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 Objections
Claims 19 and 28 are objected to because the claims are missing a period.
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 13-22 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 claim 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2687628 to Stow in view of USPAP 2003/0211319 to Koehnen and (when necessary) further in view of USPN 6,145,879 to Lowe.
Claims 13, 19, 23, 24 and 28, Stow discloses a vehicle airbag nylon fabric comprising: (a) weft yarn containing from ≥1 to ≤100 weight percent of recycled polymer material, and (b) warp yarn containing equal or less recycled polymer per unit weight than the weft yarn (see entire document including [0001], [0006]-[0015], [0023]-[0029], [0041], [0045] and [0046]).
Stow discloses that the fabric has a tenacity above 40 cN/tex [0028] but does not appear to mention specific denier per filament. Koehnen discloses that it is known in the art to construct an airbag with nylon 6,6 yarns having a filament fineness of 1 to 7 dtex (0.9 to 6.3 denier) and having a tenacity of 60 to 85 cN/tex to produce an airbag fabric with desirable low air permeability (see entire document including [0007]-[0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the airbag fabric of Stow with nylon 6,6 yarns having the claimed denier per filament and tenacity to produce an airbag fabric with desirable low air permeability.
Regarding the claimed weft fluff content and the fluff content of the warp being lower than that of the weft, Stow teaches that the amount of recycled polymer material in the warp may be less than in the weft because the strength of the warp is of greater importance ([0045]-[0046]). Considering that the prior art teaches a substantially identical airbag fabric in terms of warp/weft recycled content, yarn material, filament fineness, and yarn tenacity, the claimed weft/warp yarn fluff limitations appear to be inherent or obvious motivated by a desire to construct an airbag fabric with increased strength as desired/required. It is noted that the current specification discloses that fluff content depends on variables such as yarn tenacity and the amount of recycled polymer material content. Plus, the examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art to reduce fluff (fiber breakage) content, such as claimed, to improve airbag fabric quality.
Claims 14 and 23, the warp yarn and weft yarn differ in tenacity by no more than 10% ([0014] of Koehnen).
Claim 15, the weft yarn has from ≥2 to ≤4 denier per filament ([0008] of Koehnen).
Claim 16, the warp yarn has from ≥2 to ≤4 denier per filament ([0008] of Koehnen).
Claim 17, the weft yarn contains ≥20 to ≤60 weight percent of recycled polymer material ([0014] of Stow).
Claim 18, the weft yarn contains ≥30 to ≤50 weight percent of recycled polymer material ([0014] of Stow).
Claims 20, 29 and 30, Stow does not appear to mention the recycled polymer material containing a chemical marker which identifies it as recycled material, but Stow does disclose that the recycled polymer material is weaker ([0019] and [0045]). Lowe discloses that is known in the airbag art to construct weaker fibers with a different color for identification purposes (see entire document including column 5, lines 45-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a chemical marker, such as a colorant in the recycled polymer material, to identify it as recycled/weaker.
Claims 21 and 31, the warp and weft yarns are at least partially composed of nylon ([0025] of Stow).
Claims 22 and 32, the recycled polymer material is at least partially composed of nylon ([0025] of Stow).
Claim 24, the weft yarn has from ≥1 to ≤6 denier per filament ([0008] of Koehnen).
Claim 25, the warp yarn has from ≥1 to ≤6 denier per filament ([0008] of Koehnen).
Claim 26, the weft yarn contains ≥20 to ≤60 weight percent of recycled polymer material ([0014] of Stow).
Claim 27, the weft yarn contains ≥30 to ≤50 weight percent of recycled polymer material ([0014] of Stow).
Conclusion
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