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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected multicomponent yarn article and package, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/24/2024.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breen et al (US3543358) in view of Strachan (US3940917) and Reese (US 3998042).
Breen is directed to a process for increasing the bulk of multifilament yarn. The process includes exposing the filamentary material to multitude of crunodal filament loops at random intervals along the individual filaments (col. 2, lines 20-26). The bundle of filaments is twisted to a turbulent plasticizing region formed by a stream of compressible fluid jetted at a temperature of 300°F which is greater than 158°F (70°C). And then cooling the filaments under low tension and taking them up at a rate which provides at least 30% overfeed to the stream (col. 2, lines 60-69).
Breen teaches a process where a heated water jet greater than 70°C is introduced to the yarns prior to overfeeding at a rate of at least 30%.
During the jetting treatment, filament shrinkage occurs because of the heat transmitted to the fibers. The process elements such as temperature, pressure, fluid flow, yarn speed, tension, and windup speed are adjusted so as to give a final yarn denier (measured in relaxed form after hot-wet relaxation) at least 30% greater than the feed yarn denier (col. 6, lines 20-27).
Breen teaches the pressure of the hot plasticizing fluid with depend on the degree of turbulence desired, feed speed, yarn denier, material being processed and design of the jet and is typically pressures in the range of 20-200 psig which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 60 psig.
Breen teaches two or more yarns may also be treated using different tensions or feed rates so as to produce a tension- stable bulky yarn with extensibility confined to that of the shorter member. Likewise, two different types of yarn such as nylon and rayon may be passed through the jet (col. 11, lines 1-7). Breen teaches the differential shrinkage and heat-setting of the two types of yarn provides many interesting effects which are desirable for esthetic reasons in textile materials. The crimp It) of the product is extremely stable and is not removed by tensions up to the draw tension. The bulked yarns disclosed in U.S. Pat. 2,783,609 (Breen) require a high degree of intertangling or twist in order to maintain their bulk properties. The new yarns described here are stable and keep their bulk even more when there is no entanglement or appreciable twist. Monofilament may be treated in a similar fashion to obtain a single crimped continuous filament. It is also to be understood that any treatment of yarns herein disclosed is to be construed as being applicable also to single filaments although for reasons of economy bundles of filaments or yarns are treated (col. 11, lines 7-22).
Breen teaches two different types of yarns that have differential shrinkage however is not specific with regard to the difference of the two components of the multicomponent yarns.
Strachan is directed a composite yarn which is bulky when relaxed and elongates to at least 100 percent greater length under tension, with quick recovery of the relaxed condition when tension is removed, is composed of uncrimped elastic yarn and at least five relatively inelastic continuous filaments entangled about the elastic yarn to provide protection and desirable textile properties (ABST).
Strachan teaches the filaments are bicomponent and these filaments are essentially straight at the time they pass through fluid entangling jet 9 but when the fabric is finished, the differential shrinkage between the constituents of the bicomponent filaments cause them to form periodically reversing coils in the nature of small tension springs (col. 4, lines 59-68). Two yarns having differential shrinkage properties may be employed for certain effects. For example, an untextured polyester yarn having high potential shrinkage may be fed with a textured nylon yarn and be entangled around an elastic core yarn wherein both hard fiber yarns are at the same tension during entangling and, in contrast to those of Breen above, remain loop free when wound on the package. When such yarn is made into fabric, and the fabric is heat treated under relaxed conditions, the polyester will shrink while the nylon develops crimp. When the treated fabric is then stretched, the polyester will become the load-bearing member to limit the ultimate extension of the composite yarn and will permit the textured nylon to retain a degree of crimp and bulk even at ultimate extension of the composite (col. 5, lines 55-68).
Breen in view of Strachan differ and do not disclose the viscosity of the two components nor the Bulking Efficiency. As Strachan teaches the two components are different, i.e. polyester and nylon, the viscosity and bulking efficiency would inherently be different. As Breen in view of Strachan teaches the same process, structure and materials it is reasonable to presume the properties are inherent to the combination. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Reese provides evidence that mixed shrinkage yarns are made from different compositions and relative viscosities. Reese teaches mixed-shrinkage, continuous-filament, heat-bulkable yarn, composed of low and higher shrinking filaments of different polyester compositions, develops worstedlike bulk in fabric as a result of fabric finishing operations. The yarn is prepared from two ethylene terephthalate polyesters, of different compositions and relative viscosities, by cospinning, drawing and heat-setting the filaments under identical, critically-controlled conditions (ABST).
Reese teaches the yarn can be drawn while passing through a steam jet using superheated steam at 200 to 270°C and 40 to 95 pounds per square inch gauge pressure or in an 85 to 100°C water bath. Steam-drawn yarn can be annealed at a temperature as low as 110°C to provide the indicated properties (col. 3, lines 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ two different viscosity yarns motivated to produce a mixed shrinkage bulked yarn.
As to claim 2, Breen teaches steam can be used as the entanglement jet (col. 8, lines 25-36).
Breen teaches the turbulent fluid used to treat the filamentary material may be air, steam or any other compressible fluid or vapor capable of plasticizing action on the yarn provided that it has a temperature above the second order transition temperature of the filament. Hot air will give sufficient plasticization in the turbulent region for many fibers although it may be desirable for certain fibers to supplement the temperature effect with an auxiliary plasticizing medium. Steam is preferentially used in the subject process since it is a cheap and convenient source of a high pressure fluid with a compound plasticizing action (col. 8, lines 25-35).
As to claim 8, Breen teaches this process is useful for both monofilament and multifilament yarns in textile deniers as well as the heavier carpet and industrial yarn sizes either singly or combined in the form of a heavy tow. Fine count and heavy count staple yarns can be processed both singles and plied (col. 8, lines 13-17).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breen et al (US3543358) in view of Strachan (US3940917) and Reese (US 3998042) and in further view of McIntosh et al (US3457610).
As to claim 5, Breen and Strachan differ and do not teach the yarn is wound on a cardboard or plastic tube.
McIntosh is directed to a method of treating synthetic thermoplastic continuous yarns having latent crimp or bulkiness such that the yarns are better utilized in conventional tufting machines. The yarns are passed through a zone with high velocity stream of heated fluid that impinges the yarns (ABST). The treated yarns are wound on a cardboard tube (col. 10, lines 19-22; col. 11, lines 65-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to package the yarn on a cardboard tube as is known in the art and would have been predictable to package a bulking steam jet yarn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over Talbot in view of Dyer and Reese have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, 2 and 8 has been withdrawn and additionally the rejection over Talbot, Dyer, Reese and McIntosh.
Breen more specifically and comprehensively teaches the process as claimed compared to Talbot, Dyer, Reese and McIntosh.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach the viscosity difference and the bulking efficiency, in the absence of evidence of an unexpected result of the specific process parameters and materials, Breen and Strachan teach the claimed process and yarn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bakker (US 20040194267) is directed to an air-jet method for producing composite elastic yarns.
Frankfort et al (WO 9310292)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789