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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200050503 to Choi in view of USPAP 2021/0362542 to Bohn.
Claims 1 and 2, Choi discloses a nylon cord made by a substantially identical process to the method disclosed in the current specification. For example, Choi discloses a nylon 66 cord that may comprise residual copper in an amount of 50 to 80 ppm, melt-spinning the polymer at a temperature of 270 to 310ºC at a draft ratio of 20 to 200, setting the L/D value of the extruder screw to 2.0 to 6.0, passing the discharged through a cooling zone, optionally applying oil at 0.5 to 1.0%, multi-step drawing and winding through three or more Godet rollers with a total draw ratio of 4.5 to 6.5, wherein the first roller is room temperature and at a speed of 550 m/min or more, the second roller is room temperature to 90ºC, the third roller is 120 to 230ºC, the fourth roller is 180 to 250ºC and at a speed of 3,000 to 3,500 m/min, and the fifth roller is room temperature to 150ºC, wherein the total draw ratio between the first and fourth roller is 4.8 to 6.4, and wherein the relaxation rate between the fourth and fifth roller may be 3% or less (see entire translation document). Choi does not appear to mention twisting and plying two twisted cords together, dipping in a RFL solution, and then drying and heating to produce a dip cord but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the disclosed dip cord process is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make a dip cord with the cord of Choi, as disclosed, motivated by a desire to construct a dip cord suitable for tire cord.
The current specification discloses that after conducting in-depth research, the inventors found that when the moisture content in the nylon cord is between 0.5 to 3.5% the elastic modulus is improved while maintaining the same level of tensile properties. Although Choi does not appear to mention moisture content, Bohn discloses that it is known in the tire art that the material properties of polyamide (nylon) change with moisture content wherein increased moisture lowers polyamide strength and stiffness and that a moisture content of no more than 1.5% is most desirable (see entire document including [0048] and [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the nylon cord of Choi with a controlled moisture content, such as 0.5 to 3.5% moisture content, to provide a cord with desirable strength and stiffness and/or because it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that nylon moisture content determines properties such as strength and stiffness and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding the claimed properties, the Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 7 and 8, Choi discloses that the nylon cord comprises the claimed nylon 66 (Description of Embodiments section).
Claims 9 and 13, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical nylon cord including moisture content, the claimed properties appear to be inherent.
Claims 10-12, Choi does not appear to mention twisting and plying two twisted cords together, dipping in a RFL solution, and then drying and heating to produce a dip cord but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the disclosed dip cord process is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make a dip cord with the cord of Choi, as disclosed, motivated by a desire to construct a dip cord suitable for tire cord.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200050503 to Choi in view of USPAP 2021/0362542 to Bohn as applied to claims 1, 2 and 7-13 above, and further in view of USPAP 2011/0108178 to Jeon.
As stated above, Choi does not appear to mention twisting and plying two twisted cords together, dipping in a RFL solution, and then drying and heating to produce a dip cord but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the disclosed dip cord process is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make a dip cord with the cord of Choi, as disclosed, motivated by a desire to construct a dip cord suitable for tire cord. Further in support, Jeon discloses that it is known in the art to twist nylon 66 cords together with the claimed primary and secondary twisting of about 310 TPM (see comparative example 2 in [0076]-[0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make a dip cord with the nylon 66 cord of Choi, as disclosed by Jeon, motivated by a desire to construct a dip cord suitable for tire cord.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest a process step of drying the nylon cord before dipping in a dipping solution. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claim 1 does not claim a process step of drying the nylon cord (before or after dipping). Rather, claim 1 requires the nylon cord have a specific moisture content before dipping. Although Choi does not appear to mention moisture content, Bohn discloses that it is known in the tire art that the material properties of polyamide (nylon) change with moisture content wherein increased moisture lowers polyamide strength and stiffness and that a moisture content of no more than 1.5% is most desirable (see entire document including [0048] and [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the nylon cord of Choi (before dipping) with the claimed moisture content, to provide a cord with desirable strength and stiffness and/or because it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that nylon moisture content determines properties such as strength and stiffness and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Choi does not appear to mention twisting and plying two twisted cords together, dipping in a RFL solution, and then drying and heating to produce a dip cord but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the disclosed dip cord process is well-known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make a dip cord with the 0.5% to 3.5% moisture content nylon cord of Choi, motivated by a desire to construct a dip cord suitable for tire cord.
The applicant asserts that it is unexpected that the modulus of elasticity of nylon 66 is higher when nylon has a lower moisture content and that tensile strength is maintained. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Bohn discloses that it is known in the tire art that the material properties of polyamide (nylon) change with moisture content wherein increased moisture lowers polyamide strength and stiffness ([0048] and [0049]). Further, USPN 4,221,129 to Sidebottom (filed nearly 50 years ago in 1979) discloses that nylon 66 is a “well known moisture sensitive material” (column 1, lines 7-17) and even shows (Figure 5) a family of curves illustrating the manner in which elastic modulus of nylon 66 is known to vary as a function of moisture content wherein “dry nylon” (curve 40) has a higher modulus of elasticity compared to average moisture content (curve 41) nylon 66 and moisture saturated (curve 42) nylon 66 (column 3, lines 40-54).
The applicant also asserts that the elongation units disclosed by Choi are not equivalent to the claimed elongation units, Choi fails to disclose the claimed moisture content, and that Choi does not disclose any specific twist number. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current rejection because the rejection does not rely on just the teachings of Choi. Rather, the claims are rejected by Choi in view of Bohn. The combination of references (in addition to the statement of official notice) either inherently or explicitly teaches the claimed limitations.
The applicant also asserts that comparative example 1 of the specification is evidence that the applied prior art fails to inherently teach the claimed nylon cord. Specifically, the applicant asserts that comparative example 1 lacks a nylon cord drying step, lowering the moisture content to between 0.5% and 3.5%, prior to cord dipping and therefore demonstrates that the nylon cord of Choi subjected to a conventional dip process does not inherently yield a cord exhibiting the claimed properties. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection because the rejection relies on the teachings of Bohn for the claimed moisture content. Although Choi does not appear to mention moisture content, Bohn discloses that it is known in the tire art that the material properties of polyamide (nylon) change with moisture content wherein increased moisture lowers polyamide strength and stiffness and that a moisture content of no more than 1.5% is most desirable (see entire document including [0048] and [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the nylon cord of Choi with a controlled moisture content, such as 0.5 to 3.5% moisture content, to provide a cord with desirable strength and stiffness and/or because it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that nylon moisture content determines properties such as strength and stiffness and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
The applicant asserts that Bohn is directed to a different field from the current application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Both the current application and Bohn are directed to the tire art and even more specifically to nylon material used to make tires (see the BACKGROUND ART section of the current application and the Description of the Related Art section of Bohn).
The applicant also asserts that Bohn teaches away from Bohn using nylon 66 because nylon 66 has a moisture content higher than Bohn’s preferred moisture content limit. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection because Bohn is not the rejection primary reference. Rather, Bohn is merely a secondary reference. Thus, the rejection does not teach or suggest modifying Bohn. Rather, Choi is the primary reference and already teaches the use of nylon 66.
The applicant also asserts that Bohn provides no guidance on how to control moisture. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the applicant provides no evidence that one skilled in the art would not be enabled to make the low moisture content nylon disclosed by Bohn. It is well-established that unsupported attorney arguments do not constitute evidence necessary to resolve a disputed question of fact. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence” and cannot rebut other admitted evidence.); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.”’).
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights