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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammad et al. (WO 2011/056467) in view of Mondal et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0305860).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Mohammad et al. teach a method of manufacturing a monofilament of polyamide 4 by drawing by drawing an undrawn monofilament of polyamide 4 with the method comprising a first drawing of drawing an undrawn monofilament of polyamide 4 by dry heat drawing (feed rollers) at a temperature in the claimed range and a drawing ratio in the claimed range and a second drawing of drawing a primary drawn monofilament of polyamide 4 produced in the first drawing by wet heat (steamed heated metal plate) with a specific drawing ratio that makes a total drawing ratio in the claimed range and the total drawing ratio being a drawing ratio of the undrawn monofilament caused by both the first and second drawing [0027, 0065-0066]. Mohammad et al. teach the temperature in the second drawing as a results effective variable in paragraph 0067 teaching temperatures that may be applied in certain embodiments, but that are not required and also teaching the temperature used in the second drawing affects crystallinity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed drawing temperature in the second drawing through routine experimentation in order to decrease crystallinity and improve flexibility and arrive at the claimed invention. Mohammad are silent regarding the claimed conditional statement of the total draw ratio and first draw ratio. However, given Mohammad et al. teaches the claimed total draw ratio of 3.5 in paragraph 0065, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed first draw ratio being less than 3.5, given 1) it is known in the art for the first draw ratio to be less than the second draw ratio in order to not overstress the fiber or induce breaking and 2) the limited number of options, either the first draw ratio would be less than, equal to or greater than the total draw ratio.
Mohammad et al. are silent regarding the claimed fiber being a monofilament, but teach the fiber is nyco and also teaches filaments improve strength. Mondal et al. teach nyco monofilament in order to improve strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monofilament of Mondal et al. in Mohammad et al. in order to improve strength. If the previous combination teaches the claimed method of making, then the claimed monofilament and its properties are obvious over the previous combination as well. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed diameter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed diameter in order to create a flexibility, moisture wicking, and comfort.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed density of the undrawn monofilament. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed density of the undrawn monofilament in order to create a fine, low weight, and flexibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in regard to claim 4, Mohammad teaches producing high strength yarns and points to the temperature listed for the second drawing in Mohammad. Applicant argues Mohammad teaches annealing increases crystallinity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to decrease crystallinity. While Mohammad teaches increased crystallinity, Mohammad does not limit what such crystallinity is. What constitutes increased crystallinity is subjective. Further, Mohammad plainly teaches a correlation between temperature during annealing and the crystallinity as admitted by Applicant in the Remarks dated 12/2/2025. Moreover, as taught in US Patent 3,044,250, which is incorporated in Mohammad, varying temperature and time tailors the fiber properties as desired and can balance strength against other properties including degradation and abrasion resistance. Therefore, upon careful analysis of Mohammad, one of ordinary skill would in fact easily arrive at the claimed temperature of the second drawing in order to tailor the properties of the filament.
Applicant argues in regard to claim 1, the instant application comparative example is representative of Mohammad and therefore doe not have the claimed I2/I1 value. Applicant argues the instant invention improved knotting intensity and Mohammad does not recognize this. Comparative example 9 of the instant application is not representative of Mohammad. Comp. ex 9 has a specific density, drawing temperatures and draw ratios that are discrete and not at all representative of Mohammad. Mohammad teaches drawing much under the 200 degrees shown in Comp. ex. 9. Therefore, it is not clear that the claimed I1/I1 would not be present. Further, Comparative ex. 10 shows an I2/I1 in the claimed range. Given Mohammad teaches such a similar method of making the filament and the obviousness of the drawing temperature, the claimed properties would be inherent. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art not Cited but Relevant
PG Pub. 2017/0151835 teaches a polyamide 4 fiber obtained by melt spinning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights