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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 11 of the specification in the method of preparing polymer B, the applicant refers to chlorinating polymer A with a sulfonic acid, however there is no chlorine atom associated with any of the components for this to occur.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Finally, 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.
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.
Conclusion
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