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 .
Specification
The amendment filed November 5, 2025, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendment to paragraph 0064 replaces the method used to calculate the boiling water shrinkage value from “JIS L1013:2010 8.16. A method” to “JIS L1013:2010 8.18.1 B.” Although Applicants recite that the correction does not introduce new matter as the correct method is well known in the art, the amendment constitutes new matter as it was not originally present in the disclosure. Additionally, as shown by at least US Pub. No. 2015/0329998 to Ise at paragraph 0070 and US Pub. No. 2008/0085398 to Yasui at paragraph 0098, although the amended method may be used to calculate boiling water shrinkage, it clearly is not the only method known to calculate boiling water shrinkage, and Applicants do not establish that reference to the amended method was set forth in the specification as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6, 10, 13, and 14, claim 6 recites that the boiling water shrinkage is calculated based on the method of JIS L1013:2010 8.18.1 B method. Since the amendment to the specification directed to the claimed method was not entered, the reference in the claims to the method constitutes new matter.
Claims 6, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while possibly being enabling for Examples 1-3 set forth in Table 1 of Applicants’ specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for the entirety of the claimed invention. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to form a woven fabric consisting of synthetic fibers, and necessarily arrive at the claimed ratio commensurate in scope with the claims. In essence, the claimed invention is defined by a property, wherein it is unclear if any woven fabric consisting of synthetic fibers now known or later discovered would be within the scope of the claimed invention. Applicants’ specification does not indicate a manner to clearly manipulate a woven fabric consisting of synthetic fibers such that the claimed ratio is necessarily met. Additionally, Table 1 indicates a variety of variables including density of the warp and weft yarn, boiling water shrinkage values, coating amounts, and structural properties of an intertwining yarn and an additional yarn, which are necessarily optimized to result in a flare amount and the claimed ratio. Such necessary variables are clearly absent from the claimed woven fabric consisting of synthetic fibers.
Note that if the boiling water shrinkage rates are necessary to arrive at the claimed ratio, Applicants’ specification merely recites that the value “was calculated based on the method of JIS L1013:2010 8.16. A method.” However, Applicants’ specification does not recite the actual method used to calculate the boiling water shrinkage and therefore, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill would necessarily be able to form the claimed invention based on a property which is absent the method used to determine the property. Additionally, it is unclear what parameters of the materials are necessarily required to arrive at the property, as at least Example 1 shows different boiling water shrinkage values for the same nylon 66 filament.
Based on the multitude of variables set forth in Applicants’ specification and the lack of limitations claimed, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill could make and/or use the claimed invention defined by the claimed ratio.
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 6, 10, 13, and 14 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.
Regarding claims 6, 10, 13, and 14, claim 6 recites a difference obtained by subtracting boiling water shrinkages as claimed. It is unclear what is intended by the property “boiling water shrinkage.” For example, Applicants’ specification merely recites that the boiling water shrinkage “was calculated based on the method of JIS L1013:2010 8.16. A method.” However, the actual method is not recited in Applicants’ specification, and the method does not appear to be ordinarily known in the art.
Additionally, claim 6 recites a “central part” and a “vicinity of the selvedge.” It is unclear exactly what structure qualifies as a “central part” and a “vicinity of the selvedge”, including whether the part and the vicinity may overlap.
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 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 6 and 10 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 WO 2018/088473 to Arichi, as evidenced by the machine translation.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Arichi teaches a woven fabric for an airbag, having a ground portion made of synthetic multifilament fibers, preferably polyamide-based fibers including nylon 66 (Arichi, paragraphs 0001, 0023-0024).
Regarding the claimed ratio of a selvedge flare amount and the claimed properties, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, Arichi teaches that the same synthetic fiber yarns are used as the warp and weft yarns (Arichi, paragraph 0029). Arichi teaches a single fiber fineness of 1 to 7 dtex and a total fineness is preferably 150 to 1000 dtex, for example a total fineness is preferably 300 dtex or more, or preferably 700 dtex or less, based on the strength, slippage resistance, low air permeability, flexibility and compact storage property of the resulting woven fabric (Id., paragraphs 0029-0032). Arichi teaches that the tensile strength is more preferably 8.7 cN/dtex or less (I.d, paragraph 0033). Arichi teaches that the cover factor is preferably 1800 to 2500 (Id., paragraph 0034). Arichi teaches driving an entwining yarn and an additional yarn into the selvage portion during weaving to form selvedge of the fabric, wherein a leno is used to fasten the weft threads at both ends of the warp threads to prevent fraying (Id., paragraphs 0036-0037). Arichi teaches that the material of the entwining yarn is preferably nylon, the same as the material of the ground thread, wherein the fineness of the entwining yarn is preferably 33 dtex or less (Id., paragraphs 0037-0038). Arichi teaches that similar to the entwining yarn, the additional yarn is used for the purpose of forming selvedge of the base fabric and preventing selvedge raying and tearing, as is placed on both sides of the warp yarn to support the entwining yarn (Id., paragraph 0039). Arichi teaches that the material of the additional yarn is preferably the same as that of the base yarn, wherein the fineness of the additional yarn is preferably 33 dtex or less (Id., paragraphs 0039-0041). Arichi teaches that the woven fabric preferably has a base fabric width of 180 cm or more (Id., paragraph 0044). Arichi teaches an example wherein the entwining yarns are nylon monofilament of 22 dtex and the additional yarns are also made of 22 dtex nylon monofilaments (Id., paragraphs 0108-0109). Note the similarities between the examples of Arichi and at least Applicants’ Example 1. Arichi does not appear to teach that any of the ground yarns comprise a crimp. Therefore, the difference would appear be 0. Arichi teaches that the base fabric may be coated with a resin (Id., paragraph 0087).
Arichi establishes a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed and as set forth in Applicants’ specification and formed in a substantially similar manner, including an Example which is substantially similar as claimed and as set forth in Applicants’ specification, which is used for a substantially purpose for use in airbags and preventing fraying of the selvedge. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed ratio and properties including the boiling water shrinkage difference, would appear to be inherent to or naturally flow from the woven fabric of Arichi. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arichi, as applied to claims 6 and 10, in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0208147 to Yokoi.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Arichi teaches that the tensile strength is more preferably 8.7 cN/dtex or less (Arichi, paragraph 0033) and that an exemplary elongation is 23.5 % (Id., paragraph 0108). Arichi does not appear to teach the specifically claimed properties. However, Yokoi teaches a similar woven airbag base fabric wherein the polymer forming the warp yarn and weft yarn is a polyamide such as nylon having single filament fineness of preferably 2 dtex or more, and a total fineness of 145 dtex or more (Yokoi, Abstract, paragraphs 0036, 0038, 0042). Yokoi teaches that the tenacity of the warp and weft yarn are both preferably 4.5 cN/dtex or more, and preferably 5.7 cN/dtex or less (Id., paragraph 0039). Yokoi teaches that the elongation at break of the warp and weft yarn are both preferably 30% or more and preferably 45% or less (Id., paragraph 0040). Yokoi teaches that using the tenacity and elongation at break ranges results in the fabric obtained exhibiting both excellent energy absorption characteristic and mechanical properties (Id., paragraphs 0039-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the woven airbag fabric of Arichi, wherein the yarns comprise tenacity and elongations, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Yokoi, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional woven airbag fabric having predictably desirable properties such that the fabric exhibits both excellent energy absorption characteristic and mechanical properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed November 5, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections, Applicant argues that the amendments clarify the method for measuring the boiling water shrinkage, and the structural and property-based features necessary to achieve the claimed selvedge flare ratio. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth previously, Applicants’ specification does not recite the actual method used to calculate the boiling water shrinkage and therefore, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill would necessarily be able to form the claimed invention based on a property which is absent the method used to determine the property. Additionally, it is unclear what parameters of the materials are necessarily required to arrive at the property, as at least Example 1 shows different boiling water shrinkage values for the same nylon 66 filament. Note that the amendment to the specification was not entered, and even if entered, it is unclear how the amended method necessarily establishes how to calculate the claimed boiling water shrinkage.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, Applicant argues that the vicinity of the selvedge is defined at paragraph 0021, and that “central part” is intended to correspond to the center line in the width direction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0021 does not appear to define “vicinity”, as the specification only recites that in an example, the vicinity refers to a range of 10 cm in width. The claim does not require such a range, nor define such a range, as such a range would not be necessarily inferred. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not appear to refer to a central part as a center line in the width direction as argued.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 102/103 rejection, Applicant argues that Comparative Example 1, which uses similar yarns to those in Arichi, exhibits a large difference in crimp ratio and boiling water shrinkage resulting in a higher selvedge flare amount and ratio outside the claimed range. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how the yarns of Comparative Example 1 are within the scope of Arichi, which does not appear to require a crimp ratio.
Applicant argues that Examples 2 and 3 describe similar fibers with different strengths, elongation and boiling water shrinkage, and therefore, the properties do not appear to be inherently tied to the yarns. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on Applicant’s arguments and the rejection above, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily form the claimed fibers with the claimed boiling water shrinkage, as Applicant’s arguments suggest that the same fibers have different properties. However, as best Examiner can determine, Applicant’s arguments suggest that the same fibers, such as those set forth in Arichi, would also comprise the claimed properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that, as shown in the general catalog for polyester multifilament yarns, even when the denier and the number of filaments are the same, various mechanical properties differ from one another, as it is relatively easy to modify the strength, elongation, and boiling water shrinkage of yarns having the same denier and number of filaments by changing the viscosity of the yarn and/or the manufacturing conditions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear if the materials recited in the catalog necessarily correspond to the claimed invention or the current rejection, as the materials recited in the catalog are trademarked polyester yarns having properties, such as fineness and/or strength and/or elongation which are outside the claimed ranges. Additionally, it is unclear based on the table how any of the properties are necessarily easy to modify as argued, as the catalog itself provides no basis as to a manner to predictably manipulate any of the properties. Note also that the catalog recites hot air shrinkage percentage, which is similar but not the same property as boiling water shrinkage percentage.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are+ 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786