DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 22, 2026 has been entered.
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 May 22, 2026 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 Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 11-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-10 pending for examination.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 § 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 Zheng (CN 106146831)3.
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 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 PA 56 bio-nylon.
Zheng teaches renewable polyamide 56 materials with high flame retardant materials prepared using bio-based 1,5 pentanediamine (paragraph [0002]). The polyamide material may be used as a cord or industrial yarn (paragraph [0036]). The polyamide 56 flame retardant material has the advantages of good flame retardancy without large amounts of flame retardant, low toxicity, high safety, low cost, maintains good physical and chemical properties, has good spinning performance, is bio-based, has a simple preparation process, and has broad prospects for industrial applications (paragraphs [0041]-[0045]).
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 nylon of Lee to be a bio-based PA 56 as described in Zheng because it has good flame retardancy, low toxicity, high safety, low cost, maintains good physical and chemical properties, has good spinning performance, is bio-based, and has a simple preparation process.
Lee in view of Zheng teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the bio-nylon yarn having a 4.7 cN/dtex constant load elongation of 10.1% or less measured according to ASTM D885. It is reasonable to presume that the constant load elongation is inherent to Lee in view of Zheng. Support for said presumption is found in that as described above, Lee in view of Zheng use the same materials and structure as the hybrid cord of claims 1-8.
Specifically, the instant specification on page 19, lines 5-11 describes how the constant load elongation may be adjusted or changed according to the number of twists. As described above, Lee in view of Zheng teaches a primary twist of bio-nylon yarn within the scope of claims 1 and 5-8. The instant specification on page 28, line 19 through page 29, line 3 also describes the type of fibers, the number of twists, fineness, and content provide the desired elongation characteristics. As described above, Lee in view of Zheng teaches the same material (PA 56), a similar number of twists, a similar fineness, and a similar content.
Therefore the cord of Lee in view of Zheng is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 9-10, Lee in view of Zheng teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Lee in view of Zheng 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 Zheng. Support for said presumption is found in that as described above, Lee in view of Zheng use the same materials and structure as the hybrid cord of claims 1-8. As described on page 28, line 21 through page 29, line 3 of the instant specification, the type of fibers, the number of twists, fineness, and content provide the desired fatigue and elongation properties. Since Lee in view of Zheng teaches the us of similar materials, number of twists, fineness, and content as the claimed invention, the cord of Lee in view of Zheng is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed May 22, 2026.
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 and Jeng not teaching the new claim amendments, specifically the newly added structural feature wherein the bio-nylon is PA56. The newly added reference Zheng (CN 106146831) is used in combination with Lee 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
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
3 Machine translation used as reference
Prosecution Insights