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 .
Rule 1.132 Declaration
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4/9/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 9, 11-19 based upon 35 USC 103 over Yamada in view of Nishimur as set forth in the last Office action because: The evidence, while persuasive, is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. For evidence to be persuasive, the claims must claim the range that produces the unexpected result and the unexpected property in that range also.
In the instant case, the unexpected result is thermal resistance. And the crimping rate range that produces the thermal resistance is 10.83 (example 1) 14.58 (example A) and examples 3, and 5 also. The evidence should show that the results is expected over the entire range.
The combination of claim 9 or 17, 18 or 19 plus the unexpected result of heat resistance, claim 11, would be allowable.
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 9, 14 and 16 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). Yokoi (US20180208147).
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.
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 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 Nishimura et al (US 20150079864) and in further 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 Nishimura et al (US 20150079864) and in further 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.
Claims 17-19 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) and in further view of Yokoi (US20180208147).
As to claims 17-19, Yamada in view of Nishimura differ and do not teach the crimping rate is 3.9-7.11%, 7.00% to 10.8% and 7.00% to 10.8%.
Yokoi is directed to an airbag base fabric have a warp direction energy absorption characteristic and a weft direction energy absorption characteristic. Yokoi teaches the crimp ratio the average warp direction and weft direction crimp rato is preferably 2% or more, 3% or more 4% or more and 10% or less. The warp direction can be 4% or 5% and the weft direction can be 1.5% and 2% [0054]. The total would be 5.5% to 7% 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 crimping ratio motivated to provide for adequate energy absorption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. There is no rational for inherency in view of the evidence presented in the Rule 1.132 Declaration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the Objection to the Specification and the 112(b) rejection over the term total crimping rate have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Specification and the 112(b) of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons noted under the Rule 1.132 Declaration. Applicant argues that Yamada does not teach or suggest a crimping rate. While Yamada does not teach or suggest a crimping rate, as Yamada is directed to an air bag and other air bag woven fabrics do teach crimping rates, i.e. one would have looked to Nishimura for teaching a crimping rate range.
Applicant argues that there is a unique technical effect with polyamide 410. While this appears to be the case based on the evidence in the 1.132 declaration and the specification, as the claims are not commensurate in scope, the rejection is maintained at this time.
Applicant argues that the thermal resistance equivalent to nylon 66 is achieved with polyamide 410 and the crimping rate. While this appears to be the case based on the evidence in the 1.132 declaration and the specification, as the claims are not commensurate in scope, the rejection is maintained at this time.
Applicant argues that Nishimura does not teach this effect. While this appears to be the case based on the evidence in the 1.132 declaration and the specification, as the claims are not commensurate in scope, the rejection is maintained at this time.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine. While Yamada does not teach or suggest a crimping rate, as Yamada is directed to an air bag and other air bag woven fabrics do teach crimping rates, i.e. one would have looked to Nishimura for teaching a crimping rate range and to Yokoi for the lower crimping rates of new claims 17-19.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-13 are persuasive and the claims are indicated as allowable if incorporated into the base claim.
With regard to claim 14, Applicant argues that Yamada’s moisture amount is different. In the absence of an amendment to clarify the claimed property, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 15, Applicant arguments are not persuasive as Yamada teaches the claimed biomass content.
As noted above, claims 11-13 would be allowable if incorporated into the base claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights