyamide unit is selected from the group consisting of AB, AE, DB, DC, DE, and F” in lines 3 and 4 of the claim indicates that the polyamide X is only required to comprise one of the units AB, AE, DB, DC, DE, and F which is inconsistent with the recitation of “Polyamide X comprises polyamide units AB/AC/AE/DB/DC/DE/F” in lines 1 and 2 of the claim which indicates that the presence of all of polyamide units AB, AE, DB, DC, DE, and F is required. Appropriate action is required. Claims 2-15 are rejected for inheriting the deficiency of independent claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret a polyamide which comprises a polyamide unit AC and a polyamide unit selected from any one of AB, AE, DB, DC, DE, and F as meeting the limitation of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “C: phosphorous-containing, aromatic dicarboxylic acid according to formula 1, 2 and/or 3”. However, none of formulas 1-3 are recited in the claim. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of what the structure of the claimed phosphorous-containing, aromatic dicarboxylic acid is. Claims 2-15 are rejected for inheriting the deficiency of independent claim 1. For the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret any phosphorous-containing, aromatic dicarboxylic acid as reading on claimed monomer C. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 each recite a first broad range and then a preferred, more preferred, or especially preferred narrow range which constitutes a narrow and a broad range in the same claim. MPEP 2173.05(c) establishes that if stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the polyamide X consists exclusively of the polyamide units AB, AC, and AE” which requires all three polyamide units be present. The claims goes on to recite preferred embodiments in which the polyamide X consists exclusively of units AB and AC or AC and AE. As such, it is unclear if the polyamide X is required to consist exclusively of polyamide units AB, AC, and AE or if it is required to consist exclusively of polyamide units AB and AC or polyamide units AC and AE. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 9 recites “at least one phosphorous-containing, aromatic dicarboxylic acid C according to formula 1 and/or 2”. However, none of formulas 1 or 2 are recited in the claim. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of what the structure of the claimed phosphorous-containing, aromatic dicarboxylic acid is. For this reason the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 each recite the phrases “preferably” and/or “more preferably” and/or “particularly preferably” and/or “especially preferably” or/and “especially” which renders these claims indefinite as it is unclear what the intended scope of the claims is. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the claims as if they only recite the non-preferred limitation(s). Appropriate action is required.
Claim 15 recites “Use of a polyamide X according claim 1, or of a polyamide molding compound FM according to anyone of claims 10 to 12, for the production of molded parts according to claims 13 and 14” which renders the claim indefinite as it is an improper definition of a process. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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 1-4, 7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badel et al., EP 3,838,907 A1 (“Badel”)(copy provided herewith)
PNG
media_image1.png
272
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Badel discloses an example (Example 5) of a phosphorous-containing polyamide which is formed via a condensation reaction between hexamethylenediamine adipate, a phosphorous-containing monomer, and hexamethylenediamine [0012]. The phosphorous-containing monomer of the disclosed polyamide the following molecular structure [0110]:
The polyamide produced by the condensation reaction would be of the formula AC/AE wherein the AC unit is formed of the C6 aliphatic diamine hexamethylenediamine and the phosphorous-containing monomer. It is noted that the phosphorous-containing monomer is a dicarboxylic acid comprising an aromatic moiety and therefore is a
phosphorous-containing, aromatic dicarboxylic acid as claimed. The AE units would have comprised the C6 aliphatic diamine hexamethylenediamine and the C6 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid adipic acid.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Badel teaches that the condensation reaction comprises 0.53 moles of hexamethylenediamine adipate and 0.02 moles of both hexamethylenediamine and the phosphorous-containing monomer [0012]. As such, the unit formed from the hexamethylenediamine and the phosphorous-containing monomer which corresponds to the claimed AC unit would comprise about 7 mol% of the entire polyamide. The hexamethylenediamine adipate unit which corresponds to the claimed AE unit would have comprised about 93 mol% of the entire polyamide.
Regarding claim 3, the adipic acid monomer of the hexamethylenediamine adipate unit reads on the adipic acid of claimed group E.
Regarding claim 7, as is noted above when addressing claim 1, the polyamide produced by the condensation reaction would be of the formula AC/AE which corresponds to the claimed polyamide consisting exclusively of units AC and AE.
Regarding claim 13, Badel teaches extruding the polyamide of example 5 into a strand [0112] which reads on the molded part.
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 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badel.
Roth, WO 2008/119693 is incorporated by reference into the teachings of Badel and is relied upon when addressing claim 11.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, as is described above, Badel discloses an example (Example 5) of a phosphorous-containing polyamide which is formed via a condensation reaction between hexamethylenediamine adipate, a phosphorous-containing monomer, and hexamethylenediamine [0012]. The phosphorous-containing monomer of the disclosed polyamide has the following molecular structure [0110]:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The polyamide produced by the condensation reaction would be of the formula AC/AE wherein the AC unit is formed of the C6 aliphatic diamine hexamethylenediamine and the phosphorous-containing monomer. It is noted that the phosphorous-containing monomer is a dicarboxylic acid comprising an aromatic moiety and therefore is a
phosphorous-containing, aromatic dicarboxylic acid as claimed.
In the broader disclosure, Badel teaches that hexamethylenediamine and adipic acid are preferred, however Badel also teaches that other dicarboxylic acid may be used [0060]. Badel goes on to teach using terephthalic acid as a dicarboxylic acid component [0060]. As such, Badel reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art a polyamide which is similar to that of disclosed example 5 but wherein hexamethylene terephthalate (i.e., 6T) used instead of hexamethylenediamine adipate (i.e., 66). The hexamethylene terephthalate of this obvious variant would have corresponded to the claimed polyamide unit AB.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Badel teaches that the condensation reaction comprises 0.53 moles of hexamethylenediamine adipate and 0.02 moles of both hexamethylenediamine and the phosphorous-containing monomer [0012]. As such, the unit formed from the hexamethylenediamine and the phosphorous-containing monomer which corresponds to the claimed AC unit would comprise about 7 mol% of the entire polyamide. Thus, the remaining 93 mol% of the obvious variant described above would have been comprised of the polyamide unit AB which corresponds to the claimed at least one further polyamide unit.
Regarding claim 3, the terephthalic acid monomer of the hexamethylenediamine terephthalate unit (i.e., unit AB) would have read on the terephthalic acid of claimed group B.
Regarding claim 5, the terephthalic acid monomer of the hexamethylenediamine terephthalate unit (i.e., unit AB) would have read on the claimed terephthalic acid.
Regarding claim 6, the hexamethylenediamine terephthalate unit (i.e., unit AB) would have read on the claimed polyamide unit 6T.
Regarding claim 7, as is noted above when addressing claim 1, the polyamide produced by the condensation reaction described above would have been of the formula AC/AB which corresponds to the claimed polyamide consisting exclusively of units AC and AB.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Badel teaches forming a polymer composition mixing the phosphorous-containing polyamide with another polyamide [0079, 0081]. The mixture comprises at least 80 wt% of the phosphorous-containing polyamide (corresponding to claimed polyamide X)[0083]. It logically follows that the other polyamide would comprise 20 wt% of the composition. As such, the ranges of amounts taught by Badel overlap, and therefore render obvious, the ranges of amounts recited in claims 10 and 12. As the other polyamide, Badel names, inter alia, polyamide 610 which is recited in claim 12 [0081, 0088].
Regarding claim 11, Badel teaches that the disclosed polymer composition may comprise additives [0096]. Regarding the additive, Badel teaches that specific examples are disclosed in WO 2008/119693 (i.e., Roth), the content of which is incorporated by reference. Roth discloses additives such as antioxidants which are added to a polymer composition in amounts of from 0.01 to 10 wt% (pages 29-31)
Regarding claims 13-15, Badel teaches producing flame-retardant polymer fibers from the polymer composition by melt-spinning [0090, 0093].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stoppelmann, US 2021/0032466 (“Stoppelmann”).
Regarding claim 8, as is described above, Badel discloses a polymer composition comprising a polyamide which anticipates and/or renders obvious the polyamide of claim 1. Badel is silent regarding the solution viscosity of the disclosed polyamide.
Stoppelmann discloses a molding composition comprising a polyamide resin [abstract, 0009, 0010]. Stoppelmann teaches that with respect to processability, it proves advantageous if the polyamide has a solution viscosity in the range of 1.6 to 3.0 as determined in a solution of 0.5 g polymer granules in 100 ml m-cresol at a temperature of 20 ˚C [0036].
Badel and Stoppelmann are both directed towards molding compositions comprising a polyamide. In light of the teachings of Stoppelmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have adjusted the solution viscosity of the polyamide in the composition of Badel so as to be within the range of 1.6 to 3.0 as determined on a solution of 0.5 g polymer granules in 100 ml m-cresol at a temperature of 20 ˚C with the expectation of having advantageous processability. The solution viscosity of the polyamide in the composition of modified Badel would have overlapped or encompassed, and therefore rendered obvious, the claimed solution viscosity (see MPEP 2144.05).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which has not been relied upon, but is considered pertinent to Applicant’s claims and/or written description.
· JP H11-286545 to Nomura et al. which is cited by Applicant on the IDS filed 2 July 2026. Nomura et al. discloses a phosphorous-containing polyamide copolymer comprising at least one diamine monomer component, at least one diacid component, and a phosphorous compound [0001, 0008, 0010]. The phosphorous compound has the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
68
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is an alkyl group or an aryl group [abstract, 0009].
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM.
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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/LEE E SANDERSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights