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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 04/25/2025 to the abstract and the claims have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 16 defines a composition containing 30% to 100% by weight of recycled polyamide having specific functions originating from oxidation reactions at a molar ratio relative to the amide functions greater than that of the same polyamide constituting an object that has not yet been used. Claims 17 to 23 specify that said molar ratios take on specific values. The specifications indicate that the molar ratio is determined using spectroscopic methods, in particular NMR (page 26, line 3 to page 27, line 14; page 29, lines 12-16; Fig. 1).
However, this method does not enable a composition comprising recycled polyamide to be differentiated from any other composition comprising virgin polyamide that has been subjected to ageing. In particular, the example shown in Fig. 1 indicates that an article manufactured from virgin polyamide, which has been exposed to environmental conditions for a certain duration, would also be oxidized under such conditions and would thus have the same spectroscopic characteristics as a composition comprising recycled polyamide. Furthermore, even a “virgin” polyamide, which has not been used to manufacture an article, could have been exposed to environmental circumstances such that partial oxidation of the polyamide has taken place. Consequently, an article manufactured on the basis of such a “virgin” polyamide would have the same spectroscopic characteristics as an article manufactured from recycled polyamide. A person or ordinary skill in the art would therefore be unable to differentiate a composition according to claims 16 to 23 reliably from any other composition containing a polyamide that is “virgin” but has aged. Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art is unable to unambiguously determine the scope of claims 16-23, and the claims are not properly enabled by the specification.
Additional problems noted are that the differences in the spectra are very minor, i.e. within the range of impurities (Fig. 1), and that the claims and the specification both lack detailed instructions on how to accurately determine the molar ratios of the particular functional groups specified in claims 17 to 23.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, claims 16 to 23 will further be interpreted as requiring any composition including polyamide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukawa (US-20080201993).
Regarding claim 16, Fukawa teaches:
A composition comprising, on a weight basis:
from 30% to 100% of recycled polyamide from the objects of claim 1,
from 0 to 70% of virgin polyamides chosen from homopolyamides,
from 0 to 65% of fillers,
0 to 20% of additives,
the sum of the constituents being equal to 100%,
said recycled polyamide having functions resulting from oxidation reactions chosen from primary amide functions, nitriles, chain-end methyl groups, alkenes, formamides, imides, carboxylic acids and alcohols and mixtures thereof, in a mole ratio relative to the amide functions which is greater than that of the same polyamide constituting an unused object which has never yet been used ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 17, Fukawa teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 17 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said mole ratio of functions derived from oxidation reactions relative to the secondary amide functions is from 1/10000 to 1/20 ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 18, Fukawa teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 18 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said mole ratio of imide functions relative to the secondary amide functions is from 1/1000 to 1/20 ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 19, Fukawa teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 19 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said mole ratio of carboxylic acid functions relative to the secondary amide functions is from 1/5000 to 1/20 ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 20, Fukawa teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 20 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said mole ratio of alcohol functions relative to the secondary amide functions is from 1/1000 to 1/20 ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 21, Fukawa teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 21 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said mole ratio of primary amide functions relative to the secondary amide functions is from 1/2000 to 1/20 ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 22, Fukawa teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 22 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said mole ratio of nitrile functions relative to the secondary amide functions is from 1/1000 to 1/20 ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 23, Fukawa teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 23 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said mole ratio of chain-end methyl functions relative to the secondary amide functions is from 1/5000 to 1/50 ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
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.
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.
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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukawa (US-20080201993) in view of Hu (CN-216040068), using the applicant provided original document and translation, and the attached translation used for paragraph citations for clarity.
Regarding claim 1, Fukawa teaches:
A mono-material object comprising at least two elements ([0001] and [0019] – [0025]):
- at least one first element consisting of a first composition comprising, by weight, at least 30% relative to the total weight of the first element, of at least one long-chain homopolyamide or of at least one long-chain copolyimide ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]),
said at least one homopolyamide and said at least one copolyamide representing, independently of each other, a repeating unit chosen from a unit obtained from the polycondensation of at least one C4-C36 amino acid, a unit obtained from the polycondensation of at least one C4-C36 lactam and an XY unit obtained from the polycondensation ([0027] – [0038] and [0083]):
of at least one diamine, said diamine being chosen from a linear or branched aliphatic diamine, a cycloaliphatic diamine and a semi-arylaliphatic diamine, or a mixture thereof ([0029] – [0038]),
and of at least one dicarboxylic acid ([0033]), said diacid being chosen from:
an aliphatic diacid, a cycloaliphatic diacid and an aromatic diacid or a mixture thereof, said diamine and said diacid comprising from 4 to 36 carbon atoms ([0029] – [0036]),
a copolyamide bearing amide units (Ba1) and polyether units (Ba2) being excluded from said first composition ([0029] – [0038]),
- at least one second element consisting of a second composition comprising by weight at least 30% relative to the total weight of the second element, of at least one long-chain homopolyamide or at least one long-chain copolyamide, said at least one homopolyamide and said at least one copolyamide being as defined above for the first composition ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]),
a copolyamide bearing amide units (Ba1) and polyether units (Ba2) being excluded from said second composition ([0029] – [0038]),
said at least one homopolyamide or at least one copolyimide of the second composition having a C/N ratio greater than or equal to 8, said object being to the exclusion of a monolayer or multilayer structure for transporting, distributing or storing a fluid ([0104] – [0131]).
Fukawa does not teach:
said first and second elements being able to adhere at least partially to each other.
However, Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, a mono-material object, teaches:
said first and second elements being able to adhere at least partially to each other ([0007] – [0014], [0020], and [0025] – [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elements of Fukawa to incorporate the teachings of Hu and have them able to adhere to each other. The purpose, as stated by Hu, being to achieve unidirectional moisture-wicking function by chemically finishing the fabric, treating the yarn with water repellency, or using two or more raw materials with different moisture-wicking properties ([0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein the object is chosen from an electronic article, a textile article, an optical article, a household electrical article, a cosmetic article, a sports article, a stationery article, a luggage article, a toy, furniture and motor vehicle parts ([0001]).
Regarding claim 3, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Hu further teaches:
wherein the first composition and the second composition are different ([0007] – [0014], [0020], and [0025] – [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein only one of the two compositions comprises a filler, the other not comprising any. Hu describes using two different compositions, see the rejection of claim 3 above, Fukawa teaches the optional use of a filler ([0050]), and the use of filler materials is well known in the art, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a filler in only one of the two compositions, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein the first composition and the second composition comprise the same polyamide ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein at least 10% by weight of the units, constituting said at least one homopolyamide or said at least one copolyamide of the first composition and the second composition are identical ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein said first and second elements are chosen from the following constituents: a textile, a film or textured film, a foam, an injection-molded part, an extruded part, a 3D printed part, an adhesive, a non-woven, a web and a consolidated thermoplastic composite part ([0001], [0046] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 8 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein the object comprises at least two constituents and which are different ([0001], [0027] – [0038], [0046] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 9 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein the object comprises at least three constituents ([0001], [0027] – [0038], [0046] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends on. Fukawa further teaches:
wherein the object comprises at least one third element consisting of a third composition, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using a duplication of parts to include a third element comprising the same polyamide without a showing of criticality or unexpected results, comprising
at least one long-chain homopolyamide or at least one long-chain copolyamide or at least one copolyamide bearing amide units (Ba1) and polyether units (Ba2) or a mixture thereof, said at least one long-chain homopolyamide or at least one long-chain copolyamide ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukawa (US-20080201993) in view of Hu (CN-216040068), as applied to claim 1 above and independently, respectively, and further in view of Kormann (US-20160302508), using the applicant provided original document and translation, and the attached translation used for paragraph citations for clarity.
Regarding claim 10, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach the use of an adhesive. However, Kormann, in a similar field of endeavor, a mono-material object, teaches:
wherein the first and second elements adhere to each other by bonding by means of a non-polyamide adhesive in a content ranging from 0.01% to 10% by weight, relative to the total mass of the object ([0052] and [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elements of Fukawa in view of Hu to incorporate the teachings of Kormann and use adhesive to adhere them together. The purpose, as stated by Kormann, being that a separately fabricated outsole may be joined to the midsole e.g. based on the configuration of an adhesive ([0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 11, which are referenced in claim 12. Fukawa further teaches:
A process for manufacturing a mono-material object as claimed in claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above, comprising the steps consisting in:
providing a first element consisting of a first composition comprising by weight at least 30%, relative to the total weight of the first element, of at least one long-chain homopolyamide or at least one long-chain copolyamide, providing a second element consisting of a second composition comprising by weight at least 30%, relative to the total weight of the second element, of at least one long-chain homopolyamide or at least one long-chain copolyimide ([0027] – [0038], [0046], and [0080] – [0084]).
Fukawa in view of Hu does not teach:
assembling the elements of the object by means of an adhesive, where appropriate, to form the finished or semi-finished object.
However, Kormann, in a similar field of endeavor, a process for manufacturing a mono-material object, teaches:
assembling the elements of the object by means of an adhesive, where appropriate, to form the finished or semi-finished object ([0052] and [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elements of Fukawa in view of Hu to incorporate the teachings of Kormann and use adhesive to adhere them together. The purpose, as stated by Kormann, being that a separately fabricated outsole may be joined to the midsole e.g. based on the configuration of an adhesive ([0052]).
Claims 13-15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukawa (US-20080201993) in view of Hu (CN-216040068) and Sahanga (US-20220143873), using the applicant provided original document and translation, and the attached translation used for paragraph citations for clarity.
Regarding claim 13, Fukawa in view of Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which is reference in claim 13. Sahanga, in a similar field of endeavor, a process for recycling an object, teaches:
The process for recycling the object as defined in claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above, comprising the steps consisting in:
(a) providing the used object ([0056]; Fig. 2, #100),
(b) optionally separating the elements of the object which are not recyclable in said process,
(c) optionally cleaning the used object from step (a) or (b),
(d) optionally first grinding of the used object of step (a) or (b), or of step (c) when the cleaning of step (c) is performed so as to obtain a first ground material,
(e) optionally washing the first ground material when the cleaning of step (c) is not performed,
(f) grinding the used object from step (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) and/or (d) and/or (e) so as to obtain a first ground material or a second ground material in the case where a first grinding in step (d) has been performed ([0056]; Fig. 2, #210),
(g) heating the ground material from step (f) until it melts ([0061]; Fig. 3, #312),
(h) optionally compounding and
(i) extruding or injection-molding the molten mass ([0061]; Fig. 3, #317).
Optional limitations do not add patentable weight to a claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Fukawa in view of Hu to incorporate the teachings of Sahanga and include explicit recycling steps. The purpose, as stated by Sahanga, being so that the usage of post-processing waste is possible ([0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Fukawa in view of Hu and Sahanga teaches the limitations of claim 13, which claim 14 depends on. Sahanga further teaches:
also comprising the step of:
(j) adding new material to the ground material of the used object before or after step (f) or after step (g) ([0058] – [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Fukawa in view of Hu and Sahanga teaches the limitations of claim 13, which is referenced in claim 15. Sahanga further teaches:
A recycled polyamide composition that may be obtained via the process as claimed in claim 13 ([0072] – [0078]).
Regarding claim 25, Fukawa in view of Hu and Sahanga teaches the limitations of claim 15, which is referenced in claim 25. Sahanga further teaches:
A method of using the composition as claimed in claim 15, see the rejection of claim 15 above, for the manufacture of objects ([0082]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
