DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
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 § 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 1-5 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.
Claims 1 and 2 recite the term “ordinary temperature” in line 6 of claim 1 and lines 4-5 and 7-8 of claim 2. It is unclear what temperature is considered “ordinary temperature”. It is the examiner’s opinion the term ordinary is a subjective term. If the value for ordinary temperature is unclear, then the value for M (100° C.)−M (R.T.), E10′ (R.T.)−E10(R.T.), and M′ (R.T.)−M (R.T.) is also unclear. This renders claims 1-2 indefinite.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikanuma et al. (JP2009275294A) (Shikanuma) in view of Polk et al. (US 2018/0340042) (Polk), Yu et al. (2005/0142969) (Yu), and Horiguchi et al. (US 2011/0036447) (Horiguchi).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5
Shikanuma teaches a sewing thread used for an air bag. The sewing thread comprises a polyamide-46 multifilament yarn possessing a strength of 9 cN/dtex or more and a breaking elongation of 10-30%. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0009-0010], [0013], [0015-0016], [0023-0024], and [0036-0037].
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Shikanuma does not explicitly teach the following properties: E(100)(100°C) < 1.0%, M(100°C) – M (R.T.) < 0.5%, a E10’(R.T.) – E10 (R.T.) ≤ 0%, and a M’(R.T.) – M(R.T.) ≤ 0%.
Applicant’s specification acknowledges the following process parameters as contributing factors to attaining the claimed properties:
The suppression of decomposition during melting to maintain high molecular weight of the polymer and achieve E10(100)(100°C) as described in paragraph [0045].
Slowly cooling the spun yarn to achieve the claimed multifilament as described in paragraphs [0047-0049].
Setting the final draw ratio in the three-stage drawing process to 1.00 to 1.10 times to achieve a M’(R.T.) – M(R.T.) as described in paragraphs [0054-0056].
Shikanuma does not explicitly teach suppression decomposition during melting of the polyamide-46, slow cooling of the yarn, or a three stage drawing process including a final draw ratio of 1.00 to 1.10 times
With respect to the difference, Polk teaches a method of making a polyamide polymer having a high molecular weight, excellent color, and low gel content. The polymer is made into a multifilament yarn. The removal of volatile components by application of vacuum increase polymer quality and reduces the propensity for gelation and gassing in fiber production. This process reduces the propensity for undesirable side reactions. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0024-0033], [0064-0066], and claim 26.
Polk and Shikanuma are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyamide multifilament yarn.
In light of the motivation as provided by Polk, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a high molecular weight polyamide 46 multifilament as the multifilament of Shikanuma, in order to increase polymer quality, reduces the propensity for gelation and gassing in fiber production, and provide a multifilament possessing a high molecular weight, excellent color, and low gel content, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Horiguchi teaches polyamide multifilament yarn for forming an airbag. The polyamide multifilament possess a strength of 7 to 10 cN/dtex and an elongation of 20 to 30%. The polyamide multifilament yarn is slow cooled in order to prevent a decrease in strength and elongation. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0022] and [0048-0055].
Horiguchi and Shikanuma in view of Polk are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyamide 46 multifilament yarn for airbags.
In light of the motivation as provided by Horiguchi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the slow cooling process as taught by Horiguchi on the polyamide 46 multifilament yarn of Shikanuma in view of Polk, in order to prevent a decrease in strength and elongation in the polyamide 46 multifilament yarn, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Yu teaches a polyamide multifilament yarn for airbags. The polyamide multifilament yarn undergoes a three-stage drawing process, wherein the third stage possesses a draw ratio of less than 2.0 in order to avoid a rapid reduction in the elongation of the yarn. The three-stage drawing process produces a polyamide multifilament yarn capable of absorbing impact energy occurring instantaneously when airbags operate, See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0017-0019], [0022], [0045-0049], and [0057].
Yu and Shikanuma in view of Polk and Horiguchi are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyamide multifilament yarn for airbags.
In light of the motivation as provided by Yu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the three-stage drawing process as taught by Yu to form the polyamide multifilament yarn of Shikanuma in view of Polk and Horiguchi, in order to ensure the polyamide 46 multifilament yarn is capable of absorbing impact energy occurring instantaneously when airbags operate, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that the structure, material, and process of making the polyamide-46 multifilament yarn of Shikanuma in view of Polk, Horiguchi, and Yu is substantially identical to the structure, material, and process of making as used in the present invention, including identical structure and material and similar methods of producing the multifilament yarn including slow cooling the spun yarn, elimination of volatiles in the polyamide-46 to suppress undesirable side reactions during extrusion, and a final draw ratio of below 2.0 in a three-stage draw process, as set forth above, it is clear that the polyamide-46 multifilament of Shikanuma in view of Polk, Horiguchi, and Yu would intrinsically have a E(100)(100°C) < 1.0%, M(100°C) – M (R.T.) < 0.5%, a E10’(R.T.) – E10 (R.T.) ≤ 0%, and a M’(R.T.) – M(R.T.) ≤ 0%, as presently claimed.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 3
Shikanuma further teaches the single yarn fineness of the sewing thread is preferably 1.5 to 3.5 dtex and the total fineness is preferably 200-2000 dtex. Paragraphs [0017] and [0022]. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 4
Shikanuma in view of Polk, Horiguchi, and Yu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Shikanuma does not explicitly teach the sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide-46 multifilament.
With respect to the difference, Horiguchi teaches a polyamide 46 multifilament yarn for use in an air bag. The sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide 46 should be 3 to 4 in order to produce a high strength polyamide fiber that is suitable material for an air bag. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0022], [0035], [0044], and [0048-0049].
Horiguchi and Shikanuma in view of Polk, Horiguchi, and Yu are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyamide 45 multifilament yarns for airbags.
In light of the motivation as provided by Horiguchi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the polyamide 46 of Shikanuma in view of Polk, Horiguchi, and Yu possesses a sulfuric acid relative viscosity of 3 to 4, in order to ensure the polyamide 46 multifilament is suitable for use in an air bag, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi et al. (US 2011/0036447) (Horiguchi) in view of Polk et al. (US 2018/0340042) (Polk) and Yu et al. (US 2005/0142969) (Yu).
Regarding claims 1-2
Horiguchi teaches a polyamide 46 multifilament yarn comprising a strength of 7 to 10 cN/dtex and an elongation of 20 to 30%. Horiguchi teaches slowly cooling the spun yarn to control the deformation of the yarn and produce a polyamide multifilament with a high toughness. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0022], [0035], [0044], and [0050-0051].
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Horiguchi does not explicitly teach the following properties: E(100)(100°C) < 1.0%, M(100°C) – M (R.T.) < 0.5%, a E10’(R.T.) – E10 (R.T.) ≤ 0%, and a M’(R.T.) – M(R.T.) ≤ 0%.
Applicant’s specification acknowledges the following process parameters as contributing factors to attaining the claimed properties:
The suppression of decomposition during melting to maintain high molecular weight of the polymer and achieve E10(100)(100°C) as described in paragraph [0045].
Slowly cooling the spun yarn to achieve the claimed multifilament as described in paragraphs [0047-0049].
Setting the final draw ratio in the three-stage drawing process to 1.00 to 1.10 times to achieve a M’(R.T.) – M(R.T.) as described in paragraphs [0054-0056].
As discussed above, Horiguchi teaches slowly cooling the spun yarn, however does not explicitly teach suppression decomposition during melting of the polyamide-46 or a three stage drawing process including a final draw ratio of 1.00 to 1.10 times.
With respect to the difference, Polk teaches a method of making a polyamide polymer having a high molecular weight, excellent color, and low gel content. The polymer is made into a multifilament yarn. The removal of volatile components by application of vacuum increase polymer quality and reduces the propensity for gelation and gassing in fiber production. This process reduces the propensity for undesirable side reactions, including decomposition. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0024-0033], [0064-0066], and claim 26.
Polk and Horiguchi are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyamide multifilament yarn.
In light of the motivation as provided by Polk, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a high molecular weight polyamide 46 multifilament as the multifilament of Horiguchi, in order to increase polymer quality, reduces the propensity for gelation and gassing in fiber production, and provide a multifilament possessing a high molecular weight, excellent color, and low gel content, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Yu teaches a polyamide multifilament for airbags. The polyamide multifilament undergoes a three-stage drawing process, wherein the third stage possesses a draw ratio of less than 2.0 in order to avoid a rapid reduction in the elongation of the yarn. The three-stage drawing process produces a polyamide multifilament capable of absorbing impact energy occurring instantaneously when airbags operate, See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0017-0019], [0022], [0045-0049], and [0057].
Yu and Horiguchi in view of Polk are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyamide multifilament for airbags.
In light of the motivation as provided by Yu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the three-stage drawing process as taught by Yu to form the polyamide multifilament yarn of Horiguchi in view of Polk, in order to ensure the polyamide 46 multifilament yarn is capable of absorbing impact energy occurring instantaneously when airbags operate, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that the structure, material, and process of making the polyamide-46 multifilament yarn of Horiguchi in view of Polk and Yu is substantially identical to the structure, material, and process of making as used in the present invention, including identical structure and material, and similar methods of producing the multifilament yarn including slow cooling the spun yarn, elimination of volatiles in the polyamide-46 to suppress undesirable side reactions during extrusion, and a final draw ratio of below 2.0 in a three-stage draw process, as set forth above, it is clear that the polyamide-46 multifilament of Horiguchi in view of Polk and Yu would intrinsically have a E(100)(100°C) < 1.0%, M(100°C) – M (R.T.) < 0.5%, a E10’(R.T.) – E10 (R.T.) ≤ 0%, and a M’(R.T.) – M(R.T.) ≤ 0%, as presently claimed.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 3
Horiguchi further teaches the polyamide 46 multifilament possesses a total fineness of 200 to 700 dtex and a single filament fineness of 1 to 2 dtex. Paragraphs [0015] and [0033-0034]. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 4
Horiguchi further teaches the polyamide 46 multifilament possesses a sulfuric acid relative viscosity of 3 to 4. Paragraph [0035].
Regarding claim 5
Horiguchi in view of Polk and Yu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Since Horiguchi in view of Polk and Yu teaches a polyamide-45 multifilament yarn suitable for use in an airbag, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the polyamide-46 multifilament yarn of Horiguchi in view of Polk and Yu as a sewing thread for an air bag, as the polyamide-46 multifilament yarn is capable of manufacturing an airbag, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789