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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 10 recites “the sum total of a crimp rate in a warp direction and a crimp rate in a weft direction of 7-25%” and it is not defined or described in the specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art can understand the limitation. The specification in paragraphs [0089]-[0091] describes
The crimp rate of the fabric was calculated based on the JIS L 1096:2010 8.7 B method as follows. A sample was cut out from the central portion of the base woven fabric for airbags, the initial load (CN) was set by the calculation formula shown in Formula (4), and the crimp rate (%) in each of the warp direction and the weft direction was calculated by the calculation formula shown in Formula (5).
IG=T×0.1 (4)
In Formula (4), IG represents an initial load (CN), and T represents a total fineness (dtex) of a disintegrated yarn.
Cw=(L-200)/200×100 (5)
In Formula (5), Cw represents a crimp rate (%), and L represents a length (mm) as measured under the initial load (IG) calculated by Formula (4).
The formula does not show how “L” is calculated and then does not show the sum total. The examples in [0107]-[0114] do not further clarify if the sum total means that the calculated warp crimp rate is added to the calculated weft crimp rate to arrive at the claimed limitation.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. It is not clear what the sum total of a crimp rate in the warp and a crimp rate in the weft direction is 7-25%. While a crimp rate is understood, it is not clear what the sum total of the crimp rates mean. It is not clear if the sum total means that the calculated warp crimp rate is added to the calculated weft crimp rate to arrive at the claimed limitation. For purposes of examination, the crimp rate will be the sum of the warp crimp rate plus the weft crimp rate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al (JP 2013049930).
Yamada is directed to a polyamide 410 fiber 6 is a fiber formed by a polyamide resin that is obtained by polycondensation of an aliphatic amine containing tetramethylenediamine as a main component and a carboxylic acid containing sebacic acid as a main component, and satisfies the following expressions: (1) 3 ≤ tensile strength cN/dtex ≤ 10; (2) 15≤tensile elongation % ≤50; (3) 3≤boiling water shrinkage % ≤15; and (4) 0.1 ≤ fineness variation value (U%) % ≤3.0. (ABST).
Yamada teaches the fiber is high density woven with good passability. The tensile strength of the polyamide 410 fibers is 3-10 cN/dtex. If it is higher than 3 cN/dtex, then the passability and handleablity of processing for weaving and knitting are improved [0030].
Yamada teaches the woven fabric can be made into interior and exterior materials for vehicles such as airbags.
As to claims 9 and 16, Yamada anticipates an airbag made from a woven fabric made from a polyamide 410 fiber.
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 12 and 13 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 Yamada et al (JP 2013049930).
As to claims 12 and 13, Yamada does not teach the properties of (1) dynamic air permeability increase rate after hygrothermal treatment (2) tensile strength retention rate after hygrothermal treatment.
Yamada teaches the boiling water shrinkage of the polyamide 410 fiber of the present invention is 3 to 15%. It is preferable that the boiling water shrinkage is 15% or less because the degree of orientation of molecular chains is not extremely reduced during the treatment with boiling water, and the strength is not lowered after the treatment [0032].
As Yamada teaches the same materials and woven structure as claimed, it is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to Yamada. 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 the fabric with the claimed properties motivated to achieve air permeability and strength retention after a hygrothermal exposure.
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (JP 2013049930) in view of Nishimura et al (US 20150079864).
Yamada does not teach the sum total of crimp rate in a warp direction and crimp rate in weft direction is 7-25%. Yamada is silent with regard to crimp rate.
Nishimura is a non-coated woven fabric for air bag according to the present invention comprises a synthetic fiber containing 90% by weight or more of Nylon 66, characterized in that crimping rate of warp of the fabric is 10.0 to 13.0% while crimping rate of woof of the fabric is 6.0% or less (ABST).
Nishimura teaches when a crimping rate of warp is more than 13.0%, mesh opening part of the fabric is also apt to be expanded when the fabric is enlarged by the pressure during development of an air bag. When the fabric is enlarged, the high temperature gas passing through large mesh is more than passing through small mesh and as a result a woven having non-uniform mesh opening is apt to melt compared to a woven with uniform mesh openings [0044].
When a crimping rate of woof is more than 6.0%, the fabric is apt to melt even when a crimping rate of a warp is made 13.0% or less. Further, when a crimping rate of warp is less than 10.0%, the fabric is apt to become hard resulting in inferior flexibility and compactness. Upper limit of the crimping rate of warp is preferred to be 12.5% or less and more preferred to be 12.3% or less. Lower limit thereof is preferred to be 10.5% or more, and more preferred to be 10.6% or more. Crimping rate of the woof is preferred to be 5.5% or less. Lower limit thereof is preferred to be 3.0% or more [0044].
The sum of the warp and woof (equated with weft) of Nishimura is 10% and 3% at the low end which is 13% and in the claimed range. The sum of the warp and woof (equated with weft) is 13% and 6% respectively which is 19% and in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the claimed sum of the crimping rates motivated to eliminate mesh enlargement and subsequent melting of the woven fabric.
As to claim 11, Yamada in view of Nishimura differ and do not teach the melt fall time per total weight in a heat resistance test. As Yamada in view of Nishimura teach the same materials and structure as claimed, it is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to the combination.
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 employ a polyamide 410 fiber in a woven fabric with the crimping rate motivated to achieve the desired heat resistance.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (JP 2013049930).
As to claim 14, Yamada teaches applying a water emulsion oil by dispersing it in water at 1-50% by weight, preferably 5-30% by weight. The moisture content overlaps the claimed range of 0.5% to 2.5%. 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).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (JP 2013049930) in view of Kimura et al (JP 2013064217).
As to claim 15, Yamada is does not teach the polyamide 410 is made from a biomass derived monomer and a content of the polyamide synthesized from biomass-derived monomer is 25% or more in the fiber.
Kimura is directed to a polyamide crimped yarn has a dicarboxylic acid unit consisting mainly of a sebacic acid unit, and in which an existence ratio of carbon derived from a biomass is 45% or more when measured by a radioactive carbon (carbon 14) measurement. The crimped yarn highly contributes to carbon neutral and is adequately and mainly used as the environmentally friendly crimped yarn.
Kimura teaches the polyamide which possesses the di-carboxylic acid unit which designates the sebacic acid unit in this inventing as the main component, nylon 210, nylon 310, nylon 410, nylon 510, nylon 610, nylon 710, nylon 810, nylon 910, nylon 1010, nylon 1110 and you can list nylon 1210 and the like with the combination of the di-carboxylic acid unit and the above-mentioned diamine unit which designate the sebacic acid unit as the main component, nylon 410, nylon 510, nylon 610, nylon 710, nylon 810, nylon 910, nylon 1010, nylon 1110 (page 3, paragraph 1 of the machine translation).
Kimura teaches the thread with the di-carboxylic acid unit which designates the sebacic acid unit as the main component, 55% or more, furthermore to be desirable 80% or more, to be most desirable is 100% desirably for existence ratio of biomath origin carbon to be 45% or more vis-a-vis the whole carbon which is included in the reduction thread. When existence ratio of biomath origin carbon is under 45%, contribution to carbon neutral goes down (page 3, paragraph 2 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a polyamide 410 that has more than 25% of a bio-derived monomer motivated to produce an environmentally friendly fiber and yarn.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (JP 2013049930) in view of Kakehata et al (JP 2014167184).
As to claim 15, Yamada is does not teach the polyamide 410 is made from a biomass derived monomer and a content of the polyamide synthesized from biomass-derived monomer is 25% or more in the fiber.
Kakehata is directed to a crimped yarn that is environmentally friendly. The crimped yarn is a crimped yarn of a polymer alloy obtained by blending (A) 30-95 mass% of polyamide having a dicarboxylic acid unit consisting mainly of a sebacic acid unit and (B) 5-70 mass% of polyamide other than the polyamide of (A), and is excellent in crimping characteristics. The crimped yarn largely contributes to carbon neutral and is suitably applicable to various uses including a use in a carpet such as a car mat, a tile carpet, a roll carpet, a rug, or a dust controlling mat as an environmentally friendly crimped yarn (ABST).
Kakehata teaches the polyamide having a dicarboxylic acid units in the present invention the sebacic acid unit is the component (A) as a main component. Sebacic acid, it is possible to be prepared by purifying castor oil from the seeds and is positioned a plant-derived material (page 2, paragraph 4 after description of embodiments).
The polyamide can be a nylon 410 (page 3, paragraph 1).
The crimped yarn of the present invention preferably has a biomass-derived carbon content of 30% or more with respect to the total carbon contained in the crimped yarn, more preferably 50% or more, still more preferably 80% or more, most preferably it is 100%. When the abundance ratio of biomass-derived carbon is 30% or more, an environment-friendly crimped yarn can be provided in terms of contribution to carbon neutral (page 3, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a polyamide 410 that has more than 25% of a bio-derived monomer motivated to produce an environmentally friendly fiber and yarn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Toki JP 2012076158 is directed to a fiber for polyamide 410 made from sebacic acid that is derived from biomass, e.g. castor oil.
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