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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/17/2025 has 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 1, 4-11, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 106868623 to Sun in view of USPN 4,320,213 to Woodbrey, USPAP 2002/0151625 to Yakabe, JPH06172640 to Nishiobino, and/or USPAP 2013/0280513 to Itou.
Claim 1, Sun discloses a polyamide industrial yarn, prepared from raw materials comprising a high-viscosity polyamide 5X resin having a relative viscosity in 96% sulfuric acid of 3.3 to 4.0, and a water content of 100 to 1000 ppm, wherein the high-viscosity polyamide 5X resin is selected from the group consisting of polyamide 510, polyamide 511, polyamide 512, polyamide 513, polyamide 514, polyamide 515, polyamide 516, polyamide 517, polyamide 518, and a combination thereof (see entire translation document including the abstract and pages 2-4 and 8).
Sun does not appear to specifically mention the polyamide resin including a copper acetate and potassium iodide thermal stabilizer but Woodbrey, Yakabe, and Nishiobino each disclose that it is known in the polyamide resin art to include the combination of copper acetate and potassium iodide as a thermal stabilizer (see entire documents including column 4, lines 29-42 of Woodbrey, [0066] of Yakabe, and the abstract of Nishiobino). Woodbrey discloses that such a thermal stabilizer is well known in the art (column 4, lines 29-42) and Nishiobino discloses that the molar ratio of potassium iodine to copper acetate is preferably 10 to 3 (abstract) which equates to a molar ratio of copper acetate to potassium iodide of 1:(3 to 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed copper acetate and potassium iodide thermal stabilizer in the polyamide resin material of Sun motivated by a desire to provide the yarn with thermal stabilization.
Claims 4-9, regarding the claimed properties, considering that the polyamide yarn taught by the applied prior art is made by a substantially identical process with a substantially identical polyamide 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. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 10, 21 and 22, Sun discloses that the polyamide yarn is obtained from spinning raw materials by a spinning process, and the spinning raw materials may comprise a low-viscosity polyamide 5X resin having a relative viscosity in 96% sulfuric acid of 2.2-2.7 (page 3). In addition, Sun discloses use of a linear aliphatic dibasic acid selected from one or more of sebacic acid, undecanedioic acid, dodecanedioic acid, tridecanedioic acid, tetradecanedioic acid, pentadecanedioic add, hexadecane dibasic acid, heptadecanedioic acid, octadecanedioic acid, and Δ9-1,18 octadecenedioic acid (page 2). 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.
Claim 11, Sun does not appear to specifically mention the resin including one of the claimed additives but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the claimed additives are well known to those skilled in the art and Sun lists a variety of uses for the fiber wherein the fiber would benefit from one or more of the claimed additives (pages 2 and 5). For example, Sun mentions clothing therefore an antistatic agent would be beneficial. Sun also mentions outdoor use such as a tent or parachute wherein a UV absorber would be beneficial. In addition, Itou discloses that it is known in the polyamide fiber clothing art to construct a polyamide fiber with additives such as flame retardants, UV absorbers, antioxidants, IR absorber, etc. (see entire document including [0003], [0004] and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include one or more of the claimed additives motivated by a desire to provide the yarn with one or more of the benefits of said additive(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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