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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 11, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on August 11, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wise et al (US 3449200 A) in view of Motoda et al (JP 2018/115346 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 10-11: 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.
Wise is silent to the melt viscosity of the conjugated diene-based rubber.
Motoda teaches a curable adhesive/coating for fibers (para. 0081) containing a modified diene-based rubber (para. 0009), wherein the melt viscosity of the modified diene-based rubber at 38°C is from 0.1-3000 Pa·s, or preferably 10-1000 Pa·s, which leads to a coating having excellent workability (para. 0055). Motoda and Wise are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely modified diene rubbers for use in fiber coating applications. 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 melt viscosity of the conjugated diene polymer taught by Wise into the range of 10-1000 Pa·s in order to improve the workability of the coating.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise et al (US 3449200 A) in view of Motoda et al (JP 2018/115346 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) and 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 claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection overcomes the amendments.
Correspondence
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