DETAILED ACTION
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, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriha (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0294910) and, optionally, Yoshimura (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0407088), which has an effective filing date of 12/7/2020.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kriha teaches a molded body comprising fused-together, polyamide-based resin expanded beads, which comprise a mixed resin of two or more polyamide resins that may include an aliphatic polyamide (i.e. “polyamide-based resin A” or “resin A”)), such as polyamide 11 (“PA11”), polyamide 12 (“PA12”), or polyamide 46 (“PA46”), and a xylylene group-containing polyamide resin, such as poly-m-xylylene adipamide (“PAMXD6”, i.e. “polyamide-based resin B” or “resin B”) (Abstract; par. 101).
The teachings of Kriha differ from the current invention in that he does not teach expanded beads or a molded body comprising expanded beads comprising a mixture of the above-discussed resin A to resin B in the recited mass ratio. However, Kriha does teach that the combination of two other polyamide resins is preferably in the range of 0.25:1 to 3:1 (par. 69). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the taught polyamides, including one of the types of aliphatic polyamides mentioned above and PAMXD6, in a ratio of 0.25:1 to 3:1 in Kriha’s polyamide-based resin beads because Kriha discloses combining a set of polyamides in such ratios to form a mixture, thereby encouraging one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such ratios of the other polyamides that he teaches. The instantly claimed mass ratio is overlapped and rendered obvious by Kriha. See MPEP 2144.05.
As noted above, Kriha differs from the current invention in that he does not teach a mass ratio of an aliphatic polyimide (i.e. resin A), such as PA11 or PA12, to a xylylene group-containing resin (i.e. PAMXD6; i.e. resin B) for his expanded beads or foamed product. However, Yoshimura also teaches a polyamide-based product comprising an aliphatic polyamide and polyamide MXD6 (i.e. PAMXD6), which may be foamed, and discloses that 10 to 90 parts by mass of PAMXD6 (resin B) should be blended with 100 parts by mass of the aliphatic polyamide (resin A) to achieve a good balance of crystallization temperature and glass transition temperature of the mixture, while also achieving a good appearance without needing to increase the molding temperature (par. 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to blend the aliphatic polyamide (resin A, e.g. PA11, PA12) and PAMXD6 (resin B) resins in Kriha’s product in a resin A:resin B mass ratio of 100:10 to 100:90 in order to achieve a good balance of crystallization and glass transition temperatures and to obtain a good appearance at a lower (or, at least, not increased) molding temperature. The instantly claimed mass ratio range is overlapped and rendered obvious by Yoshimura. See MPEP 2144.05.
The claim requirement that the molded body is made by in-mold molding is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the recited processing steps, but rather the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Kriha’s molded body meets the claim requirement because it has the structure that is implied.
Regarding claim 3, Kriha’s expanded polyamide beads may comprise carbon black (par. 187).
Regarding claim 4, Kriha teaches that the polyamides, including both “resin A” and “resin B”, used in his product preferably have a melting point in the range of 130 to 340 °C (par. 27, 31, 40). The instantly claimed resin A melting point, TmA, is encompassed and rendered obvious by Kriha. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Kriha’s expanded beads preferably have a density (i.e. “apparent density”) in the range of 60 to 200 g/L (i.e. 60 to 200 kg/m3) (par. 106).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriha and, optionally, Yoshimura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsubishi (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Nylon-MXD6 Various Grades and Uses”, 2020, p. 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Kriha differ from the current invention in that the melt flow rate of his resin B is not disclosed. However, as noted above, Kriha teaches that his polyamide expanded beads may comprise poly-m-xylylene adipamide, which is also known as “PAMXD 6” and “Nylon MXD6”. Mitsubishi further teaches various grades of Nylon-MXD6, discloses that it is easy to combine Nylon-MXD6 with other materials for a wide range of applications to improve mechanical properties and barrier characteristics, and teaches that Nylon-MXD6 offers great strength, high elastic modulus, and low water absorption (p. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one the grades of Nylon-MXD6 disclosed by Mitsubishi, e.g. S6001, S6007, or S6121, in Kriha’s polyamide-based expanded resin beads and molded body because the compound demonstrates great strength, high elastic modulus, and low water absorption and is readily combinable with other materials to achieve improved properties for a wide variety of applications. As evidenced by Applicant’s disclosure, Mitsubishi S6001 and S6121 respectively demonstrate melt flow rates of 2 and 0.5 g/10 minutes under the claimed conditions (Applicant’s Specification; par. 20, 85; Table 1).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriha and, optionally, Yoshimura, as applied above, and as evidenced by Mitsubishi and Weerg (Weerg, “Polyamide: Types, Properties and Industrial Applications”, 2026, p. 1-13). Alternatively, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriha and Mitsubishi, as applied to claim 2, and as evidenced by Weerg.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as noted above, Kriha’s expanded beads may include various aliphatic polyamides (resin A), some of which include polyamide 11 (PA11) and polyamide 12 (PA12). As evidenced by Weerg, PA11 has a melting point, TmA, of 190 °C and PA12 has a melting point, TmA, of 178 °C (p. 7). As evidenced by Mitsubishi, Nylon-MXD6 (i.e. PAMXD6; i.e. resin B) has a melting point, TmB, of about 240 °C (p. 2). Therefore, the difference in the melting points between resin A and resin B, TmB - TmA , in Kriha’s expanded beads including PA11 or PA12 and PAMXD6 (resin B) falls in the range of 30 to 100 °C.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriha and, optionally, Yoshimura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondo (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0044497).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of Kriha differ from the current invention in that the closed cell ratio in the expanded beads is not taught. However, Kondo also teaches a foamed polyamide product made from expanded beads, which he teaches should have a closed cell ratio of 80 % or more from the viewpoints of improving strength and reducing water-intake (par. 47, 73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kriha’s expanded beads, which are each a foamed polyamide product, to have a closed cell ratio of at least 80 % in order to improve their strength and reduce their ability to absorb water and to improve the strength and reduce water absorption a product made from the beads, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in Kriha and Kondo’s art.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Kriha’s molded body is considered herein to meet the claim requirement regarding “in-mold molding” because it has the structure that is implied. See MPEP 2113.
To the extent that Kriha’s lack of an explicit teaching of “in-mold molding” is considered a difference from the current invention, it is noted that Kondo discloses that in-mold foam shaping (i.e. “in-mold molding”) offers the advantages of ease of freely setting a product shape and ease of obtaining a foam molded product with a high expansion ratio (par. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize in-mold foam shaping, or in-mold molding, to make Kriha’s molded foam product due to the ease of freely setting a product shape and ease of obtaining a foam molded product with a high expansion ratio that the method provides.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
