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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 2024/0001714, of record) and further in view of Kishimoto (JP 2007-105890, of record).
Kramer is directed to a dip tire cord (and associated tire) manufactured by twisting and dipping first and second recycled PET yarns or plies, wherein individual yarns preferably have a fineness between 900 denier and 2,000 denier (Paragraphs 55-57, 59, 100, 131, and 132). In such an instance, though, Kramer is silent with respect to the cord strength at first and second temperatures, the heat resistance retention rate, and LASE at 5%.
As best determined by the Examiner, the aforementioned characteristics are a function of the intrinsic viscosity, the weight distribution, the isophthalic acid content, the yarn strength, the degree of crystallinity, and a dimensional stability. There is a substantial overlap between these properties in Kramer and that disclosed by Applicant as detailed below:
Applicant’s disclosure
Kramer
Intrinsic viscosity
0.5-2.0 di/g
0.85-1.15 dl/g (Paragraph 93)
Isophthalic acid content
<1.5 mole %
0.12%-2.2% (Paragraph 115)
Yarn strength
>7.5 g/d
7.5-9.0 g/d (Paragraph 115)
Degree of crystallinity
>45%
45-53.5% (Paragraph 115)
Dimensional stability
<12.0 %
8.5% (exemplary embodiment E1 in Table 2)
It is evident that the ranges of Kramer are essentially fully encompassed by Applicant’s disclosure. Additionally, in terms of the weight distribution, while Kramer is silent with respect to a chip or pellet size, it is generally well known and conventional to use polyester chip or pellets in general having a most preferred weight distribution values between 2.1 and 2.6 grams per 100 chips, as shown for example by Kishimoto (see machine translation) and such is essentially fully encompassed by the range between 1.8 grams and 2.5 grams per 100 chips disclosed by Applicant.
Given the extreme similarities between the yarn and cord of Kramer and that disclosed by Applicant in terms of materials, loadings, and processing, it reasons that Kramer encompasses a wide variety of tire cord constructions having the claimed strength at room temperature, strength at 80°C, heat retention resistance, and LASE at 5%. It is emphasized when looking at Table 1 in Applicant’s specification, tire cords satisfying the claimed combination of properties appear to result from using an intrinsic viscosity, isophthalic acid content, yarn strength, yarn crystallinity, dimensional stability, and weight distribution and such is taught by Kramer (lack of evidence that additional factors contribute to the claimed combination of properties). It is also noted that when looking at Table 1 in Applicant’s original disclosure, the compositions with the 4 highest degree of crystallinities have the 4 highest strength retention rates (with the greatest degree of crystallinity associated with the greatest rate) and as such, a question can be raised as to whether or not greater crystallinities necessarily result in properties, such as strength retention rate, that fall within the claimed ranges. Lastly, it is noted that the exemplary composition of Kramer has a crystallinity of 48.2%, which is even greater than all of the inventive examples that demonstrate a strength retention rate in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 7, and 11, Kramer teaches ranges of properties that are substantially fully encompassed by the claimed ranges (see Table above). It is also noted that the conditions at which “E” and “S” are measured in Kramer are extremely similar to that of the claimed invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the sum of E and S to fall outside the broad range of the claimed invention (one would not have expected an increase of approximately 50% (and thus form a sum over 12%) at conditions that are slightly different from those in Kramer).
With respect to claims 4 and 8, individual yarns have a most preferred fineness between 900 and 2,000 denier (Paragraph 53). This corresponds with a cord having a cord fineness (two twisted yarns) between 1,800 denier and 4,000 denier and such is substantially fully encompassed by the claims. Also, the exemplary cord in Table 3 (E1) has a twist value of 320 tpm, with Kramer more broadly stating that the yarns and the cords have twist values between 100 tpm and 500 tpm (Paragraph 127).
As to claims 5 and 9, Kramer states that the IPA (isophthalic acid) content “may” be up to 5% (Paragraph 34) and such is seen to encompass compositions that are devoid of IPA. Kramer further states that recycled PET includes additions, “such as” IPA (Paragraph 33) and such is seen to encompass compositions having additions different from IPA and thus in accordance to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action’s rationale is expressed in the language of possibility, not necessity. It is initially noted that it is not required for a reference to specifically disclose a claimed parameter. In this instance, Table 1 includes a wide variety of parameters having a wide variety of values and identifies Examples 1-4 as resulting in properties that satisfy the claimed invention. Among these properties is strength retention rates that are at least 85.0%. Looking at Table 1, the compositions having the 4 greatest degree of crystallinities demonstrate the 4 greatest strength retention rates. Similarly, the composition having the smallest degree of crystallinity (Comparative Example 3) demonstrates the smallest strength retention rate. As such, Table 1 in Applicant’s original disclosure suggests a strong correlation between the strength retention rate and the degree of crystallinity. The exemplary composition in Kramer has a degree of crystallinity of 48.2% and such is greater than the inventive compositions in Table 1. This suggests that the composition of Kramer would demonstrate a strength retention rate in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that given the variation in a wide variety of parameters (Table 1), it is unclear if in fact a single parameter is responsible for the claimed combination of properties or if a specific combination of parameters is required to obtain the claimed properties. Based on the data in Table 1, though, there is a suggestion that high degrees of crystallinity directly result in properties consistent with that required by the claimed invention.
Applicant further contends that neither E nor S are measured on the defined basis. As detailed above, the conditions at which “E” and “S” are measured in Kramer are extremely similar to that of the claimed invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the sum of E and S to fall outside the broad range of the claimed invention (one would not have expected an increase of approximately 50% (and thus form a sum over 12%) at conditions that are slightly different from those in Kramer).
Applicant also argues that the comparative examples refute the Office Action’s premise that the claimed properties follow from the six enumerated parameters. First, Comparative Example 3 does not correspond with the closest prior art of record since a yarn strength is 7.1 g/d. Second, when comparing Comparative Example 1 with Examples 1 and 3 (same 1300d/2 cord), it appears that greater degrees of crystallinity are responsible for the claimed parameters, including the strength retention rate. Similarly, when comparing Comparative Example 2 with Examples 2 and 4 (same 1500d/2 cord), it appears that greater degrees of crystallinity are responsible for the claimed parameters, including the strength retention rate. Given that the exemplary cord of Kramer has a degree of crystallinity of 48.2%, it reasons that the cord of Kramer would demonstrate properties consistent with the claimed invention. Thus, Table 1 fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of properties (given that it appears that the realized properties would be present in the cord of Kramer in light of the degree of crystallinity).
Applicant further contends that Comparative Example 2 has an isophthalic acid content of 2.1% and such is within the very range of Kramer, suggesting that the claimed properties are not necessarily present. It is noted that Comparative Example 2 has a degree of crystallinity of 45.5% and such is significantly lower than the degree of crystallinity in Examples 2 and 4. This corresponds with a suggestion that the degree of crystallinity highly influences the claimed parameters, including the strength retention rate. Given that the exemplary cord of Kramer has a degree of crystallinity of 48.2%, it reasons that the claimed parameters would be present in the cord of Kramer (lack of evidence that the degree of crystallinity is responsible for the claimed combination of parameters and such is generally suggested by Table1).
As to Kishimoto, the reference is simply provided to evidence the order of weight distributions in polyester resins in general. It is particularly noted that Kishimoto discloses a most preferred range of 2.1-2.6 grams per 100 pellets and such is consistent with the inventive range of wight distributions.
As to claim 5, Kramer specifically states that recycled PET differs from virgin PET by additions, SUCH AS by the isophthalic acid content in particular (Paragraph 33). Contrary to Applicant’s argument, this disclosure does in fact suggest additions that are different from isophthalic acid. This further evidenced by the language “especially by IPA”. It is well taken that a reference is not limited by a preferred embodiment- non-preferred embodiments are within the scope of a reference and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed IPA content. In fact, none of the inventive examples listed in Table 1 of Applicant’s original disclosure are devoid of isophthalic acid.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights