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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/09/2026 has been entered.
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 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR 1020210019159) in view of Lee et al (KR 1020140091868) further in view of Bauer et al. (HU P9904337).
Regarding claim 1, Park et al. teaches a recycled polyester yarn comprising a recycled polyester and adding a copolyester in a range of 2 -10 parts by weight (see page 6 (adding 5 - 50 weight percent copolyester) of Park et al.) in order to provide a fiber with a similar feel to natural acetate and has good drape (see page 4 of Park et al). Park et al. are silent regarding the claimed carbonyl bis caprolactam. However, Lee et al. (pages 3, 4 and 6 of the translation) teaches a process (see page 3 (manufacture of polyester fiber) of Lee et al.), including carbonyl bis caprolactam as a chain extender (see page 4 (add 0.25 - 1.00 weight percent carbonyl bis caprolactam as a chain extender) of Lee et al.) in order to improve the inherent viscosity of the PET or the copolymer and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide carbonyl bis caprolactam as a chain extender in Park et al. in order to improve the inherent viscosity of the PET or the copolymer (see page 4 of Lee et al.) and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed density. However, Bauer et al. teach polyethylene terephthalate with density in the claimed range in order to provide high stiffness, low creep, improved barrier properties, and other desired properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the density of Bauer et al. in the previous combination in order to provide high stiffness, low creep, improved barrier properties, and other desired properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
And even if the cited art does not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that the cited art meets the requirements of the claimed yarn, the cited art clearly meet the requirements of present claims yarn.
Regarding claims 3-4, The previous combination teaches all of the claimed
limitations of instant claim 1 and teaches such similar composition in such similar amounts made by such a similar process including CoPET thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the polyester yarn produced would have tensile strength and elongation and melting temperature within the claimed ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguments concerning Kong have been fully considered, but are moot as Kong is not used in the rejection set forth above. Applicant argues Lee is drawn to high viscosity, high intensity industrial polyester and not recycled polyester. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would in fact use the teachings of Lee in Park in order to improve the inherent viscosity and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, given the cited art teaches such similar composition in such similar amounts made by such a similar process including CoPET, the claimed density and melting point would be inherent. Moreover, the claims density is a part of a method limitation. Even if the cited art does not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that the cited art meets the requirements of the claimed yarn, the cited art clearly meet the requirements of present claims yarn.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art Not Used But Relevant
CN102586933 teaches recycled polyester yarn using waste made by a process similar to that claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights