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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 01/22/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-6 and 20-25 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ln 10, “include” should read --includes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 21-25 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 a first outermost row and a second outermost row. It is not clear if the claim terms first and second are merely meant as identifiers, or if the first and second refer to the location of the rows. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim terms have been interpreted to be identifiers.
All dependent claims are also rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-6 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi (US2009/0042475 of record) in view of Lee (US3992499).
Regarding claim 1, Pourdeyhimi teaches:
A spinneret for melt-spinning polymeric fibers ([0073]), comprising:
a spinneret body including a plurality of spinning orifices formed through a thickness of spinneret body (Fig 5, Fig 17: spin pack; [0073, 0141]);
wherein the plurality of spinning orifices include (i) a plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices (Fig 17: divided circles; [0141]), and (ii) a plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices (Fig 17: open circles; [0141]);
wherein the spinneret includes a first zone comprising a first group of one or more rows of the plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices including a first outermost row extending along a width direction of the spinneret body and a second zone includes a second group of one or more rows of the plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices including a second outermost row extending along a width direction (Fig 17, Annotated Pourdeyhimi Fig 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pourdeyhimi does not teach the multicomponent spinning orifices comprising a first multicomponent opening and a separate second multicomponent opening and the monocomponent spinning orifices comprising a single monocomponent opening.
However, Pourdeyhimi teaches producing sheath/core bicomponent fibers with monocomponent fibers ([0111]).
Pourdeyhimi is silent as to the configuration of the multicomponent spinning orifices and the monocomponent spinning orifices. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other spinnerets in the art for how to configure the multicomponent spinning orifices and the monocomponent spinning orifices.
In the same field of endeavor regarding spinnerets, Lee teaches a multicomponent spinning orifice comprising a first multicomponent opening and a separate second multicomponent opening ()and the monocomponent spinning orifices comprising a single monocomponent opening for producing sheath/core bicomponent fibers with monocomponent fibers (Fig 1: sheath-core capillaries 28, opening 24, homofilament capillaries 17; col 5, ln 4-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the multicomponent spinning orifice configuration and monocomponent spinning orifice configuration as taught by Lee for the multicomponent spinning orifices as taught by Lee and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since both references teach spinnerets for producing sheath/core bicomponent fibers and monocomponent fibers.
Regarding claim 2, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi further teaches wherein the spinneret body has a length and a width that is greater than the length (Fig 5), and wherein the plurality of spinning orifices define a plurality of rows extending independently from each other (Fig 17; [0141]) along at least about 20% of the width (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 3, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi further teaches wherein the plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices define at least one first zone, and the plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices define at least one second zone (Fig 17).
Regarding claim 4, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Pourdeyhimi further teaches wherein the at least one first zone comprises a plurality of first zones, and the at least one second zone comprises a plurality of second zones (Fig 17).
Regarding claim 5, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Lee further teaches wherein the multicomponent spinning orifices including the first multicomponent opening and the separate second multicomponent opening define a side-by- side configuration, a multi-lobal configuration, a sheath-and-core configuration, an islands-in-the-sea configuration wherein the separate second multicomponent opening comprises a plurality of such openings operatively connected to each other, or any combination thereof (Fig 2; col 5, ln 4-33).
Regarding claim 6, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi further teaches wherein the plurality of spinning orifices define a total number of spinning orifices, and wherein the plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices comprise from about 60 to about 99% of the total number of spinning orifices, the plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices comprise from about 1 to about 40% of the total number of spinning orifices (Fig 17; [0141]; multicomponent = 66.7%, monocomponent = 33.3%).
Regarding claim 21, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi further teaches wherein the plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices comprise from about 60 to about 99% of the total number of spinning orifices, the plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices comprise from about 1 to about 40% of the total number of spinning orifices (Fig 17; [0141]; multicomponent = 66.7%, monocomponent = 33.3%).
Regarding claim 22, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi does not explicitly recite wherein the plurality of spinning orifices define a total number of spinning orifices, and wherein the plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices comprise from about 1 to about 30% of the total number of spinning orifices.
However, Pourdeyhimi teaches a value for the ratio of the monocomponent spinning orifices that is close to the claimed range (Fig 17; [0141]; multicomponent = 66.7%, monocomponent = 33.3%).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, applicant specification does not demonstrate any criticality of the claimed range therefore does not patentably distinguish over the value taught by the prior art which is close to the claimed range.
Since close values/ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the monocomponent spinning orifices as taught Pourdeyhimi Ito that is close with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 23, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi does not explicitly recite wherein the plurality of spinning orifices define a total number of spinning orifices, and wherein the plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices comprise from about 1 to about 25% of the total number of spinning orifices.
However, Pourdeyhimi teaches a value for the ratio of the monocomponent spinning orifices that is close to the claimed range (Fig 17; [0141]; multicomponent = 66.7%, monocomponent = 33.3%).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, applicant specification does not demonstrate any criticality of the claimed range therefore does not patentably distinguish over the value taught by the prior art which is close to the claimed range.
Since close values/ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the monocomponent spinning orifices as taught Pourdeyhimi Ito that is close with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 24, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi further teaches the plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices.
Lee further teaches multicomponent spinning orifices comprising respective first multicomponent opening and respective separate second multicomponent opening that define a multi-lobal configuration, a sheath-and-core configuration, or an islands-in-the-sea configuration (Fig 2; col 5, ln 4-33).
Regarding claim 25, Pourdeyhimi in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi further teaches the plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices.
Lee further teaches multicomponent spinning orifices comprising respective first multicomponent openings and respective separate second multicomponent openings that define a sheath-and-core configuration (Fig 2; col 5, ln 4-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the spinneret includes a first zone comprising a first group of one or more rows of the plurality of multicomponent spinning orifices including a first outermost row extending along a width direction of the spinneret body and a second zone includes a second group of one or more rows of the plurality of monocomponent spinning orifices including a second outermost row extending along a width direction. However, Fig 17 of Pourdeyhimi teaches the above limitation. Annotated Pourdeyhimi Fig 17 is produced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the claim is open ended in regards to the configuration of the first and second zones and therefore does not preclude monocomponent orifices in the first zone or multicomponent orifices in the second zone.
Furthermore, even if the claim were further amended to recite a configuration of the monocomponent and multicomponent orifices not explicitly taught by Pourdeyhimi, it has been broadly held that rearrangement of known parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Applicant specification discloses that the embodiments provided in the specification and drawings are merely by way of example only. Applicant specification does not demonstrate any criticality of the specific arrangements described and are therefore not patentably distinguishable over the configuration of the monocomponent and multicomponent orifices taught by prior art.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights