DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on December 30, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 11-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-10 pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the length ratio" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plied twisted yarns" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0292124)1,2 in view of Zmolek (US 2013/0240105)2 and Jeon (US 2016/0376733).
With respect to claims 1-8, Lee teaches a hybrid fiber cord comprising a nylon filament and an aramid filament (paragraph [0001]). The weight ratio of the nylon primarily twisted yarn to the aramid primarily twisted yarn may be 20:80 to 80:20 (paragraph [0029]). The hybrid fiber cord has a strength retention rate of 80% or more after the disc fatigue test performed according to JIS-L 1017 method of Japanese Standard Association (paragraph [0033]). The nylon used is preferably nylon 66 (paragraph [0039]). The nylon primarily-twisted yarn and aramid primarily-twisted yarn have the same twist number of 300 to 500 TPM (paragraph [0046]). The hybrid cord can be used to make an ultra high performance tire (paragraph [0012]).
Example 1 of Lee comprises a nylon filament of 1260 De and an aramid filament of 1500 De each with a twist of 300 TPM formed into a hybrid ply yarn through secondary twisting at 300 TPM (paragraphs [0066]-[0067]). The hybrid ply yarn was then submerged into a resorcinol formaldehyde latex adhesive solution (paragraph [0067]). The hybrid ply yarn has a strength retention rate of 93.2% when measured after 8 hours according to JIS-L 1017 method of Japanese Standard Association (paragraph [0076]; Table 1). Example 2 used a nylon filament of 840 De and an aramid filament of 1000 De with a twist of 350 TPM (paragraph [0069]).
The weight percent of nylon yarn range of Lee substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Lee, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Lee is silent as to the nylon being bio-nylon.
Zmolek teaches multifilament yarns made from polyamide 10,10 which can be used as strength members in pneumatic vehicles tires (paragraphs [0014]-[0017]). Polyamide 10,10 is formed from 1,10 -decamethylenediamine and 1,10-decanedioic acid, both of which are obtained from castor oil, resulting in polyamide 10,10 being 100% based on natural resources rather than petroleum (paragraph [0013]). This minimizes the burden on environment and resources (paragraph [0013]). Polyamide 10,10 fibers have high mechanical strength, are resistant to chemicals, and has low water imbibition so its properties such as breaking strength are retained in the presence of moisture (paragraph [0014]). Another advantage is that polyamide 10,10 is very similar to polyamide 6,6, making it easy to exchange polyamide 6,6 for polyamide 10,10 (paragraph [0015]). Zmolek further suggests polyamide 10,10 being used in a hybrid cord comprising aramid yarn (paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
Since both Lee in view of Zmolek teach hybrid cords for tires comprising nylon and aramid yarns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyamide 10,10 as the nylon in Lee because polyamide 10,10 is very similar to polyamide 6,6, but minimizes the burden on environment and resources. The combination would provide a cord with high mechanical strength and chemical resistance that retains its properties when exposed to moisture.
Lee in view of Zmolek is silent as to a length ratio of the nylon primarily twisted yarn to the aramid primarily twisted yarn being in the range of 1.0 to 1.10.
Jeon teaches a hybrid tire cord including heterogeneous yarns having different physical properties and improved strength and fatigue resistance (paragraph [0001]). The hybrid tire cord includes a nylon primarily twisted yarn and an aramid primarily twisted yarn which are secondarily twisted together (paragraph [0018]). After untwisting of the secondary twisting the length of the primarily twisted aramid yarn is 1.005 to 1.025 times the length of the nylon primarily twisted yarn, thereby dispersing stress applied to the tire cord during repetition of tension/compression of the tire, providing superior fatigue resistance and stability of the tires even during long-term high-speed driving (paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0044]).
Since both Lee in view of Zmolek and Jeon teach hybrid tire cords comprising a primarily twisted nylon yarn secondarily twisted with a primarily twisted aramid yarn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid cord of Lee in view of Zmolek to have a length ratio of the primarily twisted aramid yarn to the primarily twisted nylon yarn of 1.005 to 1.025 after untwisting of the secondary twist in order to disperse stress applied to the tire cord during repetition of tension/compression of the tire, providing superior fatigue resistance and stability of the tires even during long-term high-speed driving
With respect to claims 9-10, Lee in view of Zmolek and Jeon teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Lee in view of Zmolek and Jeon teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the cord satisfying a strength retention rate of 70% or more after a 16-hour disk fatigue test performed according to JIS-L 1017 method of Japanese Standard Association and having a constant load elongation of at least 2.8% at 4.5 kgf. It is reasonable to presume that the 16 hour strength retention and constant load elongation properties are inherent to Lee in view of Zmolek and Jeon. Support for said presumption is found in that as described above, Lee in view of Zmolek and Jeon use the same materials and structure as the hybrid cord of claims 1-8. Additionally, Jeon teaches that the length ratio of the primarily twisted yarns provides increased fatigue strength. Therefore the cord of Lee in view of Zmolek and Jeon is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's arguments are all with respect to Lee in view of Zmolek not teaching the new claim amendments, specifically the newly added structural feature wherein the length ratio of the second primarily twisted yarn to the first primarily twisted yarn, measured after untwisting the secondary twisting for the plied twisted yarns, is in the range of 1.0 to 1.10. The newly added reference Jeon (US 2016/376733) is used in combination with Lee in view of Zmolek to address the newly added limitations. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore moot as they do not address the combination of references used in the rejections of the amended claims presented above.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Previously presented