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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002-242043 to Nishimori, as evidenced by the machine translation, in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0115574 to Enoki.
Regarding claims 1-4, Nishimori teaches a high-strength polyester fiber woven fabric used for airbags (Nishimori, Abstract, paragraph 0164). Nishimori teaches that the novel polyester fiber is formed with a novel polycondensation catalyst comprising an aluminum compound and a phosphorus compound (Id., paragraphs 0008-0011). Nishimori teaches that a total amount of aluminum atoms and cobalt atoms is 50 ppm or less, wherein the amount of cobalt atoms is less than 10 ppm in the final polymer (Id., paragraph 0127), and the amount of phosphorus in the invention is preferably 0.0001 to 0.1 mol.% (Id., paragraph 0118).
Nishimori does not require the fabric to be coated (Nishimori, claim 1), but does teach that the fabric can be impregnated with a resin (Id., paragraph 0193). Nishimori does not appear to teach the claimed properties. However, Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0021 teaches that reducing the solvent extraction rate is a key factor. Enoki teaches a similar base fabric for airbags comprising polyester fibers, wherein the solvent extracted oil content of the base fabric is preferably 0.15% by weight to 0.005% by weight (Enoki, Abstract, paragraphs 0046, 0059). Enoki teaches that the solvent-extracted oil refers to the process oil agent used to produce and facilitate handling of synthetic fibres (Id., paragraph 0059). Enoki teaches that if the solvent-extracted oil is 0.15% by weight or less, adhesion between a resin and fabric fibers is favorable and air permeability when a differential pressure load has been applied is inhibited (Id.). Enoki teaches that as a result, retention of internal pressure after being subjected to heat and humidity is maintained (Id.). Enoki teaches examples of woven fabrics at Table 1 (see additionally Id., paragraph 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polyester fiber woven fabric of Nishimori, comprising a solvent extracted oil content, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Enoki, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyester fiber woven fabric suitable for use in airbags, having predictably favorable properties including adhesion and air permeability suitable for the intended application.
Additionally, regarding the claimed properties, the prior art combination establishes a substantially similar polyester fiber structure and composition as claimed, including overlapping aluminum, phosphorus, and solvent-extracted oil amounts as set forth in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed properties naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicant to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Nishimori appears to teach the claimed concentrations. Note that Applicant’s specification teaches at paragraph 0017 that the catalysts are the same as cited in Nishimori. Additionally, Nishimori teaches that the phosphorus compound improves the catalytic activity of the aluminum compound and the thermal stability of the polymerized polyester is also improved (Nishimori, paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polyester fiber woven fabric of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the amounts of aluminum and phosphorus, such as within the claimed range, as taught and suggested by Nishimori, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyester fiber woven fabric having improved catalytic activity and thermal stability based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the inventor has discovered that immersing the fabric in hot water with a hot-water tank temperature of 90ºC or more and then setting the vacuum pressure for suctioning water to 30 kPa or more allows the polyester base fabric to achieve both low flammability and a reduction in the acid value increase rate of 150% or less. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not recite any product by process limitations, including immersing the fabric in hot water or setting a vacuum pressure for suctioning water. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear dependent on the unclaimed limitations, and Applicant’s arguments do not distinguish the claimed invention from the invention of the prior art combination.
Applicant argues that, as presented in the Declaration, it was not common to carry out a vacuum process after the hot-water tank in fabric processing in a process form manufacturing an airbag base fabric, and therefore not obvious to apply such a technique to reduce the solvent extraction rate of a polyester fabric. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Preliminarily, it should be noted that the Declarant is the inventor of the presently examined application and therefore, Declarant’s interest in the matter is a factor which can legitimately be taken into consideration.
Declarant recites that if the vacuum pressure after the hot-water tank in fabric processing is 30kPa or more, the solvent contained in the fiber can be reduced, which makes it possible to reduce the solvent extraction rate of the polyester fabric. Therefore, the processes set forth by Applicant and Declarant are directed to forming a product with the claimed solvent extraction rate. As set forth above, Enoki teaches a base fabric for airbags comprising polyester fibers, wherein the solvent extracted oil content of the base fabric is preferably 0.15% by weight to 0.005% by weight. Enoki teaches that if the solvent-extracted oil is 0.15% by weight or less, adhesion between a resin and fabric fibers is favorable and air permeability when a differential pressure load has been applied is inhibited. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the polyester fiber woven fabric of Nishimori, comprising a solvent extracted oil content, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Enoki, to form a polyester fiber woven fabric suitable for use in airbags, having predictably favorable properties including adhesion and air permeability suitable for the intended application. Since the prior art renders obvious the solvent extraction rate, and since the claimed invention does not recite any process limitations, the prior art combination renders obvious the claimed invention.
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights