DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 16-20 and 22 are pending as amended on 10/15/2025. Claims 17-20 and 22 stand withdrawn from consideration.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1A shows a block “1002” which is labeled “Provide PA-6 to reactor”
The instant specification (see [0024]) describes block 1002 as showing that ε-caprolactam, 0.5-2% water, acidic terminating agents and/or amine terminating agents are provided to a reactor. The description in [0024] is consistent with the process as described in [0064], wherein terminating agents are combined with caprolactam. The drawing is therefore objected to because it shows a process wherein already formed polyamide-6 is provided to a reactor, which is not consistent with the description of the figure in [0024]. Applicant may wish to consider whether “PA-6” in block 1002 should be replaced with “ε-caprolactam.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 has been amended to recite a method which requires a reacting step “in the presence of water…”
The specification as filed describes a process wherein “0.5-2% water” is provided to a reactor, along with caprolactam and terminating agents [0024]. However, there is no description in the specification as filed of a process generally in the presence of water (i.e., of a process wherein any amount of water could be present), as recited in claim 9. Therefore, the claims as presently drafted (which do not limit the amount of water as described in the instant specification as filed) are not commensurate in scope with the support provided by the specification.
[Note: the instant specification does not indicate a basis for calculating the percentage of water described in [0024]; it is unclear if the percentage is a weight percentage, and, it is unclear what components should be included in the “whole” (100). An amendment to the claims which simply inserts the range of % water described in [0024] would likely necessitate an indefiniteness rejection.]
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al (US 6169161) in view of Zhang et al (US 2017/0183796).
As to claims 9, 13 and 14, Tachibana discloses a process for producing polyamides from caprolactam as the essential ingredient (col 3, lines 55-59). Tachibana discloses that when monocarboxylic acids and/or monoamines are used for end-capping, the terminal group concentration of the polyamide is lower than that of the non-end-capped polyamide (col 7, lines 31-36). Tachibana names acetic acid (col 7, line 43) and cyclohexylamine (col 7, line 67) among examples of carboxylic and amine end-capping compounds, and teaches that the end-capping agent can be added along with the caprolactam in the initial stage of polymerization (col 8, lines 41-45). In Tachibana’s examples, the caprolactam is reacted in the presence of water (col 10, lines 57-60).
Tachibana teaches that depending on the use of the polyamide, the terminal group concentration could be well controlled, and that both terminal amino and terminal carboxyl group concentrations preferably fall between 1.0x10-5 and 15.0x10-5 eq/g (col 8, lines 33-38), which is equivalent to 10-150 mmol/kg (
1.0
x
10
-
5
e
q
,
i
.
e
.
,
m
o
l
g
*
1000
m
m
o
l
1
m
o
l
*
1000
g
1
k
g
=
10
m
m
o
l
k
g
); therefore, the ranges of unterminated amine and carboxyl end group concentrations taught by Tachibana overlap the presently claimed ranges of “less than 20 mmol/kg.”
Arriving at the presently claimed method from Tachibana’s disclosure requires choosing to utilize both a monocarboxylic end-capping compound (acetic acid) and a monoamine end-capping compound (cyclohexylamine) from Tachibana’s lists of suitable examples thereof, and, requires selecting a terminal amino group concentration and a terminal carboxyl group concentration from within Tachibana’s disclosed range which falls within the presently claimed range.
Tachibana teaches that terminal amino group concentration is preferred to be higher when dyability of fibers is desired to increase, and preferred to be lower to prevent discoloration or gelling under long-term aging conditions. Tachibana further teaches that it is desirable for both terminal carboxyl and terminal amino group concentration to be lower to prevent breakage in melt-spinning the polyamide (col 8, lines 16-35). Similarly, Zhang discloses polyamides which have dual termination of amino and carboxyl end groups, and which is useful in producing textiles [0006]. Zhang teaches that mono-terminated polyamide-6 may increase in viscosity prior to being extruded from a spinneret, which impacts spinnability and shortens spin pack life of the material. Zhang teaches that the deleterious effects are especially seen in high-speed spinning applications, such as for textiles [0004]. Zhang therefore teaches [0047] dual-terminated polyamide resin produced by adding two separate terminators during the polyamide polymerization. An acidic terminator is used to terminate the NH2 amine end groups, and an amine terminator is used to terminate the -COOH carboxyl end groups of PA-6 resin.
Considering the disclosures of Tachibana and Zhang as discussed above, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include both an amine end-capping compound and a carboxyl end-capping compound when polymerizing caprolactam in order to decrease the concentrations of both amino and carboxyl end groups, thereby achieving a desired degree of dyeability, and a desired degree of stability and breakage prevention when melt spinning. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have end-capped polyamide with a monoamine and a monocarboxylic acid, as taught by Tachibana, by selecting any appropriate monoamine from those named by Tachibana (including cyclohexylamine) and any appropriate monocarboxylic acid from those named by Tachibana (including acetic acid). Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (E).
Additionally, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to decrease the concentration of both unterminated amine and carboxyl groups for applications requiring decreased dyability of fibers, and, in order to prevent breakage during melt-spinning of polyamide. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have selected any appropriate terminal amino and carboxyl group concentrations within Tachibana’s disclosed range of 10-150 mmol/kg, including concentrations within the presently claimed range of less than 20 mmol/kg (or between 8-20 mmol/kg as in claim 13, or 6-20 mmol/kg as in claim 14), in order to achieve desired properties depending on the use of the polyamide.
As to the presently recited viscosity:
Tachibana teaches that the relative viscosity of the final polyamide in sulfuric acid falls between 2.2 and 6.0, and that if smaller than 2.2, the polyamide does not exhibit the intended mechanical properties, but if larger than 8.0, the melt viscosity is so high that molding is difficult (col 7, lines 22-30). Tachibana fails to disclose the corresponding formic acid viscosity of the polyamide.
Zhang teaches a relative viscosity (RV) as little as 2.4, or a higher RV of 2.7 to 3.0, corresponding to a higher molecular weight and improved dimensional stability [0051]. Zhang’s disclosed RV range falls within the RV range disclosed by Tachibana. Zhang further teaches that the formic acid viscosity (FAV) of the polyamide is 35-65 according to ASTM D-789 [0052]. Given that Tachibana’s disclosed RV range encompasses the RV values taught by Zhang, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the range of RV values taught by Tachibana converts to a range of formic acid viscosity values which similarly encompasses the formic acid viscosity values taught by Zhang. There is reasonable basis to conclude, therefore, that Tachibana’s disclosed range of RV values corresponds to a range of FAV values which encompasses the presently claimed range of 40-90. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have prepared a polyamide, as suggested by modified Tachibana, by selecting any appropriate RV within Tachibana’s disclosed range of 2.2-6.0 in order to achieve a desired balance between mechanical properties and moldability, including an RV corresponding to a FAV within the presently claimed range.
As to the presently recited spinning speed:
As discussed above, Tachibana teaches that it is desirable for both terminal carboxyl and terminal amino group concentration to be lower to prevent breakage when melt-spinning the polyamide (col 8, lines 16-35). However, Tachibana fails to teach a spinning speed for fiber formation. Zhang teaches that mono-terminated polyamide-6 may increase in viscosity prior to being extruded from a spinneret, which impacts spinnability and shortens spin pack life of the material. Zhang teaches that the deleterious effects are especially seen in high-speed spinning applications, such as for textiles [0004]. Zhang teaches spinning the dual-terminated polyamide “at relatively high speeds,” for example, within a range of 3500-6000 m/min [0065].
Considering Zhang’s disclosure, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that spinning speeds of 3500-6000 m/min were known in the art as effective for providing a desired textile product from molten polyamide. Furthermore, given that modified Tachibana suggests dual-terminated polyamides having even lower amino and carboxylic end group concentrations than disclosed by Zhang, one would have recognized that modified Tachibana suggests polyamides which are even less susceptible to melt viscosity increase than the polyamides disclosed by Zhang. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that Zhang’s “high-speed” fiber spinning speeds could be successfully utilized for spinning the polyamide of modified Tachibana without seeing deleterious effects due to increase in viscosity during spinning. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a fiber from polyamide, as suggested by modified Tachibana, by selecting any appropriate spinning speed within a range of 3500-6000 m/min, as disclosed by Zhang, in order to effectively produce a textile from the polyamide.
As to claim 10, modified Tachibana suggests a method according to claim 9, as set forth above. As set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed a fiber from the polyamide suggested by modified Tachibana, by utilizing any high-speed spinning speed within Zhang’s range of 3500-6000 m/min, including within the presently claimed range of 2500-5000 m/min, in order to effectively produce a textile from the polyamide. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to the presently recited stain resistance:
Tachibana fails to disclose the presently recited ΔE property, which is a measure of stain resistance. However, it is noted that the presently recited property is not limited to any particular staining solution concentration, nor to any particular temperature or duration of exposure to staining solution. The presently recited property has therefore been interpreted as a capability, i.e., the fibers are capable of exhibiting a stain resistance as presently recited after exposure to some staining solution under some condition for some length of time. As evidenced by the instant specification (see [0076]), stain resistance improves as AEG and CEG (particularly AEG) of polyamide decrease. Given that modified Tachibana suggests decreasing the AEG and CEG of polyamide in order to improve melt stability, including to values within the claimed ranges, there is reasonable basis to conclude that modified Tachibana suggests polyamides having improved stain resistance, including stain resistance corresponding to ΔE within the presently claimed range.
As to claim 16, Tachibana teaches a polyamide having an unreacted caprolactam content from 0 to 0.5 wt% and an oligomer content from 0 to 1.25 wt% (col 3, lines 4-8). Zhang similarly teaches an extractable content which is less than 0.6 wt% [0054]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed polyamide fiber, as suggested by modified Tachibana, by selecting any appropriately low content of extractables (caprolactam, oligomer) within the ranges taught by Tachibana and Zhang, including within the presently claimed range of 1.0 wt% or less, in order to provide a material having a quality suitably high for the applications taught by Tachibana in col 1, lines 14-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered.
The examiner agrees that, in view of the amendments to the claims, the previously set forth rejections have been overcome. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance in view of the new rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766