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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1,2,5-8,17 and 18 are pending. Claims 3,4 and 9-16 have been cancelled. Claim 18 is new. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 8 and 17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1,2 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2017210693) in view of JP 6745563B1 for the reasons set forth below..
Claim 1,2 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2017210693) in view of Minami (US 2002/0153504) for the reasons set forth below.
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 1,2,5-7 and 18 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. Claim 1 recites 5% mass or more of (poly)oxyalkylene derivative (A), 1% by mass or more of an organic acid compound (B), 5% by mass or more of an organic phosphoric acid ester compound (C) but then recites different concentrations “assuming” that the sum of (A), (B) and (C) is 100 parts by mass which renders the claim indefinite. Firstly the “assuming” term is unclear as it indicates that the assumption may be optional. Assuming something is not a concrete limitation. The examiner interpreted the “assuming” limitation as optional as the term assuming is indefinite and suggests the limitation is optional, further the claim already recites required concentrations in lines 2-5 which are considered to control the treatment agent composition. Claims 2,5-7 and 18 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
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.
Claims 1,2,5-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2017210693) in view of JP 6745563B1.
Morita teaches synthetic fiber treatment agents that can be applied to polyester and polyolefin fibers (page 6, paragraph 3), wherein the fiber treatment agents comprise 0.1-20% organic acids such as glycolic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid and citric acid (page 3, last paragraph; mono to pentabasic carboxylic acids with 0-9 carbon atoms, excluding the carboxy group derived carbon atoms, 10-50% alkyl phosphate ester salt with 12-22 carbon atoms (page 4, paragraph 3) and 20-75% polyoxyalkylene derivatives (page 5, paragraph 2). Morita teaches the aqueous solution with no solvent of 400 to 100,000 parts by mass of water per 100 parts by mass of the treating agent has a pH of 3-7. No heating or cooling is indicated for the pH measurement is mentioned so it is room temperature of 25°C. Morita teaches treating fibers during spinning (page 5, last paragraph).
Morita does not teach all the claimed limitations in a single embodiment, but one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention by selecting from the teachings of Morita. Morita does not teach polyoxyalkylene alkylamines.
JP 6745563B1 teaches when providing finishes with antistatic agents (page 10, paragraph 3) to polyester and polyolefin (page 9, paragraph 4) during spinning (page 10, paragraph 1) non-ionic surfactants such as compounds obtained by adding alkylene oxides having 2 to 4 carbon atoms and organic alcohols or organic amines are effective non-ionic surfactants for the composition (page 7, paragraph 3). JP 6745563B1 specifies polyoxyethylene lauryl amine or polyoxyethylene tallow amine at 5-70 mass% of the composition (page 8, paragraph 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to prepare a polyester synthetic fiber treating agent with 5% by mass or more polyoxyalkylene derivative, 1% by mass of more of an organic acid and 5% by mass or more of an organic phosphoric acid ester compound with a hydrocarbon group of 16-20 carbon atoms wherein a 5% by mass water diluted liquid of the treatment agent has a pH at 25°C from the teachings of Morita as Morita teaches polyester treatments comprising the claimed organic acids, polyoxyalkylene derivatives, alkyl phosphate esters of 16-20 carbon atoms diluted with water in similar ranges to prepare a pH 3-7 liquid. Since no heating or cooling temperature condition is mentioned for the liquid, the pH measurement is taken at room temperature which is 25°C. Selecting from similar compounds with similar concentrations and similar pH values to produce a composition known to be beneficial for providing hydrophilicity and good antistatic properties to similar polyester and polyolefin fibers is obvious. Regarding the “assumed” sum of the content of (A), (B) and (C), the term assuming renders the limitation optional as an assumption is not a concrete limitation and concentration ranges which are definite are disclosed in lines 2-5 of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to select from the claimed concentration ranges of Morita to arrive at the claimed amounts of claim 5 as these ranges are all taught as effective for treating similar fibers for the benefits of hydrophilicity and antistatic properties. Nothing unobvious is seen in determining through routine experimentation effective amounts of composition components within the ranges disclosed by Morita. It is noted that the limitation “polyester synthetic fiber treatment agent” is intended use, the same composition is capable of treating any fiber including polyester short fiber and fiber for spun yarn production. Even though Morita does not teach a short fiber of his composition, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the treatment agents of Morita by incorporating the polyoxyalkylene alkylamines taught by JP 6745563B1 as JP 6745563B! teaches these compounds in the claimed percentages are effective non-ionic surfactants added to polyester and polyolefin spinning compositions which facilitate efficient spinning of the fiber and can be applied with antistatic agents to provide antistatic agents to the fiber. Incorporating the polyoxyalkylene alkylamines of JP 6745563B1 would be obvious as they are conventional components added as nonionic surfactants to similar fiber spinning compositions and are functionally equivalent to the polyoxyalkylene organic alcohol derivatives taught by Morita. Substituting art recognized equivalents is obvious. Further adding the polyoxyalkylene alkylamines of JP 6745563B1 in addition to the polyoxyalkylene derivatives of Morita would also be obvious as they are both taught as effective additives for spin finishes applied to similar fibers. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 1,2,5-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2017210693) in view of Minami (US 2002/0153504).
Morita teaches synthetic fiber treatment agents that can be applied to polyester and polyolefin fibers (page 6, paragraph 3), wherein the fiber treatment agents comprise 0.1-20% organic acids such as glycolic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid and citric acid (page 3, last paragraph; mono to pentabasic carboxylic acids with 0-9 carbon atoms, excluding the carboxy group derived carbon atoms, 10-50% alkyl phosphate ester salt with 12-22 carbon atoms (page 4, paragraph 3) and 20-75% polyoxyalkylene derivatives (page 5, paragraph 2). Morita teaches the aqueous solution with no solvent of 400 to 100,000 parts by mass of water per 100 parts by mass of the treating agent has a pH of 3-7. No heating or cooling is indicated for the pH measurement is mentioned so it is room temperature of 25°C. Morita teaches treating fibers during spinning (page 5, last paragraph).
Morita does not teach all the claimed limitations in a single embodiment, but one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention by selecting from the teachings of Morita. Morita does not teach polyoxyalkylene alkylamines.
Minami teaches when providing antistatic finishes (paragraph 0040) to polyester and polyolefin (paragraph 0039) during spinning (paragraph 0003) with compositions comprising non-ionic surfactants such as polyoxyethylene alkyl amines (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to prepare a polyester synthetic fiber treating agent with 5% by mass or more polyoxyalkylene derivative, 1% by mass of more of an organic acid and 5% by mass or more of an organic phosphoric acid ester compound with a hydrocarbon group of 16-20 carbon atoms wherein a 5% by mass water diluted liquid of the treatment agent has a pH at 25°C from the teachings of Morita as Morita teaches polyester treatments comprising the claimed organic acids, polyoxyalkylene derivatives, alkyl phosphate esters of 16-20 carbon atoms diluted with water in similar ranges to prepare a pH 3-7 liquid. Since no heating or cooling temperature condition is mentioned for the liquid, the pH measurement is taken at room temperature which is 25°C. Selecting from similar compounds with similar concentrations and similar pH values to produce a composition known to be beneficial for providing hydrophilicity and good antistatic properties to similar polyester and polyolefin fibers is obvious.
It would have been obvious to select from the claimed concentration ranges of Morita to arrive at the claimed amounts of claim 5 as these ranges are all taught as effective for treating similar fibers for the benefits of hydrophilicity and antistatic properties. Nothing unobvious is seen in determining through routine experimentation effective amounts of composition components within the ranges disclosed by Morita. Regarding the “assumed” sum of the content of (A), (B) and (C), the term assuming renders the limitation optional as an assumption is not a concrete limitation and concentration ranges which are definite are disclosed in lines 2-5 of claim 1.
It is noted that the limitation “polyester synthetic fiber treatment agent” is intended use, the same composition is capable of treating any fiber including polyester short fiber and fiber for spun yarn production. Even though Morita does not teach a short fiber of his composition, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the treatment agents of Morita by incorporating the polyoxyalkylene alkylamines taught by Minami as Minami teaches these compounds in are effective non-ionic surfactants added to polyester and polyolefin spinning compositions which facilitate efficient spinning of the fiber and can be applied with phosphoric acid esters of 16-22 carbons (paragraphs 0021-0022) to improve the lubricity and antistaticity to the fibers. Incorporating the polyoxyalkylene alkylamines of Minami would be obvious as they are conventional components added as nonionic surfactants to similar fiber spinning compositions taught by Morita. Further adding the polyoxyalkylene alkylamines of Minami to the compositions of Morita would be obvious as they are both taught as effective additives for spin finishes applied to similar fibers for enhancing antistatic properties. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Morita (JP 2017210693) in view of JP 6745563B1 or in view of Minami (US 2002/0153504) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges unexpected results for compositions comprising polyoxyalkylene alkylamines or polyoxyalkylene alkenylamines but the declaration under 1.132 and data provided in applicant’s specification is not commensurate in scope with the claims and therefore not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection. The claims are drawn to any (poly)oxyalkylene derivative, any organic acid, organic acid salt or organic acid anhydride. The data are for specific species of (poly)oxyalkylene derivatives and organic acids, shown in applicant’s Table 2. Applicant should narrow the scope of the of (poly)oxyalkylene derivatives and organic acids in claim 1 to be closer in scope with the data presented in the specification. The assuming language in the claims renders that limitation optional as an assumption is not a concrete limitation, therefore the broader concentrations in lines 2-5 of claim 1 are the required concentrations. Applicant should amend the claims to require the sum of contents of (A), (B) and (C) so that is a clearly required limitation and not an assumption that may or may not be made. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761