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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and declaration filed on 7/13/2026 (and the amendment repeated on 7/14/2026 to address the clarity of images in claims 20 and 28) have been entered.
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.
Claims 27-30 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2013/0280513 to Itou in view of USPN 4,844,834 to Dellinger, USPAP 2011/0020628 to Fukudome, USPAP 2020/0087458 to Ieda, and/or USPN 3,994,121 to Adams.
Claim 27, Itou discloses a polyamide 56 fiber wherein said polyamide 56 fiber is obtained by polymerizing 1,5-pentane diamine and adipic acid monomers to form a polyamide 56 resin and spinning the polyamide 56 resin, wherein the polyamide 56 resin comprises (1) an oligomer content of 1.2 wt% or less and (2) a relative viscosity of 2.4-2.8 measured in concentrated sulfuric acid (see entire document including [0003], [0004], [0018], [0019], [0035], [0037], [0057] and [0058]).
In addition to Itou not mentioning any oligomer content, Dellinger discloses that it is known in the art to limit polyamide oligomer content to less than 2 wt% because the presence of the oligomers has an adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers (see entire document including column 1, line 11 through column 2, line 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fiber of Itou with the claimed oligomer content to limit any adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers.
Itou does not appear to mention the molecular weight distribution of the polyamide 56 resin but claim 27 is a product-by-process claim which is drawn to a polyamide 56 fiber but requires the fiber be “obtained” by spinning a polyamide 56 resin that possesses the claimed oligomer content, relative viscosity, and molecular weight distribution. Therefore, claim 27 does NOT require the polyamide 56 fiber to possess the claimed oligomer content, relative viscosity, or molecular weight distribution. In fact, claim 27 does not require the claimed polyamide 56 fiber have any specific oligomer content, relative viscosity, or molecular weight distribution. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if the applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show non-obviousness, the applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Further regarding the claimed polyamide 56 resin molecular weight distribution, Fukudome discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide 56 fibers with the claimed molecular weight distribution to result in fibers with low shrinkage in boiling water (see entire document including [0057], [0330] and [0337]) and Ieda discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide compositions with the claimed molecular weight distribution to provide a polyamide with superior fluidity and surface appearance (see entire document including [1075] and [1076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the polyamide 56 fibers of Itou as taught by Fukudome to produce the fibers with low shrinkage in boiling water, superior fluidity, and/or superior surface appearance. Considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical polymer 56 fiber in terms of low shrinkage in boiling water and considering that the applied prior art discloses making the polymer 56 fibers with substantially identical polymer 56 resin in terms of polymerizing monomers, spinning, oligomer content, and relative viscosity, the claimed polymer 56 resin molecular weight appears to be inherently taught.
Regarding the fiber being a draw textured yarn with a shrinkage in boiling water of 6% or less, Adams discloses that it is known in the art to subject a polyamide fiber to properly controlled draw textured conditions to result in desired yarn properties such as boil-off shrinkage of 2 to 6 percent (see entire document including the Examples, column 1, lines 10-64, and column 4, lines 38-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to subject the fiber of Itou to properly controlled draw and textured yarn conditions to result in the intended use desired/required properties, such as a shrinkage in boiling water of 6% or less.
Claim 28, Itou does not mention an oligomer content and Dellinger discloses that it is known in the art to limit polyamide oligomer content to less than 2 wt% because the presence of the oligomers has an adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers (see entire document including column 1, line 11 through column 2, line 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fiber of Itou with an oligomer content of 0.8 wt% or less (including zero oligomer content) to limit any adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers.
Claims 28-30, regarding the fiber comprising a bright fiber, a semi-dull fiber and a fully-dull polyamide 56 fiber, considering that the polyamide 56 fiber taught by the applied prior art is made by a substantially identical process with a substantially identical polyamide 56 resin, the claimed properties are either inherent or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the properties, such as claimed, based on the desired/required properties for the intended use and/or because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 29 and 30, Itou does not mention an oligomer content and Dellinger discloses that it is known in the art to limit polyamide oligomer content to less than 2 wt% because the presence of the oligomers has an adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers (see entire document including column 1, line 11 through column 2, line 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fiber of Itou with the claimed oligomer content to limit any adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers.
Claims 33, 34 and 36, Itou discloses that the yarn may have a fineness of 100 dtex or smaller [0058]. Regarding the claimed properties, considering that the polyamide 56 fiber taught by the applied prior art is made by a substantially identical process with a substantially identical polyamide 56 resin, the claimed properties are either inherent or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the properties, such as claimed, based on the desired/required properties for the intended use and/or because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 35, regarding the claimed crystallinity and orientation degree, considering that the polyamide 56 fiber taught by the applied prior art is made by a substantially identical process with a substantially identical polyamide 56 resin, the claimed properties are either inherent or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the properties, such as claimed, based on the desired/required properties for the intended use and/or because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 (and repeated 7/14/2026) have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The examiner withdraws the 112 rejections in view of applicant’s arguments and the inventor declaration filed 7/13/2026 (signed 6/10/2026) stating that the basic testing conditions for boiling water shrinkage remain 100ºC for 30 minutes regardless of whether the testing method is according to GB/6505-2017 or GB/6505-2008.
The examiner notes that claim 27 is a product-by-process claim which is drawn to a polyamide 56 fiber but requires the fiber be “obtained” by spinning a polyamide 56 resin that possesses the claimed oligomer content, relative viscosity, and molecular weight distribution. Therefore, claim 27 does not appear to actually require the polyamide 56 fiber to possess the claimed oligomer content, relative viscosity, or molecular weight distribution. In response, the applicant cites current specification examples as demonstrating that a difference in raw polymer oligomer content (or a difference in drawing speed or winding speed) results in a (fiber) product with different properties. The examiner agrees that varying the oligomer content (or varying the drawing speed or winding speed) between two otherwise identical raw polymer materials that are subjected to the same fiber production steps may affect the resulting properties of the final (fiber) product, but this has never been disputed. Rather, the examiner was merely pointing out that the claimed oligomer content, relative viscosity, and molecular weight distribution are only required for the polymer raw material, not the claimed polyamide 56 fiber. Regardless, the applied prior art teaches all the claimed properties (oligomer content, relative viscosity, and molecular weight distribution):
Itou discloses a polyamide 56 fiber with an oligomer content of 1.2 wt% or less and a relative viscosity of 2.4-2.8 measured in concentrated sulfuric acid (see entire document including [0003], [0004], [0018], [0019], [0035], [0037], [0057] and [0058]). In addition, Dellinger discloses that it is known in the art to limit polyamide oligomer content to less than 2 wt% because the presence of the oligomers has an adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers (see entire document including column 1, line 11 through column 2, line 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fiber of Itou with the claimed oligomer content to limit any adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers.
Itou does not appear to mention the molecular weight distribution of the polyamide 56 resin but Fukudome discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide 56 fibers with the claimed molecular weight distribution to result in fibers with low shrinkage in boiling water (see entire document including [0057], [0330] and [0337]) and Ieda discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide compositions with the claimed molecular weight distribution to provide a polyamide with superior fluidity and surface appearance (see entire document including [1075] and [1076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the polyamide 56 fibers of Itou as taught by the applied prior art to produce the fibers with low shrinkage in boiling water, superior fluidity, and/or superior surface appearance.
The applicant also asserts that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest a draw textured yarn with a shrinkage in boiling water of 6% or less. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Adams discloses that it is known in the art to subject a polyamide fiber to properly controlled draw textured conditions to result in desired yarn properties such as boil-off shrinkage of 2 to 6 percent (see entire document including the Examples, column 1, lines 10-64, and column 4, lines 38-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to subject the fiber of Itou to properly controlled draw and textured yarn conditions to result in the intended use desired/required properties, such as a shrinkage in boiling water of 6% or less.
The applicant also asserts that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed polyamide 56 fiber because each individual reference cited in the rejection does not teach all of the claimed limitations. For example, the applicant asserts that Itou fails to teach the claimed molecular weight distribution or draw texturing or the claimed shrinkage. The applicant also asserts that Dellinger fails to teach the claimed draw texturing or the claimed shrinkage. The applicant also asserts that Fukudome fails to teach the claimed draw texturing or the claimed shrinkage. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the rejection. The rejection does state or even suggest that each references teaches all of the claimed limitations. Rather, it is the combination of the references that teaches all of the claimed limitations. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant also asserts that Fukudome is non-analogous art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current specification discloses that the present invention “relates to the technical field of polyamide materials” (page 1, first paragraph). Similarly, Fukudome relates to polyamide materials and even discloses polyamide 56 fibers (title and abstract). In response, the applicant asserts that the claimed polyamide 56 fiber is allegedly intended for clothing while the polyamide 56 fiber of Fukudome is allegedly intended for an airbag. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because the current specification discloses that the present invention “relates to the technical field of polyamide materials” (page 1, first paragraph). Therefore, Fukudome is analogous art. Plus, the current specification discloses a list of potential uses including clothing, bags, suitcases, curtains, labels, sofa-covers, and elastic tapes (page 2) and Fukudome discloses a list of potential uses that also includes clothing [0083]. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fukudome is at least in the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Specifically, the first paragraph of the current application states that the present invention relates to the technical field of polyamide materials while Fukudome also relates to the same technical field of polyamide materials and evens mentions polyamide 56 fibers and boiling water shrinkage ([0020] and [0021]).
The applicant also asserts that the Fukudome disclosed molecular weight distribution [0057] is that of the finished fiber and that it would be unclear to one skilled in the art what polymer 56 resin molecular weight distribution to use to form the polymer 56 fibers. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Fukudome discloses that polymer 56 fibers having a molecular weight distribution of 1.5 to 3 have a low shrinkage in boiling water ([0057], [0330] and [0337]) which is exactly the property possessed by the claimed invention made with a polymer 56 resin having a molecular weight distribution of 1.0-2.0. Considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical polymer 56 fiber in terms of low shrinkage in boiling water, and considering that the applied prior art discloses making the polymer 56 fibers with substantially identical polymer 56 resin in terms of polymerizing monomers, spinning, oligomer content, and relative viscosity, the claimed polymer 56 resin molecular weight appears to be inherently taught.
Further still, the fiber of working Example 1 of Fukudome was produced using a polyamide 56 resin having a viscosity of 2.75 [0241] and resulted in a polyamide 56 fiber having viscosity of 3.82 and a molecular weight distribution of 2.21 [0273]. Thus, the viscosity increased by 39% during production of the fiber. Since a higher viscosity leads to a larger molecular weight distribution, one skilled in the art would understand that the polyamide 56 resin used to make the polyamide 56 fiber of Fukudome was much lower than 2.21. One skilled in the art could estimate the molecular weight distribution of the polyamide 56 resin used to make the polyamide 56 fiber to be approximately 39% less than the polyamide 56 fiber molecular weight distribution, which is a molecular weight distribution of about 1.59 (the claims requires 1.0-2.0).
The applicant also asserts that Dellinger is non-analogous art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current specification discloses that the present invention “relates to the technical field of polyamide materials” (page 1, first paragraph). Similarly, Dellinger relates to polyamide materials and even discloses polyamide fibers (column 1, lines 10-45).
The applicant also asserts that neither Itou nor Dellinger teaches or suggests the claimed oligomer content. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Itou does not mention any oligomer content. Therefore, Itou teaches the claimed oligomer content of 1.2 wt% or less. Plus, Dellinger discloses that it is known in the art to limit polyamide oligomer content to less than 2 wt% because the presence of the oligomers has an adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers (see entire document including column 1, line 11 through column 2, line 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fiber of Itou with the claimed oligomer content to limit any adverse effect on the performance of the polyamide in the shaping of the fibers. In response, the applicant asserts that Dellinger teaches using the claimed oligomer content for a different reason. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
The applicant also asserts that Ieda is non-analogous art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current specification discloses that the present invention “relates to the technical field of polyamide materials” (page 1, first paragraph). Similarly, Ieda relates to polyamide materials and even discloses polyamide filaments (see title and [0466]).
The applicant also asserts that it is unknown why Ieda was even cited by the examiner. In response, as stated above, Itou does not appear to mention the molecular weight distribution of the polyamide 56 resin but Fukudome discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide 56 fibers with the claimed molecular weight distribution to result in fibers with low shrinkage in boiling water (see entire document including [0057], [0330] and [0337]) and Ieda discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide compositions with the claimed molecular weight distribution to provide a polyamide with superior fluidity and surface appearance (see entire document including [1075] and [1076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the polyamide 56 fibers of Itou as taught by the applied prior art to produce the fibers with low shrinkage in boiling water, superior fluidity, and/or superior surface appearance.
The applicant also asserts that Adams relates to polyamide 66 fiber while the current claims are drawn to polyamide 56 fiber. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Itou discloses a polyamide 56 fiber wherein said polyamide 56 fiber is obtained by polymerizing 1,5-pentane diamine and adipic acid monomers to form a polyamide 56 resin and spinning the polyamide 56 resin, wherein the polyamide 56 resin comprises (1) an oligomer content of 1.2 wt% or less and (2) a relative viscosity of 2.4-2.8 measured in concentrated sulfuric acid. Adams is simply relied upon for disclosing that it is known in the art to subject a polyamide fiber to properly controlled draw textured conditions to result in desired yarn properties such as boil-off shrinkage of 2 to 6 percent (see entire document including the Examples, column 1, lines 10-64, and column 4, lines 38-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to subject the fiber of Itou to properly controlled draw and textured yarn conditions to result in the intended use desired/required properties, such as a shrinkage in boiling water of 6% or less. It is noted that polyamide 56 and polyamide 66 share almost identical thermomechanical characteristics. Both are high-performance nylons that feature comparable tensile strength, rigidity, and high melting points.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights