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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species A2 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is “the potential for overlap of claim scope between the elected and non-elected embodiments”. This is not found persuasive because the matter of claim scope overlap is not germane to restriction under Unity of Invention. The examiner refers to the 01/15/2026 Restriction/Election Requirement for discussion as to how the Groups and Species do not relate to a single general inventive concept as they lack the same or corresponding special technical features.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a spinneret” in claim 26. Although the term “means of” is present, the recited spinneret is a known, definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “polyesters , polyamides and aramids .” in line 2 should be written as –polyesters, polyamides, and aramids.— for grammatical clarity and to remove the extra spacings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein, the polyesters” in lines 1-2 should be written as –wherein; the polyesters— for ease of reading and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “(PEN), the polyamides” in lines 3-4 should be written as –(PEN); the polyamides— for ease of reading and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “PA12.12, and the aramids” in lines 5-6 should be written as –PA12.12; and the aramids— for ease of reading and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “with the proviso that” in lines 4 and 7 should be written as –wherein— for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “groups, or” in line 5 should be written as –groups;— for ease of reading the claims and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “latex, or” in line 9 should be written as –latex; or— for ease of reading the claims and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “crystallization and solid-state” in line 6 should be written as –crystallization, and solid-state— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “melting and” in line 10 should be written as –melting, and— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “350oC and” in line 15 should be written as –350oC, and— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “heat-setting and winding” in line 17 should be written as –heat-setting, and winding— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “5 den; a14)” in lines 21 should be written as –5 den; and a14)— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “polymer yarn;” in line 9 should be written as –polymer yarn; and— for ease of reading and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the chemical starting substance” in line 9 should be written as –the at least one chemical starting substance— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the monomer” in line 10 should be written as –the at least one monomer— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “processed, to a polymer yarn;” in line 12 should be written as –processed to a polymer yarn; and— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “biobased PA4.10, biobased aramid” in lines 5-6 should be written as –biobased PA4.10, and biobased aramid— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “biobased fillers, biobased polymers” in lines 3-4 should be written as –biobased fillers and biobased polymers— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “where in” in line 4 should be written as –wherein— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-24, 26-28, and 39 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 22, the phrase “the dry weight” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase “the dry weight” in line 4 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase “the dry weight” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 26, the phrases “the yarn spinning” in line 11, “the unstretched yarn” in line 13, “the water content” in line 13, “the temperature” in line 14, and “the length” in line 15 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “the chips” in line 13 is unclear because various types of chips were previously disclosed (i.e., chips of recycled PET, chips of virgin PET, high-viscosity PET chips). Do the chips refer to all of the chips, to just one type, or to a combination of more than one type? For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any of the aforementioned interpretations will satisfy the claim limitation.
Claim 39 is indefinite by dependence on claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase "especially" 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).
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “the manufacture” in line 5 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim28, the phrase "such as, in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "especially" 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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-21, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record).
Regarding claim 18, Reese discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0001]-[0003]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0003], [0046]), and c) introducing the adhesion-activated textile strength member into a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0001]-[0003]), wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0046]), and is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0046]), wherein the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a1) recycled polymers and a2) biobased polymers ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0017]-[0020], [0023], [0025]-[0027], [0030]-[0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038]-[0039], [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Reese further discloses the resorcinol precondensates are resorcinol-formaldehyde precondensates ([0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Reese further discloses the recycled and biobased polymers are selected from the group consisting of polyesters and polyamides ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0017]-[0020], [0023], [0025]-[0027], [0030]-[0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038]-[0039], [0042]).
Regarding claim 21, Reese further discloses the polyesters are polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0010]-[0012]), and the polyamides are selected from the group consisting of: PA6.6, PA4.6, PA6, PA6.12, PA12.12 ([0042]).
Regarding claim 29, Reese further discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET), biobased PA6.6, biobased PA4.6 ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0042]).
Regarding claim 31, Reese further discloses the step of: d) producing an unvulcanized blank, especially an unvulcanized vehicle tire blank, comprising the vulcanizable composite material ([0003]).
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.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Takahashi (EP 4074803).
Regarding claims 22-24, Reese does not expressly recite the composition of the aqueous dispersion and merely discloses processes and adhesives known to those skilled in the art for impregnation, such as especially dips that are free from resorcinol and formaldehyde, are also conceivable ([0046]).
Takahashi discloses a method of producing an adhesive composition that can achieve excellent adhesiveness and productivity even when formalin and resorcin are not contained ([0008]), wherein a rubber-organic fiber cord composite and a tire is provided that are environmentally friendly and have excellent adhesiveness between a rubber and an organic fiber cord ([0009]), and wherein the cords may be PET, polyamide, etc. and mixtures thereof ([0092]). In other words, Takahashi discloses an adhesive known in the art that does not contain formalin and resorcin as in Reese, as well as an adhesive that is used for the same purpose in a tire on substantially similar cords as Reese. Takahashi further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: at least one rubber latex ([0013]-[0014], [0059]-[0064]), in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 40% to 99% ([0062]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 4% to 60%, and at least one protected isocyanate ([0014], [0065]-[0081]), in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 15% to 70% ([0081], which approaches the claimed range of 0.1% to 10%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the content of rubber latex in the aqueous dispersion. Moreover, case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a content of the isocyanate compound in the adhesive composition according to the present disclosure is not limited in the aqueous dispersion of 15% to behave in substantially the same way as 10%. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the content of isocyanate in the aqueous dispersion. While Takahashi teaches that the content of isocyanate in the aqueous dispersion is preferably 15% to 70%, this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123. This is further evidenced by Takahashi’s disclosure that the content of the isocyanate compound in the adhesive composition according to the present disclosure is not limited compound in the adhesive composition according to the present disclosure is not limited ([0081]).
Takahashi further discloses the aqueous dispersion may comprise other components, such as an epoxy compound and a filler ([0082]-[0087]). While Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the value for the content of epoxy compound or filler in the aqueous dispersion, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said contents. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the content of epoxy compound or filler in the aqueous dispersion in order to achieve sufficient adhesiveness while allowing a cord to be coated with the adhesive composition.
Takahashi further discloses the aqueous dispersion may comprise rubber latex, which is not limited, and may include polyisoprene rubber blended with other types of rubber latex ([0061]). Moreover, because the total content of rubber latex in the aqueous dispersion is not limited, but is preferably 40% to 99%, the amount of rubber latex that is polyisoprene rubber latex in combination with another rubber latex will preferably be 40% to 99% in content. While Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the value for polyisoprene rubber latex, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for polyisoprene rubber latex. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the content of rubber latex in the aqueous dispersion, including the content of polyisoprene rubber latex, in order to improve the adhesiveness. Moreover, the content of polyisoprene rubber latex in combination with one or more rubber latex compounds is capable of satisfying the limitation of at least one polyisoprene rubber latex, in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 1% to 20%, with the proviso that the aqueous dispersion includes at least one rubber latex which is not a polyisoprene rubber latex.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the aqueous dispersion of Reese with an adhesive aqueous dispersion generally known in the substantially similar art, such as the aqueous dispersion of Takahashi which discloses an adhesive known in the art that does not contain formalin and resorcin as in Reese, as well as an adhesive that is used for the same purpose in a tire on substantially similar cords as Reese, especially because Reese discloses that processes and adhesives known to those skilled in the art for impregnation, such as especially dips that are free from resorcinol and formaldehyde, may be used.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of any one of Harikae et al. (JP 2017141002, see machine translation) and/or Zielinski et al. (US 20210155043).
Regarding claim 27, as discussed above in claim 18, Reese discloses the filaments contain at least biobased polymer. Reese does not expressly recite the process step a) comprises at least the following individual process steps: a21) producing or providing a starting composition comprising starting monomers produced entirely or at least partly from biomass; a22) polymerizing the starting monomers present in the starting composition to give a biobased polymer; a23) forming the biobased polymer to filaments, wherein the filaments are processed, to a biobased polymer yarn; a24) processing the filaments obtained in step a23), in the form of a yarn, to give a strength member, especially a reinforcement cord.
Harikae discloses a process for forming a strength member/reinforcement cord using filaments for a tire component, wherein the filaments contain at least biobased polymer ([0006]-[0008], [0021], [0023], [0025]-[0027]), wherein the process comprises at least the following individual process steps: producing or providing a starting composition comprising starting monomers produced entirely or at least partly from biomass ([0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0035]: wherein the polyamide fibers are polycondensates of dicarboxylic acids containing alicyclic dicarboxylic acids and diamines); polymerizing the starting monomers present in the starting composition to give a biobased polymer ([0063]-[0067]); forming the biobased polymer to filaments, wherein the filaments are processed, to a biobased polymer yarn ([0035], [0050], [0067]); processing the filaments obtained in the previous step, in the form of a yarn ([0035], [0050], [0067]). In this manner, high-speed stability is excellent and tire uniformity is high ([0009]). Moreover, such fibers have excellent fiber strength and spinnability ([0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Reese in order to form the filaments in a manner generally known in the art, such as the method taught by Harikae for the advantages as discussed above, especially since Reese is silent as to the method for forming the cord.
Additionally or alternatively, Zielinski discloses a method of making a textile cord comprising at least biobased polymer ([0010], [0022], [0024], [0035]), comprising: (preferably in-situ) polymerizing of PEF out of monomers ([0036]); dispersing carbon or boron nitride nano material in one of said monomers ([0037]); mixing and/or polymerizing the monomers ([0038]); obtaining (solid) chips comprising PEF reinforced by said nano material ([0039]); melting the PEF reinforced by said nano material (e.g. said chips) ([0040]); extruding the PEF reinforced by said nano material through a sieve and/or extrusion dies/spinnerets to obtain PEF filaments reinforced by said nano material ([0041]); spinning the extruded filaments to a yarn ([0042]); twisting at least two yarns to the cord ([0043]); providing a plurality of cords parallelly arranged in a plane and coating the plurality of cords from both sides of the plane with rubber material to obtain a tire component such as a ply or ply strip ([0044]-[0046]). Moreover, the PEF reinforced by said nano material may be co-extruded with PET so as to form hybrid filaments consisting each of PEF reinforced with the nano material and PET. For instance, extrusion dies (or spinnerets) may be adapted and used to extrude the PEF reinforced by the nano material as a cylindrical core of the filaments and the PET as a hollow cylindrical shell of the filaments, or, in another example, the extrusions dies may be adapted to extrude the PET and the PEF reinforced with the nano material in alternating circular sectors of the filaments ([0047]). In other words, Zielinski discloses producing or providing a starting composition comprising starting monomers produced entirely or at least partly from biomass, polymerizing the starting monomers present in the starting composition to give a biobased polymer, forming the biobased polymer to filaments, wherein the filaments are processed, to a biobased polymer yarn, and processing the filaments obtained in the previous step, in the form of a yarn, to give a strength member, especially a reinforcement cord. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Reese in order to form the filaments in a manner generally known in the art, such as the method taught by Zielinski, especially since Reese is silent as to the method for forming the cord.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Zielinski et al. (US 20210155043) and Roy (US 5208401).
Regarding claim 28, as discussed above in claim 18, Reese discloses the filaments contain at least recycled polymer. Reese does not expressly recite the process step a) comprises at least the following individual process steps: a31) providing wastes such as, in particular, used tires, yarn wastes, and wastes from the manufacture of semifinished products from vehicle tires and other industrial rubber articles; a32) pyrolyzing the wastes from step a31) to obtain a pyrolysis oil containing at least one chemical starting substance; a33) converting the chemical starting substance to at least one monomer and polymerizing the monomer to a recycled polymer; a34) forming the recycled polymer to filaments, wherein the filaments are processed, to a polymer yarn; a35) processing the filaments obtained in step a34), in the form of a yarn, to give a strength member, especially a reinforcement cord.
Zielinski discloses a method of making a textile cord comprising at least recycled polymer ([0008], [0024], [0035]), comprising: (preferably in-situ) polymerizing of PEF out of monomers ([0036]); dispersing carbon or boron nitride nano material in one of said monomers ([0037]); mixing and/or polymerizing the monomers ([0038]); obtaining (solid) chips comprising PEF reinforced by said nano material ([0039]); melting the PEF reinforced by said nano material (e.g. said chips) ([0040]); extruding the PEF reinforced by said nano material through a sieve and/or extrusion dies/spinnerets to obtain PEF filaments reinforced by said nano material ([0041]); spinning the extruded filaments to a yarn ([0042]); twisting at least two yarns to the cord ([0043]); providing a plurality of cords parallelly arranged in a plane and coating the plurality of cords from both sides of the plane with rubber material to obtain a tire component such as a ply or ply strip ([0044]-[0046]). Moreover, the PEF reinforced by said nano material may be co-extruded with PET so as to form hybrid filaments consisting each of PEF reinforced with the nano material and PET. For instance, extrusion dies (or spinnerets) may be adapted and used to extrude the PEF reinforced by the nano material as a cylindrical core of the filaments and the PET as a hollow cylindrical shell of the filaments, or, in another example, the extrusions dies may be adapted to extrude the PET and the PEF reinforced with the nano material in alternating circular sectors of the filaments ([0047]). In other words, Zielinski discloses polymerizing a monomer to a recycled polymer, forming the recycled polymer to filaments, wherein the filaments are processed, to a polymer yarn, and processing the filaments obtained in the previous step, in the form of a yarn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Reese in order to form the filaments in a manner generally known in the art, such as the method taught by Zielinski, especially since Reese is silent as to the method for forming the cord.
However, modified Reese does not expressly recite providing wastes, pyrolyzing the wastes to obtain a pyrolysis oil containing at least one chemical starting substance, and converting the chemical starting substance to a monomer.
Roy discloses a process for producing pyrolytic oils from recycled tires, wherein the process comprises at least the following individual process steps: providing wastes (Col. 1 lines 11-14); pyrolyzing the wastes to obtain a pyrolysis oil containing at least one chemical starting substance (Col. 1 lines 53-63, Col. 2 lines 1-9); converting the chemical starting substance to a monomer (Col. 1 lines 53-63; Col. 2 lines 1-9). The tire-derived pyrolytic oils used in accordance with the invention therefore constitute a source of commercially valuable chemicals and thus enable the vacuum pyrolysis of used rubber tires to become a commercially attractive solution to the problems created by the accumulation of large quantities of scrap tires (Col. 2 lines 63-68). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Reese in order to produce the monomers used in the process in a generally known manner, such as the pyrolysis process taught by Roy for the advantages as discussed above.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Nabih (EP 3258006, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 30, Reese does not expressly recite the crosslinkable rubberization mixture contains at least one constituent selected from the group consisting of biobased fillers, biobased polymers, and wherein the rubberization mixture is essentially free of resorcinol.
Nabih discloses a method of providing treated strength members, as in Reese, wherein the treatment comprises an aqueous dispersion free of resorcinol and formaldehyde, wherein the strength members may be PET and/or polyamide, and wherein the rubber strength members are provided in a rubber mixture, wherein the rubber mixture contains polybutadiene (i.e., biobased polymer), carbon nanotubes and/or silica (i.e., biobased filler), and does not expressly recite that resorcinol is provided in the rubber mixture (i.e., essentially free of resorcinol) (Pages 1-2, 4-7, 9; Claims on pages 11-12). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the rubber mixture of Reese with a rubber mixture generally known in the substantially similar art, such as the rubber mixture of Nabih as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 38-39 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. Moreover, claims 26 and 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Furthermore, as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 26, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 18 and 26. In particular, the limitations “wherein process step a) comprises at least the following individual process steps: a10) providing PET chips comprising 100% by weight of recycled PET from PET bottles or other PET products, and optionally providing chips of virgin PET; a11) pre-crystallization, crystallization and solid-state polymerization of the PET from step a10) to give high-viscosity PET chips having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.85 to 1.15 d l/g; a12) drying, optionally mixing the chips of recycled PET with chips of virgin PET, giving PET chips comprising 10 to 100% by weight of chips of recycled PET, melting and extruding the PET chips for the yarn spinning, then yarn spinning by means of a spinneret comprising a reheater having a buffer zone for the high-viscosity PET chips from step a11), and stepwise cooling of the unstretched yarn, wherein the water content of the chips after drying is less than 30 ppm, the temperature of the reheater beneath the spinneret is 280 to 3500C and the length of the buffer zone beneath the reheater during the stepwise cooling is 20 to 100 mm; a13) oiling, drawing, heat-setting and winding after stepwise cooling in step a12) to obtain a PET yarn composed of filaments consisting wholly or partly of recycled PET, wherein the resultant PET yarn is an HMLS PET yarn having a hot shrinkage of less than 8% and an expansion at 45 N of less than 0.0056%/den in the case of linear filament densities of less than 5 den; a14) processing the yarn obtained in step a13) to give a reinforcement cord.”
Claim 39 would be allowable by dependence on claim 26.
Regarding claim 38, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 18 and 38. In particular, the limitation “the textile strength member comprises recycled HMLS PET yarn having a hot shrinkage of 4% to 8% and an elongation at 45N of 0.002%/den to 0.0056%/den at linear filament densities of less than 5 den.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record), Zielinski et al. (US 20210155043), Reese et al. (US 20110240199) (“Reese II”), and Pohler (US 20190275837).
Reese discloses the claim limitations of claim 18 as discussed in the detailed rejection above. Reese further discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments containing at least recycled PET ([0010]-[0014]), wherein the PET is obtained by remelting, from end-of-life PET products such as PET bottles or other PET articles ([0013]). However, Reese does not disclose the specific individual process steps of process step a). Zielinski discloses a process for obtaining textile strength members which may be formed from recycled PET ([0024]), wherein the process can comprise one or more of the following steps: (preferably in-situ) polymerizing of PEF out of monomers ([0036]); dispersing carbon or boron nitride nano material in one of said monomers ([0037]); mixing and/or polymerizing the monomers ([0038]); obtaining (solid) chips comprising PEF reinforced by said nano material ([0039]); melting the PEF reinforced by said nano material (e.g. said chips) ([0040]); extruding the PEF reinforced by said nano material through a sieve and/or extrusion dies/spinnerets to obtain PEF filaments reinforced by said nano material ([0041]); spinning the extruded filaments to a yarn ([0042]); twisting at least two yarns to the cord ([0043]); providing a plurality of cords parallelly arranged in a plane and coating the plurality of cords from both sides of the plane with rubber material to obtain a tire component such as a ply or ply strip ([0044]-[0046]). Moreover, the PEF reinforced by said nano material may be co-extruded with PET so as to form hybrid filaments consisting each of PEF reinforced with the nano material and PET. For instance, extrusion dies (or spinnerets) may be adapted and used to extrude the PEF reinforced by the nano material as a cylindrical core of the filaments and the PET as a hollow cylindrical shell of the filaments, or, in another example, the extrusions dies may be adapted to extrude the PET and the PEF reinforced with the nano material in alternating circular sectors of the filaments ([0047]). However, Zielinski does not expressly recite that specific details for providing PET and focuses instead on PEF with the option of including recycled PET to be coextruded with PEF. Additionally, Zielinski also does not expressly recite the specifically claimed properties for the PET or the specifically claimed operating parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify the prior art of record with such specific process steps, especially without a motivation or teaching to do so.
Furthermore, Reese does not expressly recite the textile strength member comprises recycled HMLS PET yarn having a hot shrinkage of 4% to 8% and an elongation at 45N of 0.002%/den to 0.0056%/den at linear filament densities of less than 5 den. Reese II discloses a tire comprising textile strength members embedded in a rubber mixture ([0002]), wherein the strength members are provided with an adhesive impregnation ([0031]), and wherein the strength members may be polyester yarn and/or cord, such as PET ([0030]-[0031]). Reese II further discloses that preference is given to HMLS polyester yarn having a shrinkage at 180oC (i.e., hot shrinkage) of 2% ± 1% for use in a tire ([0028]), which approaches the claimed range of 4% to 8%. Reese II also discloses the HMLS PET yarn has an elongation at 45N of between 2 and 5.5% ([0033]). However, there is no mention of the claimed denier range, and one of ordinary skill cannot assume to know what the range of Reese II would be without knowing the linear filament densities. Pohler also discloses using HMLS PET yarns, however, the yarns advantageously have a hot shrinkage of less than 4% ([0018]), which is outside of the claimed range of 4% to 8%. Accordingly, Pohler teaches away from the claimed range. Moreover, Pohler does not teach or suggest the claimed elongation either. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify the prior art of record to provide the textile strength member comprising recycled HMLS PET yarn having the specifically claimed properties without a motivation or teaching to do so.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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, KATELYN SMITH (née WHATLEY) can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749