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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments filed on January 20, 2026. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention for the reasons set forth below.
All other prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11 and 14 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka (US 2006/0030229) in view of Renewable Carbon News (New Grades of polyamide based on naturally occurring feedstocks. New grades of polyamide based on naturally occurring feedstocks - Renewable Carbon News. June 14, 2011) as evidenced by Nunn (US 12,018,133).
Fukuoka teaches knitting (stitching) 13 dTex nylon-6 with 44-dTex polyurethane elastic filament to make a fabric and heat setting at 160°C for 1 minute (60 sec; paragraph 0136-0143, 0125). Polyurethane elastic filament meets the claimed limitation of elastane, as evidenced by Nunn, which teaches that elastanes are known to be elastic polyurethanes (column 2, lines 34-35). Dyeing is optional and therefore the limitations of step c) and claim 5 are optional. If claim 5 were rewritten in independent form the dyeing limitations i)-vi) of step c) would still be optional. Fukuoka teaches dry heat setting is carried out in hot air and on pin tenters (tentering machine, paragraph 0115). Fukuoka further teaches polyurethane elastic filaments are about 2 to about 40% of the fabric wherein the 98-60% would be nylon (paragraphs 0113-0114). Fukuoka teaches knitting the fabric using interlock stitching (paragraph 0084). Fukuoka teaches dry heat setting can be performed at 140-200°C for 10 seconds to 2 minutes (paragraph 0115). Fukuoka teaches using 33 dTex nylon-6 with 44 dTex polyurethane elastic filament (paragraph 0151).
Fukuoka does not teach biopolyamide partly or totally derived from castor oil.
Renewable carbon news teaches that biobased polyamides such as Rislan polyamide 11 derived 100% from castor oil as an alternative to polyamides (nylon, page 1, paragraph 1) and has excellent chemical resistance, ease of processing, working temperatures up to 130°C and high dimensional stability (page 2, paragraph 1). Renewable carbon news teaches polyamide 6.10 from BASF, a 60% castor derivative, has superior performance to PA 6 and PA 66 and offers dimensional stability and resistivity against chemicals (page 1, next to last paragraph). Renewable carbon news teaches Rhodia’s Technyl eXten, a polyamide 6.10 made partly from castor oil, has similar temperature performance to PA 6 such as a high melting point of 215°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select interlock stitching to knit the fabric, 20-150 dTex nylon-6 and to use at least 60% of the nylon-6 and at least 5% of the polyurethane elastic filament in the methods of Fukuoka as Fukuoka teaches nylon-6 and polyurethane elastic filament are conventionally and effectively knit into fabrics with interlock stitching in proportions of 60-98% and 2-40%, respectively. Fukuoka also teaches the effectiveness of combining 33 dTex nylon-6 with 44 dTex polyurethane elastic filament to prepare fabrics with high stretch, good recovery from extension and good fit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Fukuoka by using the castor-oil derived polyamide 6.10 or polyamide 11 as a substitute from nylon-6 as Renewable carbon new teaches these castor oil derived polyamides have operating temperatures in the heat setting temperatures of Fukuoka, have dimensional stability and chemical resistance and provide an alternative to polyamides such as nylon, particularly PA 6. Renewable carbon news teaches increasing customer interest in bio-based plastics has led to the development of several grades of polyamide from renewable feedstocks.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka (US 2006/0030229) in view of Renewable Carbon News (New Grades of polyamide based on naturally occurring feedstocks. New grades of polyamide based on naturally occurring feedstocks - Renewable Carbon News. June 14, 2011) as evidenced by Nunn (US 12,018,133) and further in view of Akita (US 2016/0138203).
Fukuoka, Nunn and Renewable Carbon News are relied upon as set forth above.
Fukuoka, Nunn and Renewable Carbon News do not teach the elasticity in the warp and weft directions and the basis weight of the fabric.
Akita teaches knit fabrics prepared from polyamide fibers and polyurethane elastic yarns can be prepared to a prescribed stretch degree in the warp and weft directions for the benefit of excellent motility and prevention of unnecessary elongation to improve durability of the fabric (paragraph 0023, 0038,0039). Akita teaches the elongation recovery can be 85% or greater in both the warp and weft directions and can include jersey stitch (paragraph 0046, 0054). Akita teaches the basis weight of the fabric is 100 to 400 g/m2 to optimize masking property, rupture strength and weight which impacts movement (paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Fukuoka and Bio-Sourced Polyamide by preparing a jersey knit fabric 75-90% biopolyamide and 10-25% elastane of basis weight 100-140 g/m2 with 120-200% elasticity in the weft direction and 120-200% elasticity in the warp direction, a jersey knit fabric 70-80% biopolyamide and 20-30% elastane of basis weight 110-130 g/m2 with 140-180% elasticity in the weft direction and 140-180% elasticity in the warp direction, a interlock stitch knit fabric 75-90% biopolyamide and 10-25% elastane of basis weight 160-200 g/m2 with 110-190% elasticity in the weft direction and 50-100% elasticity in the warp direction or an interlock stitch knit fabric 70-80% biopolyamide and 20-30% elastane of basis weight 170-190 g/m2 with 130-180% elasticity in the weft direction and 60-90% elasticity in the warp direction, as Akita teaches these are effective elongation recovery parameters when preparing fabrics from similar polyurethane elastic and nylons yarns knitted for the benefit of excellent motility, movement following properties and prevention of unnecessary elongation. Using similar stretchable fibers to produce fabrics with basis weights which optimize masking property, rupture strength and weight to maximize movement is obvious. The parameters of Akita are excellent for fabric with shape retention, elongation and elongation recovery. Adjusting the elasticity to maximize elongation and elongation recovery to ensure the fabric retains shape over time and using the claimed basis weight fabric to ensure it is not too heavy to prohibit movement is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “warm” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “warm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner interpreted warm air to be anything above room temperature.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the term “permanence” but the examiner is unclear what encompasses permanence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed the rejections above have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “warm air” as being forced hot air, but “warm” and “hot” do not mean the same thing as they are distinct terms to describe moderate and highest temperature ranges respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would not equate the term “warm” with the term “hot” Further a range has not been provided for “hot” either. The examiner repeats arguments that the term “warm” is a term of degree and applicant has not defined the term warm in such a manner that the examiner can interpret the range of temperatures it encompasses. Claim 1 does not provide a definition for warm and the temperature limitation of claim 1 for heat-setting is not limited to warm temperatures as any temperature below 160°C is possible including room temperature and lower. Claim 1 does not provide a lower limit temperature for heat setting, so any value below 160°C is permitted.
Applicant argues “permanence” is a term of art but the examiner is unable to find a definition for “permanence” in dyeing operations indicating this means hold/dwell time. In the few references that permanence is including as a dyeing step, the term is defined in the reference with the specific dyeing conditions, not as “permanence” being its own dyeing condition known in the art.
Regarding the arguments of the rejection in view of Fukuoka, Nunn and Bio-Sourced Polyamide, as they apply to the new rejections above. The examiner asserts it is well known in the art to substitute more eco-friendly biopolyamides for fossil fuel derived polyamides to produce the plastics from renewable sources. Renewable Carbon news teaches the biopolyamides derived from castor oil as operating at similar heat setting temperatures required in Fukuoka, having dimensional stability and chemical resistance and as being effective or sometimes superior substitutes for nylon, particularly PA 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights