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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed on February 23, 2026. Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 10 and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9 have been amended. Applicant indicates withdrawl of claims 5 and 7 since claim 1 has been amended to include isosorbide and terephthalic acid, but since no restriction requirement or election of species requirement has been made by the examiner, the claims should not be withdrawn. Applicant should cancel claim 7 as the subject matter is incorporated into claim 1 and cancel claim 5 or amend claim 5 to include further comprises isomannide, isoiodide or mixtures thereof.
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amedro (WO 2018015692A1) in view of Mollet (US 4,518,392) for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amedro (WO 2018015692A1) in view of Mollet (US 4,518,392) and further in view of Jacquel (WO 2017093684A1) for the reasons set forth below.
All other rejection are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5,7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “isosorbide, isomannide, isoiodide, or one of the mixtures thereof” in lines 2-3, and the claim also recites “preferably isosorbide which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 1 already contains isosorbide so this should be removed from the list and the claim should be amended to “unit (A) further comprises isomannide, isoiodide or mixtures thereof”.
Claim 7 recites unit (C) is terephthalic acid which is also required in claim 1 and therefore does not further limit claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the melt spinning method" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim doesn’t previously recite this method. The examiner suggest applicant amend the claim to recite “a melt spinning method”.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amedro (WO 2018015692A1) in view of Mollet (US 4,518,392).
Amedro teaches a process for manufacturing a synthetic fiber comprising providing a semicrystalline thermoplastic polyester containing isosorbide (1,4:36-dianhydrohextiol unit (A)), 1,4-cyclohexanedimethnaol (aliphatic diol unit (B)) and terephthalic acid (aromatic dicarboxylic acid unit (C)), wherein the molar ratio of (A)/[(A)+(B)] is at least 0.05 and at most 0.30 (page 16, example 1, last 6 paragraphs). Amedro teaches a reduced viscosity as measured by 5 g/L polyester in 25°C equimolar phenol and ortho-dichlorobenzene (page 15, last paragraph, of 80.1 ml/g or 103.4 ml/g (page 17, paragraphs 3 and 6). Amedro teaches the composition has a reduced viscosity in solution of greater than 50 ml/g to produce a fiber with remarkable properties from the standpoint of mechanical and thermal properties and preparing those fibers from the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyester by melt spinning or by wet or dry solution processes (page 10,paragraph 2-10). No non-cyclic aliphatic diol is required (page 6, paragraph 3). Amedro teaches adding azo dyes during the manufacture of the fibers from the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyester (page 9, paragraphs 6-7).
Amedro does not teach the reduced viscosity as measured in 35°C ortho-phenol or dyeing the prepared synthetic fiber with an aqueous solution of disperse dye.
Mollet teaches it is effective to dye polyester fiber materials using mono-azo dyes derived from azobenzene at temperatures of 130°C and pH 4.5-5.5 to produce fibers with almost complete dye exhaustion, level dyeing and excellent fastness properties (column 3, examples 1 and 2, lines 20-65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Amedro by dyeing the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyester fibers with disperse dyes in aqueous solution at the claimed temperature and pH as Mollet teaches polyester fibers are advantageously dyed with mono-azo dyes in a dyebath derived from azo benzene at 130°C and pH 4.5-5.5 to produce fibers with almost complete dye exhaustion and excellent dye fastness properties. Using known efficient dyes and dyeing parameters on similar polyester fibers is obvious to try to produce colored polyester synthetic fibers with nearly complete dye exhaustion, level dyeing and excellent dye fastness properties. Amedro further invites the inclusion of dyeing the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyester fibers with azo dyes.
Regarding the reduced viscosity in solution of 5 g/l semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyester fibers in 35°C ortho-chlorophenol, the examiner argues this is a property of the solution. Amedro teaches an identical semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer produced from similar amounts of isosorbide (A), 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol (B) and terephthalic acid wherein the molar ratio of (A)/[(A)+(B)] is at least 0.05 and at most 0.30 and wherein the composition has a reduced viscosity in solution of greater than 50 ml/g to produce a fiber with remarkable properties from the standpoint of mechanical and thermal properties. It would be expected that the same composition with the same components in the same amounts has the same reduced viscosity in the claimed 35°C ortho-chlorophenol solution as this is an inherent property of the composition.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amedro (WO 2018015692A1) in view of Mollet (US 4,518,392) and further in view of Jacquel (WO 2017093684A1).
Amedro and Mollet are relied upon as set forth above.
Amedro and Mollet do not teach the reduced viscosity as measured in 35°C ortho-phenol.
Jacquel teaches a process for manufacturing a synthetic fiber comprising providing a semicrystalline thermoplastic polyester (page 8, paragraphs 1-2) containing isosorbide (1,4:36-dianhydrohextiol unit (A), page 6, paragraph 4), 1,4-cyclohexanedimethnaol (aliphatic diol unit (B), page 7, paragraph 1) and isophthalic acid, 2,6-napthalenedicarboxylic acid or 2,5-furansicarboxylic acid (aromatic dicarboxylic acid unit (C)), wherein the molar ratio of (A)/[(A)+(B)] is 0.25 in example 1 (isosorbide (A): 7.3g/146.14 g/mol = 0.049 mol; 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol (B): 21.6g /144.21 g/mol= 0.149 mol; molar ratio (A)/[(A)+(B)]= 0.049/(0.049+0.149) = 0.25: page 13, next to last paragraph) and a reduced viscosity of 5g/L in 2-chlorophenol (ortho-chlorophenol) at 35°C at 35°C of 54.7 ml/g (page 14, first paragraph). Jacquel teaches a reduced viscosity as measured by 5 g/L polyester in 35°C ortho-chlorophenol of greater than 50 ml/g (page 7, paragraph 3). Jacquel teaches the composition is used to produce a fiber with by melt spinning or by wet or dry solution processes (page 12, paragraph 2). No non-cyclic aliphatic diol is required (page 6, paragraph 3). Jacquel teaches adding azo dyes during the manufacture of the fibers from the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyester (page 10, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Amedro and Mollet by measuring the reduced viscosity in a solution of 35°C ortho-chlorophenol using 5 g/l polyester as Jacquel teaches 5g/l polyester in 35°C ortho-chlorophenol is a conventional method of determining reduced viscosity for semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymers. Amedro invites the inclusion of a semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyester with a reduced viscosity in solution of greater than 50 ml/g to produce a fiber with remarkable properties from the standpoint of mechanical and thermal properties. Using a known ortho-chlorophenol solvent and 35°C solution that is conventional in establishing reduced viscosity is obvious as in the broadest embodiment Amedro teaches choosing solvents and concentration of the polymer to determine the viscosity in a test for measuring reduced viscosity (page 8, paragraph 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Amedro in view of Mollet, alone or further in view of Jacquel have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues unexpected results but the data are not commensurate in scope with the claims as the data in Table 3 only represent specific dyes at specific dye concentrations while claim 1 is directed towards the entire genus of disperse dyes at any dyeing concentration. The significantly narrower data in Table 3 cannot be extended to the much broader disclosure of the claims. It is noted applicant’s table 3 compares dyeing of different types of fibers with particular disperse dyes and compares them to dyeing with PTT and PET with disperse dyes. The examiner argues that Amedro is directed towards applicant’s claimed fibers not PTT or PET fibers. Therefore the data in Table 3 also does not compare to the closest prior art. Amedro clearly teaches the claimed fibers not PET or PTT fibers, so comparing dyeing of fibers the primary reference is not directed to is not a valid comparison. Mollet is just provided to show conventional polyester dyes but not for dyeing fibers other than those claimed by Amedro. Further, applicant has not demonstrated that applying the disperse dyes prior to fiber formation or afterward in a dyebath provides different results. Even if dyes are added to mask yellowing prior to fiber formation, it is conventional to dye fibers after fiber formation to achieve a desired hue and using dyes known to dye polyester would be obvious. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761