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 .
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 1-3 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, claim 1 recites a tire grade yarn obtained by melting a mixture of virgin pellets and at least 10 wt% recycled nylon pellet, based on total pellet mixture, characterized in that recycled nylon pellets have a finish oil content of from 0.01 to 0.05 wt.% based on the total pellet mixture. The claim does not actually recite what contents comprise the total pellet mixture and therefore the recitation of total pellet mixture is indefinite. For example, is the total pellet mixture only directed to the recited virgin and recycled pellets, or is it directed to additional components such as the finish oil content. Note that the same reasoning applies to claim 2.
Additionally, since the yarn is obtained by melting virgin pellets and recycled pellets having the claimed finish oil content, it is unclear if the yarn actually comprises any finish oil content or if the recitation of the finish oil content is only directed to the starting materials used. Note that if the finish oil content is present in the final yarn, it is unclear how much of the finish oil content remains in the melted mixture such that it is present in an wt.% in the final yarn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 1-3 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 USPN 5,077,124 to Clark.
Regarding claims 1-3, Clark teaches a high tenacity polyamide filament yarn which is at least 85% by weight poly(hexamethylene adipamide) and which has a tenacity of at least about 9.5 g/d (Clark, Abstract, column 1 lines 8-11, Examples 1-11). Note that poly(hexamethylene adipamide is often referred to as 66 nylon (Id., column 2 lines 54-62). Clark teaches that high tenacity polyamide yarns are known and used for a variety of purposes including cords for tires (Id., column 1 lines 12-18). Clark teaches that the preferred elongation to break is at least about 18%, resulting in preferred toughness ranges of greater than about 200 g/d % (Id., column 2 line 63 to column 3 line 8). Clark teaches that the denier of the yarns is typically on the order of 100-4000 denier, depending on the intended use (Id., column 3 lines 9-16).
Clark does not appear to teach the claimed recycled pellet and obtaining the yarn by melting the claimed mixture. However, Applicants’ specification neither defines “recycled nylon” nor recites any specific properties which necessarily distinguishes “recycled nylon” from “non-recycled” or “virgin” nylon. Therefore, the limitation directed to melting the claimed mixture and the recitation of “recycled” are interpreted as only directed to the source of the nylon and product by process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicants to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicants intend to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicants should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Clark teaches that the preferred elongation to break is at least about 18%, resulting in preferred toughness ranges of greater than about 200 g/d %. Such a value appears substantially similar to the claimed SASE according to ASTM-D-885.
Note that although Clark does not specifically teach that the tenacity and SASE are measured according to ASTM-D 885, since Clark is directed to a similar nylon filament having similar properties and used for a similar purpose, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the properties would be similar if measured according to the claimed standard.
Alternatively, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the filament yarn of Clark necessarily comprises the claimed property, as Clark teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of CH 688448 to Lachmann and USPN 8,366,977 to Weiser.
Regarding claims 1-3, Clark does not appear to teach the use of recycled nylon. However, in the event it is shown that recycled nylon is necessarily distinguished from the nylon of Clark, Weiser teaches a process for manufacturing a polyamide yarn exhibiting good dyeability while utilizing polyamide waste, wherein the recycled polyamide yarn has a high waste polymer content by a low cost method, which is further friendly to the preservation of the environment (Weiser, Abstract). Weiser teaches providing industrial polyamide waste with virgin polyamide rich in amino-end groups, and mixing and melt-spinning the mixture (Id., column 3 lines 28-57, claim 1). Weiser teaches that the ratio of waste to polyamide rich components is preferably in the range of 80:20 to 90:10, wherein the polyamide used is nylon 66 (Id., column 3 lines 28-57, column 4 lines 10-55). Weiser teaches that the method reduces the amount of waste but also significantly decreases the need of raw material and energy (Id., column 4 lines 56-67). Weiser teaches that the recycled yarns have improved elongation capacity and dyeability similar to non-recycled yarns (Id., column 3 lines 3-22).
Additionally, Lachmann teaches monofilaments for industrial purposes using recycled polyamide-6,6 polymer (Lachmann, Abstract). Lachmann teaches an Example wherein the monofilaments from PA6.6 granules meet specifications for further processing, such as a strength of 66 ± 3.566 cN/dtex, and are suited for monofilaments used in the production of tires (Id., pages 1-2). Lachmann teaches that recycled polymer is especially from thread remnants, wherein the disposal and reuse of polymer residues poses a problem in the context of environmental protection (Id., page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the filaments of Clark, and forming the filaments by extruding virgin polyamide and recycled polyamide-6,6 in amounts, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Weiser, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyamide-6,6 filament suitable for use in tire applications which reduce waste and reuse remnants from previous uses while providing recycled yarns have improved elongation capacity and dyeability, as taught by Weiser and Lachmann.
Regarding the claimed properties, Clark establishes that the claimed properties were known in the art as being predictably suitable for tire and tire cord applications. Clark teaches at column 3 line 9 to column 7 line 18, in addition to Examples 1-11 how to predictably modify the properties of the filament, such as by modifying the drawing steps, draw ratios and heating patterns (Clark, column 2 lines 3-20). Additionally,Lachmann teaches a similar nylon filament having similar properties for use in tire applications. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed properties naturally flow from the filament yarn of the prior art, as the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the filaments of the prior art combination, wherein the filaments comprise the claimed properties which are adjusted and varied as taught by Clark, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyamide-6,6 filament having the desired tenacity and strength properties suitable for use in tire applications.
Regarding the claimed finish oil content, as set forth above, it is unclear if the oil content is limited to the starting materials or is necessarily present in the final product. For purposes of examination, the claimed finish oil content will be interpreted as only directed to the starting materials.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Weiser, Lachmann, and US Pub. No. 2020/0002854 to Huang.
Regarding claims 1-3, the teachings of the prior art combination set forth above are incorporated herein. In the event it is shown that the claimed oil content is present in the final product, Huang teaches recycling nylon fiber waste wherein the nylon fiber waste is an oiled nylon 66 fiber waste, and wherein a washing step is performed, wherein an oil content of the nylon fiber debris is reduced to less than 0.22 wt% (Huang, Abstract). Huang teaches that a melting and granulating step is performed, forming a plurality of recycling nylon particles which are melted and spun to form a fiber (Id., Abstract, paragraphs 0007, 0025). Huang teaches that the manufacturing method of the recycling nylon fiber is favorable for reducing the frequency of the broken fiber so as to raise the yield, and the nylon fiber waste is used for spinning (Id., paragraphs 0072-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the filaments of the prior art combination, and using recycled nylon 6,6, having an oil content, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Huang, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyamide-6,6 filament which can be formed by remelting and granulating nylon fiber waste while reducing the frequency of broken fibers.
Regarding the claimed properties, Clark establishes that the claimed properties were known in the art as being predictably suitable for tire and tire cord applications. Clark teaches at column 3 line 9 to column 7 line 18, in addition to Examples 1-11 how to predictably modify the properties of the filament, such as by modifying the drawing steps, draw ratios and heating patterns (Clark, column 2 lines 3-20). Additionally, Lachmann teaches a similar nylon filament having similar properties for use in tire applications. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed properties naturally flow from the filament yarn of the prior art, as the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the filaments of the prior art combination, wherein the filaments comprise the claimed properties which are adjusted and varied as taught by Clark, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyamide-6,6 filament having the desired tenacity and strength properties suitable for use in tire applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed April 17, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Clark does not disclose or suggest the use of recycled nylon 6.6 pellets, nor address any technical issues associated with recycled polymer materials such as residual finish oil contamination, including controlling the finish oil content. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Applicants’ specification neither defines “recycled nylon” nor recites any specific properties which necessarily distinguishes “recycled nylon” from “non-recycled” or “virgin” nylon. Additionally, since the yarn is formed from melting recycled pellets, and since the pellets have a finish oil content, it is unclear if the finish oil content is present in the final product. Therefore, the limitation “recycled” is interpreted as only directed to the source of the nylon and as a product by process limitation.
Applicants’ remaining arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights