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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/8/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 40-42 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 40-42 are directed to an apparatus and the original claims were directed to a production (filament) and method of making the filament.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 40-42 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 38 and 39 were revised to directly and indirectly depend from method claim 24. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 38 and 39 are written as product claims as the preamble is “melt-spun filament” which is a product claim. Claim 24 (and claims 26 and 27) are directed to a method of making a melt-spun filament. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 38 and 39 are not properly dependent on claim 24 as directed to a different statutory classes. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For purposes of examination, claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 38 and 39 will be interpreted as method claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24 and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 24 as amended recites that each C-shaped opening of the pair of C-shaped openings is symmetrical to the other and chiral to the other. The specification does not disclose that the C-shaped openings are “chiral to the other”. Chiral means the property of an object not being identical to its mirror image.
Claim 24 as amended recites “the ends of each opening are equidistant from a midpoint of an arc between the intermediate portions of the C-shaped openings”. Fig. 2C presents the capillary and the specification describes the capillary in 2C in paragraphs [0071] and [0073] and does not describe the midpoint or provide guidance for which portion of the capillary is considered the midpoint.
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.
Claim 24 and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 38 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. Applicant amended claim 24 to recite “the ends of each opening are equidistant from a midpoint of an arc between the intermediate portions of the C-shaped openings”. It is not clear what the midpoint and the arc in the claim is referring to. There are two C-shaped sections each with 2 ends on each C-shaped section that has an intermediate portion. The C-shaped sections have an arc noted as A in Fig. 2C. Based on the figure, the midpoint appears to be in between the capillary openings. While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations are not imported into the claim. It is not clear if the arc as claimed is the arc of the C-shaped openings or the figurative line drawn on Fig. 2C or refers to another section of the capillary.
Claim 26 and 27 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. Claims 26 requires a radius of the arc ranges from 0.04 to 0.09 inches, a central angle of the arc ranges from 40-80 degrees and width of the arc. It is not clear if this arc is of the C-shaped openings or it is the arc “A” of Fig. 2C. If the arc “A” is the same measurement as that of the first and/or second C-shaped opening, clarification is required.
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 24, 2-5, 7 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finder et al (DE 102013016628 cited as US20160265141) in view of Bennett et al (US5439626).
Finder is directed to a spinneret for extruding self-crimping hollow fibers including at least one capillary. The at least one capillary has at least one segmented opening, which has at least two opening segments spaced apart from each other in the cross-section. A first opening segment of the at least two opening segments has a first opening-segment width and a second opening segment of the at least two opening segments has a second opening-segment width. The second opening-segment width is wider than the first opening-segment width.
Fig. 2 and 3 of Finder show the capillary 18 with segmented openings 16 and the segmented opening comprises two mutually spaced opening segments 20, 22. The segments are in the form of C-shapes and the C-shapes are symmetrical to the other. Each pair of segments that are C-shaped has ends 30 are spaced apart and face each other.
The segments, C-shapes, have an intermediate portion 34 and 32 shown with different widths on the figures and the distance between the intermediate portions, e.g. 34 and 32 is larger than the distance between the end points 30.
With regard to the ends of each opening are equidistant from a midpoint of an arc between the intermediate portions of the C-shaped portions, as the segments are symmetrical, the end points would be equidistant from a midpoint on an arc drawn between the two segments (C-shaped openings).
With regard to chiral, each segment is not identical and a mirror image and meets the claimed term.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finder shows the filament as shown in Fig. 4a and 4b, the filaments have an external surface wherein the external surface has a first, second, third and fourth perimetrical section. The first and third perimetrical sections can be equated with the two end of the fibers 51 and 52 and are spaced apart. The second and fourth sections extend between the first and third sections and are spaced apart from each other to provide the capillary in the center.
FIG. 4a is a macroscopic picture of cross sections of hollow fibers 2 according to the invention. FIG. 4b shows an enlarged representation of a cross section of a hollow fiber 2 according to the invention [0046].
FIGS. 4a and 4b show the hollow fiber comprises a hollow-fiber wall 48. The hollow-fiber wall 48 comprises at least two hollow-fiber wall portions 40, 42. In the illustrated exemplary embodiment, there is shown a hollow-fiber 48 comprising two hollow-fiber wall portions 40, 42. However, also more than two hollow-fiber wall portions can be provided [0047].
As shown in Fig. 4a the fibers can have first, second and third perimetrical section that are convex and the fourth section on the bottom can be concave.
PNG
media_image2.png
504
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
512
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Finder shows that the radius of curvature is less at the ends, or first and third perimetrical sections, 50 and 52.
As to claims 3 and 5, Finder shows that the radius of curvature and the arc length of the fourth section (section 40) is less than the second section (section 42) as shown in Fig. 4a and 4b.
As to claim 4, Finder shown that there is one section that has a longer radius of curvature and longer arc length and another section that is shorter. Wherein the designation of a second and fourth section is arbitrary, Finder shows filaments with a longer radius of curvature and longer arc length.
As to claim 7, Finder shows that the void cross-sectional shape is the same as the external shape of the filament.
As to claim 38, Finder teaches the filament has a void that is axial to the filament.
Claim 9-11 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finder et al (DE 102013016628 cited as US20160265141) in view of Bennett et al (US5439626).
As to claim 9, Finder differs and does not teach the denier of the filaments.
Bennett is directed to a melt spinning process and the nylon hollow filaments and yarns made by such process (ABST). Bennett teaches the spinneret capillary orifice provides filaments which comprise a longitudinal void asymmetric with respect to the center of the filament cross-section such that the filaments will self helical crimp on exposure to heat (col. 2, lines 61-65).
Bennett show representative photographs of the filaments 1A-1L which have a variety of finished product shapes as described and shown in the figures below.
FIG. 1A--round filament with a concentric longitudinal void;
FIG. 1B--trilobal filaments with a concentric longitudinal void;
FIG. 1C--round filaments with a large longitudinal void which may take on non-round shapes and may collapse to form cotton-like cross-sectional shapes;
FIG. 1D--incomplete self-coalescence providing "opens");
FIG. 1E--false-twist textured filaments wherein the void is collapsed and resembles the filament cross-sections of cotton (FIG. 1G);
FIG. 1F--air-jet textured filaments showing that the voids are partially collapsed (i.e., a thin void "strip" is visible) and resemble the filament cross-sections of cotton (FIG. 1G);
FIG. 1H--bundle of cut (uncrimped) hollow staple fibers;
FIG. 1I--bundle of cut/crimped hollow fibers with a partially collapsed void;
FIG. 1J--trilobal hollow filament wherein the sides are not completely coalesced, if desired;
FIG. 1K--a completely coalesced filament having a novel "sponge-like" cross-section "texture"; and
FIG. 1L are asymmetric hollow filaments which self-crimp on relaxation of spinning stress and further relax and crimp after boil-off. (col. 3, lines 63-68; col. 4, lines 1-17).
PNG
media_image4.png
396
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
372
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bennett teaches partially and completely coalesced fibers which result in a variety of shaped. Bennett teaches Fig. 1F and 1L reasonably produce bulbous portions of the hollow fiber. Bennett also teaches that depending on the spinning speed and the viscosity, the void % is changed as shown in Fig. 3 (col. 4 and 5, lines 18-68, 1-12).
Bennett shows a variety of shapes also produce hollow fibers wherein the first exterior curved portion and the second exterior curved portion have different lengths however Bennett does not explicitly teach the first and second curved portions have different lengths.
Bennett teaches the advantages of the hollow fibers produced is the fibers with self helically crimp on exposure to heat (col. 2, lines 61-65) and produce textured yarns.
The textured yarns are knit into socks wherein the crimped yarn has cotton like aesthetic and socks knit form uncrimped yarns has wool like aesthetics. The laboratory moisture transport was measured and the hollow nylon filament socks has 2 times the flow of moisture and improved abrasion resistance than cotton (example 17, col 25 and 26, lines 53-68, 1-24).
Bennett teaches the denier or dpf of the hollow filaments ranges from 0.5 to 20 dpf which overlaps the claimed range. Table 1 (col. 30) shows the dpfs are 2.0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a denier of 2 to 35 motivated to produce a fiber for apparel.
As to claims 10 and 11, Finder teaches the polymers are melted to flow through the capillaries of the spinneret which infers a thermoplastic, however is silent with respect to a thermoplastic and the types of polymers.
Bennett teaches nylon filament which are thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce thermoplastic nylon filament motivated to melt spin the filaments.
With regard to claim 39, Finder is silent with respect to a bridge section in the fiber that defines a first void and a second void.
Bennett is directed to a melt spinning process and the nylon hollow filaments and yarns made by such process (ABST). Bennett teaches the spinneret capillary orifice provides filaments which comprise a longitudinal void asymmetric with respect to the center of the filament cross-section such that the filaments will self helical crimp on exposure to heat (col. 2, lines 61-65).
Bennett show representative photographs of the filaments 1A-1L which have a variety of finished product shapes as described and shown in the figures below.
PNG
media_image4.png
396
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
372
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bennett teaches partially and completely coalesced fibers which result in a variety of shaped. Bennett teaches Fig. 1F and 1L reasonably produce bulbous portions of the hollow fiber. Bennett also teaches that depending on the spinning speed and the viscosity, the void % is changed as shown in Fig. 3 (col. 4 and 5, lines 18-68, 1-12).
The partially collapsed fibers are equated with one bridge section.
Bennett shows a variety of shapes also produce hollow fibers wherein the first exterior curved portion and the second exterior curved portion have different lengths however Bennett does not explicitly teach the first and second curved portions have different lengths.
Bennett teaches the advantages of the hollow fibers produced is the fibers with self helically crimp on exposure to heat (col. 2, lines 61-65) and produce textured yarns.
The textured yarns are knit into socks wherein the crimped yarn has cotton like aesthetic and socks knit form uncrimped yarns has wool like aesthetics. The laboratory moisture transport was measured and the hollow nylon filament socks has 2 times the flow of moisture and improved abrasion resistance than cotton (example 17, col 25 and 26, lines 53-68, 1-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a fiber with a collapsed center motivated to produce a fiber that resemble cotton. It further would have been obvious to optimize the spinning speed motivated to produce the desired shape to replicate a natural fiber like cotton.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 27 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. Finder and Bennett differ and do not teach or suggest the radius of the arc nor the radial width.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 24 and deleted claim 1 and changed the dependency of claims 2-7, 9-11 to claim 24 and added claims 40-42 and deleted claims 28-37.
As amended, claims 40-42 are withdrawn as elected by original presentation.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11 are rejected under 112(d) as being improperly dependent on the method claim 24 as the claim do not recite a method in the preamble.
The rejection over Finder is maintained in view of the presented 112(a) and (b) rejections. Applicant argues that Finder does not teach the features as amended of “simultaneously symmetric and mutually chiral”; “midpoint of an arc between the intermediate portions,” nor that the ends of each opening are equidistant from that midpoint.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. While Fig. 2C appears to show a novel spinneret and capillary shape, as the claims are written, the claims are broader in scope and do not exclude the capillary shape of Finder. It is clear from Fig. 2C that Applicant’s capillary is different from Finder, however as claimed, the distinction fails to articulate the difference. It appears that both of the C-shaped openings of Fig. 2C have a convex side and a concave side outer edge and the ends of the openings are central to the convex/concave outer edges.
Applicant notes that claim 24 is in product by process form, patentability still turns on the structure of the resulting product. In the present case, the specifically claimed spinneret geometry imparts a distinctive filament cross-section and this structure is structurally different than the hollow fibers of Finder and Bennett.
Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Claim 24 is a method claim rather than a product by process claim. The structural limitations of claim 24 are considered equivalent to those of Finder as noted in the revised rejection.
Claims 26 and 27 are indicated as allowable over the prior art in view of the amendments to claim 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blakely et al (US 20240035204)
Mommaerts et al (US 3984515)
(GB 2032840)
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