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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on March 12, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wise et al (US 3449200 A).
Regarding Claims 1-2: Wise teaches a polyester-based reinforcing fiber (col. 1, lines 29-35) comprising a surface modifying layer of a polyamine having secondary amine groups such as polyethyleneimine (col. 1, lines 14-20) with a molecular weight of from 500-150,000 (col. 3, lines 62-73) and an adhesive layer containing a conjugated diene polymer covering the polyamine layer (col. 7, lines 30-50). Although the working examples of Wise contain formaldehyde, alternative aldehydes such as acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, glyoxal, and furfural are taught (col. 9, lines 32-34); therefore, one could easily envision an adhesive that is substantially free of formaldehyde.
Regarding Claim 3: Wise teaches a 0.02-1.5% polymer pickup of the polyethyleneimine onto the polyester fibers, corresponding to the parts by mass of the polyethyleneimine relative to the mass of the fibers (col. 4, lines 15-23).
Regarding Claim 5: Wise teaches butadiene and isoprene (col. 7, lines 39-42).
Regarding Claim 6: Wise teaches that a conjugated diene may be copolymerized with monomers such as methacrylic acid(col. 7, lines 44-50), which would modify the polymer with a carboxyl group. Wise further teaches the addition of epoxidized polybutadiene (col. 10, lines 8-13). The carboxyl group and the epoxide group are both capable of hydrogen bonding.
Regarding Claims 7-9: Wise teaches a molded article containing the reinforcing fibers and a rubber layer (col. 13, line 65-col. 14, line 2; vulcanization/shaping under heat and pressure), such as a tire (col. 14, lines 18-23).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise et al (US 3449200 A) in view of Toki et al (JPS63196778A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Wise teaches the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Wise is silent to the molecular weight of the conjugated diene-based rubber.
Toki teaches a reinforcing fiber comprising a diene-based rubber adhesive layer having a number-average molecular weight of 1000-60000 (p.4, lines 5-9), wherein a molecular weight within said range ensures fatigue resistance and adhesive properties (p.5, 7-8). Toki and Wise are analogous art because they are drawn toward the same field of endeavor, namely adhesives for reinforcing fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the molecular weight of the conjugated diene rubber taught by Wise into a range of 1000-60000 in order to improve the fatigue resistance and adhesion properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Correspondence
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights