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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 8/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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 and dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-11 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.
In this instance the claims are functional in nature and recite the limitation: “a fiber having a breaking strength 3.5 to 15 cN/dtex and an elongation at break of 5 to 30% and a melting point of 290°C or greater.” The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, (i.e. heat resistant, high-toughness fiber), so it is unclear whether the function requires a specific composition or fiber structure, e.g. filament, multifilament, yarn, or is simply a result of treating the materials in a certain manner, e.g. coating, drawing, heat setting or producing the fiber via a specific process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
In this instance is it not clear if the structure, composition, method of making the fiber is responsible for the claimed properties. There could be other factors, including the nature and strength of additional fibers present, specific types of polymers or natural material are needed, the way the fibers were processed, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kimura et al (US3629053) as evidenced by Textile Glossary definition of breaking strength and tenacity.
Kimura is directed to a novel polyamide and fiber (Title). Kimura teaches a fiber made from a polymer blend of a homopolyamide or copolyamide and at least one aliphatic polyamide or a conjugate fiber with nylon 6, 66 or a polyester can provide a fiber with improved heat resistance and recoverability after extension and antistatic properties (ABST).
The polyamide fibers have tensile strength at break and an elongation at break as excellent as ordinary polyamide fibers, a boiloff shrinkage as low as polyester fibers and Young's modulus greater than nylon-6 and nearly equal to polyester fibers (col. 5, lines 45-55).
Kimura teaches the tensile strength at break, equated with breaking strength as the claimed units of measure are force per weight per unit length of the fibers. See the cited Textile Glossary for definitions of breaking strength and breaking tenacity which defines the difference between tensile strength and breaking strength wherein breaking tenacity is the maximum tensile stress at rupture of a fiber expressed in units of grams-force/tex. Breaking strength is measured in units of force only. As the claims require units of cN/dtex, force per weight per length, the claims are a breaking tensile strength. As Kimura measure the tensile strength at break in units of force/mass per unit length and Kimura’s tensile strength at break is equated with the claimed breaking strength.
The tensile strength at break is 4.2 g/den (Table 3, col. 15) which is equivalent to 3.7 cN/dex and within the claimed range of 3.4-15 cN/dtex as well as examples in Table 6 which are 4.2 and 4.3 g/den equivalent to 3.7 and 3.8 cN/dtex and in the claimed range.
Kimura teaches the elongation at break is 27.1 % (Table 3, col. 15) which is within the claimed range of 5 to 30% and additional examples in Table 6 which are 18 and 19 % and in the claimed range.
Kimura teaches the melting point of the fiber can be 300°C in example 6 (col. 14, lines 65-68) which is in the claimed range of 290°C or higher and the tensile strength at break is 4.1 g/denier (3.62 cN/dtex) and elongation at break of 20.5% (col. 16, 24-28). Kimura teaches a fiber with the properties within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claim.
As to claim 4, Kimura teaches a fiber that has the claimed tensile breaking strength and elongation at break as noted in claim 1. Kimura does not measure the heat dimensional change rate at 250°C of less than 2%. Kimura teaches the fiber as heat resistance (ABST).
Kimura teaches a heat resistant fiber and teaches a low boiloff shrinkage. As Kimura teaches all of the claimed materials and structure and substantially the same properties, it is reasonable to presume the property of heat dimensional change is inherent to Kimura. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a fiber with the property of heat dimensional change of less than 2% motivated to produce a heat resistance fiber.
As to claim 5, Kimura teaches a fiber that has the claimed tensile breaking strength and elongation at break as noted in claim 1. Kimura does not measure the knot strength.
As Kimura teaches all of the claimed materials and structure and substantially the same properties, it is reasonable to presume the property of heat dimensional change is inherent to Kimura. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a high strength fiber motivated to produce a fiber that has high knot strength for producing nets and knits.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shimada et al (US 4413114) as evidenced by Textile Glossary definition of breaking strength and breaking tenacity and www.specialchem.com.
Shimada is directed to aromatic copolyimide containing 3,4’-diphenylene moiety (Title). Shimada is directed to a fiber or film forming aromatic copolyimide that has excellent thermal, chemical resistant and mechanical properties (col. 2, lines 28-38).
Shimada teaches heat resistance and superior mechanical properties (col. 8, lines 1-10) and these properties are equated with the claimed heat resistant and high-toughness.
Shimada teaches the aromatic copolyimide comprises reoccurring units from (A), (B) and (C) wherein each of the aromatic monomeric compound (A’) may be selected from aromatic diamines, dicarboxylic acid halide and a monocarboxylic acid halide hydrogen chlorides (col. 6, lines 10-35).
Comparative Example 1 which has the properties of tensile strength of 9.4 g/d (8.29 cN/dtex); ultimate elongation of 6.2%. Ultimate elongation is equated with elongation at break as evidenced by the article from www.specialchem.com and in the ultimate elongation is within the claimed range.
Shimada anticipates a fiber of claim 1 with an elongation at break within the claimed range.
Shimada is silent with regard to the tensile strength at break or breaking strength. See textile glossary for definitions of breaking strength having units of force and breaking tenacity (tensile stress) being units of force per weight per linear density. Shimada teaches tensile strength presuming it is not the same as breaking tensile strength.
Shimada is silent with regard to the melt temperature.
As Shimada teaches the same materials and fiber structure, it is reasonable to presume that the properties of melting temperature and breaking strength are inherent to Shimada. As Shimada teaches all of the claimed materials and structure and substantially the same properties, it is reasonable to presume the property of breaking strength and melting point is inherent to Shimada. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce an aromatic copolyamide fiber that has the claimed breaking strength and melting temperature motivated to produce a heat resistant fiber.
As to claim 2, Shimada teaches the aromatic monomeric compound (B’) may be selected from the aromatic diamines dicarboxylic acid halides and aminocarboxylic acid halide hydrogen chlorides, each having the radical Ar1, for example, m-phenylenediamine, chloro-m-phenylenediamines, 2,4- and/or 2,6-toluylenediamine, isophthalic chloride, chloro isophthalic chlorides, methyl isophthalic chlorides, 1,4-naphthalenic chloride, methoxy isophthalic chloride and m-aminobenzoic chloride hydrochloride (col. 6, lines 36-44).
The aromatic monomeric compound (C’) may be selected from the aromatic diamines, dicarboxylic acid halides and aminocarboxylic and halide hydrogen chlorides, each having the radical Ar.sub.2, for example, p-phenylenediamine, chloro-p-phenylenediamines, methyl-p-phenylenediamines, 1,5- or, 2,6-naphthalenediamine, dimethyl-benzizines, dichloro-benzizines, terephthalic chloride, chloroterephthalic chloride, methylterephthalic chloride, 1,5- or, 2,6-naphthalenic chloride and p-aminobenzoic chloride hydrochloride (col. 6, lines 45-54).
The copolymerization is carried out in accordance with the solution polymerization method, the aromatic monomeric compounds (A'), (B') and (C') are dissolved in an organic solvent.
Shimada teaches three monomers as claimed are used to produce the copolymer aromatic copolyamide as claimed as described in comparative example 1 as follows. Shimada does not explicitly use the term “aramid” polymer, however one of ordinary skill in the art knows that aromatic polyamides are known to be aramids.
As shown in the table below, the mole percentage of the 25 mole % of m-phenylenediamine, 25 mole% of p-phenylenediamine and 50 mole% terephthalic acid chloride. The comparative example was converted into a filament yarn with a draw ratio of 4.0 and the filament has the properties of denier of 5.0; tensile strength of 9.4 g/d and an ultimate elongation of 6.2% (col. 13, lines 12-68, col. 14, 1-25).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Shimada teaches comparative example has 3 monomers consisting of m-phenylenediamine, p-phenylenediamine and a terephthaloyl (the terephthalic chloride) and therefore Shimada anticipates the claimed fiber composition.
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al (US3629053) as evidenced by Textile Glossary in view of Okada et al (JP 2019157285).
As to claim 5, Kimura teaches a fiber that has the claimed tensile breaking strength and elongation at break as noted in claim 1. Kimura does not measure the knot strength.
Okada is directed to a high strength textile fiber. Okada is directed to a textile high strength fiber satisfies all of: a tensile strength measured according to JIS L 1013:2010 of 15 cN/dtex or higher; a knot strength of 5 cN/dtex or higher; a loop strength of 8 cN/dtex or higher ; and a yarn friction coefficient of 0.52 to 0.60 (ABST).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a high strength fiber motivated to produce a fiber with high knot strength for producing nets.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al (US 4413114) as evidenced by Textile Glossary and www.specialchem.com.
With regard to claims 3 and 6, Shimada teaches the fiber is a copolymer and made from at least 3 monomers as claimed and is an aromatic copolyamide can be produced by the method of the present invention comprising copolymerizing at least one aromatic monomeric compound (A') having a group of the formula (I) with at least one aromatic monomeric compound (B') having a group of the formula (II) and at least one aromatic monomeric compound (C') (col. 3, lines 33-39).
Comparative example 1 produces an aromatic copolyimide made from a solution was prepared by dissolving 1.201 g (0.006 mole) of 3,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether, 0.433 g (0.004 mole) of m-phenylenediamine and 1.081 g (0.010 mole) of p-phenylenediamine in 80 g of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone in a dry nitrogen gas atmosphere. After the solution was cooled to a temperature of 0.degree. C., 4.061 g (0.020 mole) of terephthalic acid chloride, which had been pulverized into fine particles and passed through a 30 mesh screen, were quickly added to the solution while vigorously stirring the solution. The resultant mixture was subjected to a copolymerization process.
As disclosed above, Comparative example 1 is produced from three monomers wherein the mole percentage of the 25 mole % of m-phenylenediamine, 25 mole% of p-phenylenediamine and 50 mole% terephthalic acid chloride. The terephthalic acid chloride is equated with the terephthaloyl. The comparative example was converted into a filament yarn with a draw ratio of 4.0 and the filament has the properties of denier of 5.0; tensile strength of 9.4 g/d and an ultimate elongation of 6.2% (col. 13, lines 12-68, col. 14, 1-25).
The mole percentage of the monomers in within the claimed range of 10-70% of a m-phenylenediamine (25%) or isophthaloly and 90-30 % of a p-phenylenediamine (25%) or terephthaloyl (50%). 50% terephthaloyl is in the range as well as 50% plus 25% is 75% and in the claimed range also (claim 3).
Shimada teaches the advantage of the fibers is that the drawing operation can be carried out advantageously over conventional aromatic copolyamides (col. 10, lines 42-47). Shimada teaches a heat resistant fiber for electrical insulating materials (col. 10, lines 61-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a fiber of the claimed monomers motivated to produce a fiber with heat resistant properties and ease of drawing.
As to claim 4, Shimada teaches the same materials and structure as claimed and therefore reasonable to presume the properties are inherent to the fiber composition. Shimada teaches different embodiments wherein the tensile strength in g/d converted to claimed units of cN/dtex is in the range of 9.4 g/d (8.29 cN/dtex) and ultimate elongations up to 30%, Shimada reasonably teaches the claimed fiber. While the tensile strength is not necessarily equivalent to breaking strength, it is reasonable to presume the breaking strength is inherent to Shimada as noted above.
Shimada differs and does not measure the heat dimensional change rate. Shimada teaches a fiber with heat resistance and chemical resistance and superior mechanical properties (col. 7, lines 65-68, col. 8, lines 1-10). As Shimada teaches the same materials and fiber structure, it is reasonable to presume that the properties are inherent to Shimada. As Kimura teaches all of the claimed materials and structure and substantially the same properties, it is reasonable to presume the property of heat dimensional change is inherent to Kimura. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce an aromatic copolyamide fiber motivated to produce a fiber with high strength and heat resistance.
As to claim 5, Shimada is silent with regard to knot strength. As Shimada teaches the same materials and structure and substantially the same properties of tensile strength and elongation, it is reasonable to presume the property of knot strength is inherent to Shimada.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Shimada teaches a heat resistant fiber with improved mechanical strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a high strength fiber motivated to produce a fiber with high knot strength.
As to claims 6, Shimada teaches components (A), (B) and (C), wherein all of the examples include at least three monomers that include m-phenylenediamine, p-phenylenediamine and terephthaloyl, Shimada teaches the components (B) can be one of isophthalic chloride (isophthaloyl).
Comparative example 2 includes 10 mole% of 3,4-diaminodiphenyl ether, 40 mole% (0.0016 gm) of m-phenylenediamine and 50 mole% (0.0020 gm) of terephthaloyl wherein the ratio of the m-phenylenediamine to the terephthaloyl is 0.0016/0.0036= 44% and in range of 40-70% of m-phenylenediamine and 55% of terephthaloyl is in range of 60-30 mol% (claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed ratio of components motivated to produce a heat resistant and strong fibre for heat insulating applications.
As to claim 7, Shimada teaches some embodiments where the tensile strength is 9.4 g/d (col. 14, line 24) and 14.2 g/d (col. 7, line 43). Tensile strength is not necessarily the same as breaking strength as evidenced by the Textile Glossary however reasonable to presume the breaking strength is inherent to Shimada is Shimada teaches the same materials, composition and structure as claimed.
Shimada teaches embodiments with ultimate elongation 6.2% (col. 14, line 25) and 5.5% and 14.2 g/d (col. 7, line 44). Shimada is silent with regard to the property of dry heat dimensional change.
As Shimada teaches the same materials and fiber structure, it is reasonable to presume that the properties are inherent to Shimada. As Kimura teaches all of the claimed materials and structure and substantially the same properties, it is reasonable to presume the property of heat dimensional change is inherent to Kimura. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a high strength fiber motivated to produce a fiber that has heat resistance and strength.
As to claim 8, Shimada teaches comparative example 3 as noted above. The mole percentages of the monomers in within the claimed range of 10-40% of a m-phenylenediamine (25%) or isophthaloyl and 90-60 % of a p-phenylenediamine (25%) or terephthaloyl (50%). 50% terephthaloyl is in the range as well as 50% plus 25% is 75% and in the claimed range also (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed mole percentages motivated to produce an aromatic copolyimide with the heat resistance for electrically insulating properties.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al (US 4413114) as evidenced by Textile Glossary and www.specialchem.com and in view of Takano et al (JP 2006342471).
As to claims 9-11, Shimada differs and does not teach addition of conductive particles. Shimada teaches the fiber tensile strength (equated with breaking strength) is 8.28 cN/dtex which is in the range of 3.5-10 cN/dtex (ABST).
Takakano teaches an aromatic polyamide fibers and electrically conductive fine particles contained in a ratio of 5-30% [0009], [0032].
Takakano teaches the objective is to produce a conductive aromatic polyamide with low volume resistivity that is stable when processing and spinning [0008].
The conductive fine particles provide have a resistivity of 100 to 108 ohm-cm [0018]; (using machine translation from google patents, paragraph 16 as counted from top).
Takakano teaches the fine particles can be carbon black [0016]-[0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ conductive fine particles of carbon black with the resistivity motivated to produce a conductive aromatic polyamide for use in applications with high heat resistance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al (US 4413114) as evidenced by Textile Glossary and www.specialchem.com in view of Takano et al (JP 2006342471) and in further view of Kiriyama et al (JPH05125183).
As to claim 12, Shimada teaches comparative example 3 as noted above. The mole ratio of the monomers of m-phenylenediamine (0.008 mole) and isophthaloyl (0.004 mole) is equivalent to 0.012 moles. The p-phenylenediamine (0.016 mole). 0.012 + 0.016 = 0.028 and 0.012/0.028 = 42% and 0.016/0.028 = 57% .
Shimada’s examples do not include one wherein the meta and iso components are greater than 50 to 70 percent versus the p-phenylenediamine and terephthaloyl components being 50 to 30%.
Kiriyama is directed to a copolyimide composition for a fiber having high elongation and high toughness.
Kiriyama teaches the components of at least two aromatic diamines (A) and (B) and an aromatic dicarboxylic acid dichloride are mixed with an aromatic diamine / aromatic dicarboxylic acid dichloride in an aprotic organic polar solvent wherein the aromatic diamines are selected from substituted or unsubstituted p-phenylenediamine and substituted or unsubstituted m-phenylenediamine [0008]. The aromatic dicarboxylic acid dichloride is at least one selected from substituted or unsubstituted terephthalic acid dichloride, and the aromatic diamine is at least one selected from substituted or unsubstituted p-phenylenediamine (A). And at least one aromatic diamine (B) selected from substituted or unsubstituted m-phenylenediamine [0008].
Kiriyama teaches at least two kinds of aromatic diamines (A) and (B) are used as the aromatic diamine. The aromatic diamine (A) is at least one kind selected from substituted or unsubstituted para-type aromatic diamines, and may be generally known ones such as para-type phenylenediamine and para-type biphenylenediamine. The aromatic diamine (B) is at least one selected from substituted or unsubstituted meta-type aromatic diamines, and may be generally known ones such as meta-phenylenediamine and meta-biphenylenediamine. Solubility in an organic solvent is remarkably reduced and a molded product with a high elongation cannot be obtained by using only one kind of para-aromatic diamine. Further, with only one kind of meta-type aromatic diamine, a whitening phenomenon is likely to occur in the coagulation process of yarn production, and further sufficient fiber strength cannot be obtained ([0008] the 10th paragraph of [0008]). Kiriyama is teaching that use of both the para and meta aromatic diamines provides for improved solubility and high elongation can not be obtained and reduces whitening phenomena in coagulation process of yarn process.
Example 5 provides for 36 mole % p-phenylenediamine (PPDA) and 54 mole % m-phenylenediamine (MPDA) and then later 12 mole % of terephthaloyl (TPC). This combination has 54 mole % of m-phenylenediamine which overlaps the claimed range of 50-70 of the meta or iso components [0054]. The para or tere components are 48% and in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed mole percentages motivated to produce an aromatic copolyimide with improved solubility, molding elongation and reduced whitening during coagulation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rocket-fiber.com article for the definition of tenacity versus breaking strength.
Tamura (US 20170015787).
Tamura teaches the present invention provides a polyamide having excellent heat resistance, water resistance, and impact resistance. The present invention relates to a polyamide including: structural units derived from an aromatic dicarboxylic acid; and structural units derived from an aliphatic diamine.
The melting point of the polyamide of the present invention is not particularly limited. The melting point is preferably 280 to 350° C., more preferably 290 to 345° C., and even more preferably 300 to 340° C [0032].
The above-mentioned diamine units may contain diamine units other than the aliphatic diamine units having 4 to 12 carbon atoms as long as the effects of the present invention are not impaired. Examples of the other diamine units include units derived from: aliphatic diamines and aromatic diamines such as p-phenylenediamine, m-phenylenediamine, p-xylylenediamine, m-xylylenediamine, 4,4′-diaminodiphenylmethane, 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl sulfone, and 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl ether [0020]. The polyamide may contain any one of these units or may contain two or more different types of these units.
Kamijo et al (US 20230076788).
Kamijo is directed to a polyamide 46 multifilament has a strength of 6.0-9.0 cN/dtex and an elongation at break of 15-30% (ABST). Kamijo teaches a heat resistance multifilament with a high melting point [0026]. The spinning temperature is set to a level higher by 10-50C than the melting point of the polymer [0041].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789