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.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to the specification as well as to claims 1 and 4. Claims 1-4 are pending.
Specification
The applicant has amended the abstract and the specification to correct the issues previously identified. As a result, the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya (EP 0843032).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2,
Sugaya teaches a polyurethaneurea elastic fiber (Abstract) which is comprised of a polymeric diol, diisocyanate, and a bifunctional amine (Abstract) that incorporates an alkylsulfonate (Abstract). Sugaya teaches that the alkylsulfonate contains 2 to 20 carbons (Page 4, Lines 21-29). While Sugaya does not teach the use of the acid form of the sulfonate, Sugaya does teach the metal and ammonium salt of the compound (Page 4, Lines 9-19), which would represent a buffered form of the acid. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this compound would still be able to functionalize an amine. Indeed, Sugaya notes that the sulfonate is postulated to disrupt the hard segments (Page 5, Lines 6-12), which would include the diamine compound, indicating an interaction between the two compounds. It would therefore have been obvious to have substituted the sulfonic acid for the amine salt of the sulfonic acid as used by Sugaya as these compounds would be functionally resulting in the same final composition.
With regard to the mixing of polymer A which does not contain the sulfonate group with a polymer B which does, Sugaya teaches that the amount of sulfonate added is from 0.05 to 5 parts by weight relative to the polymer (Page 5, Lines 13-19). This range would, when converted to mmol of sulfonate per kg of polymer overlap with the range of claim 2. It additionally would represent less than an equivalent of sulfonate relative to the amount of polymer. This would practically result in the presence of some polymer in which has been functionalized with sulfonate and some that has not, which would meet the requirements of the instant claim. Sugaya further teaches that usage of the sulfonate below 0.05 parts by weight does afford an increase in breaking strength and that incorporation amounts above 5 parts by weight results in deterioration of the yarn (Page 5, Lines 15-19), providing the ordinarily skilled artisan motivation to stay within this range. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
With regard to the sulfonate, Sugaya teaches that the sulfonate can be of the formula R1SO3 (Formula I, Page 4) in which R is a hydrocarbon group of 2 to 20 carbons (Page 4 Lines 9-20) and notes specific examples such as hexyl, octyl, and lauryl (Page 4, Lines 33-36), which would all have molecular weights of more than 96 and less than 300, meeting the requirement of the instant claim.
Finally, in regard to the change in strain rate, Sugaya is silent. However, as the compositions of Sugaya are comprised of substantially similar components in similar ratios, the ordinarily skilled artisan would expect them to possess physical properties substantially similar to those of the instant application. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.II.
Regarding Claim 4,
Sugaya teaches the composition required by the instant claim as discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 2. Further, Sugaya teaches a method for forming an elastic fiber by dry spinning (Example 1, page 5). While Sugaya does not teach a mixing of two separate polyurethane solutions where one has been treated with sulfonate, as discussed in relation to claim 1, by using a sub-stoichiometric amount of sulfonate, this would effectively provide a solution in which there are both polyurethaneureas that have sulfonates and polyurethaneureas that do not, which would meet the requirements of the instant claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya (EP 0843032) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Yoshizato (US 20200017996).
Regarding Claim 3,
Sugaya teaches polyurethaneurea polymers as required by the instant claim, but does not teach the incorporation of tertiary amines. However, Yoshizato teaches the use of single active hydrogen compounds containing tertiary amines that can be used as terminators for the polymerization reaction (Paragraph 70) and further teaches that tertiary amines are useful for improving the dyeability of the resulting fibers (Paragraph 8). As Sugaya teaches the use of monoamines for the termination of the polymerization (Page 3 Lines 44-47), the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that substituting the tertiary amine-containing terminators of Yoshizato would serve to terminate the polymerization while also adding improved dyeability, which would be desirable for fibers used in fabrics. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have incorporated the tertiary amine-containing terminators of Yoshizato with the composition of Sugaya to obtain the predictable result of a polyurethaneurea containing a tertiary amine with a reasonable expectation of success. With regard to the amount of this polymer contained, as the tertiary amine can be used to increase the dyeability of the resulting fiber, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used any amount of this polymer that resulted in the desired level of dye incorporation to the fiber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
On page 11, the applicant argues that Sugaya teaches a one part polymer and not a two part polymer, wherein the two part composition contains a molecular chain with amine groups at both ends and a molecular chain with a sulfonic acid amine salt on at least one end. The examiner disagrees. First, claim 1 is directed towards a fiber that contains these two species, but makes no mention of a two part composition. Second, the procedure used by Sugaya to generate the polymer composition (Example 1, page 5, lines 43-55) is substantially similar to that used by the applicant, wherein a isocyanate-terminated polyurethane is reacted with ethylene diamine and diethylamine to yield an amine-terminated polymer which is then subjected to treatment with a sub-stoichiometric amount of sulfonic acid equivalent, substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant’s own example 1, differing primarily in the type and amount of sulfonic acid used with Sugaya using less sulfonic acid salt. By using low amounts of sulfonic acid salt (Sugaya teaches as little as 0.05 parts by weight), this would logically generate a mixture of both sulfonated and non-sulfonated polymer, which would meet the requirements of the instant claim.
On pages 11 and 12, the applicant argues that the composition of Sugaya would not result in the same polymer as the instant application. The examiner disagrees. As noted above, the procedure taught by Sugaya is substantially similar to that of the instant application, including the order of steps. As such, it would logically follow that if the composition of Sugaya would have the issues argued by the applicant, namely reactive groups in the polymer backbone, then the compositions of the instant application would suffer from similar problems.
On pages 12 and 13, the applicant argues unexpected results and states that comparative examples 3 and 4 are analogous to the compositions of Sugaya. However, the examiner points out that Sugaya uses a sodium salt in the exemplified example 1 noted above, which differs significantly in size from the counterion utilized by the applicant in the comparative examples (didecyldimethylammonium), thus not allowing for a direct comparison as the steric effect of such a large counterion can confound the results obtained.
On page 13, the applicant argues that the subject matter in the claims was found to be novel in the international search. The examiner notes that the rejection is based upon prior art found during a search conducted by the examiner which may have used different keywords and CPC classes and could therefore be different from that of the international search.
Finally, on page 14, the applicant argues that Yoshizato does not remedy the deficiencies of Sugaya. The examiner notes through the above rejection and arguments that there is not a deficiency related to the two part composition and thus this argument is moot.
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 ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights