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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 169-181 in the reply filed on August 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 165, 169, 174, and 180 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 165 appears to be missing --enhancer-- after intrinsic velocity, based on Claim 177’s language.
Claim 169 currently depends on withdrawn Claims 163-168, whose language should be incorporated into Claim 169. Appropriate correction is required, and Claim 169 will be, for the purposes of examination, interpreted as containing said language.
Claim 174 has a stray slash at the end that should be deleted.
Claim 180 recites “a trilobal filaments” in Line 3 wherein the plural “filaments” in the remainder of the claim imply the “a” should be deleted, and for the purposes of examination it will be presumed the “a” is deleted.
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.
Claim 174 is 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 174 recites the limitations "the stack height," “the stack draw,” and “the mechanical draw” in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the three types of draws will be presumed to have been previously properly introduced in the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 169 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helms, Jr. et al. (US 6,153,138 A, hereinafter Helms) in view of Hirano et al. (WO 2021/111804 A1, hereinafter Hirano and wherein the citation below refers to the included machine translation).
Regarding Claim 169, per the Abstract Helms teaches a method of manufacturing a bulked continuous bicomponent filament comprising a first polymer composition and a second polymer composition both comprising a homopolymer and a copolymer, wherein the first and second polymer compositions comprise the same polymer, wherein the polymer compositions have at least one rheological property that differs between the first and second compositions (see Column 3 Lines 19-55 disclosing that virtually any polymer(s) including the same polymer can be used for the two constituent polymer domains of the fiber, so long as the domains have the differing rheological property of relative viscosity, and wherein the polymer selection includes homopolymers and copolymers), selecting the rheological property such that rheology produces a differential stress between the two polymer compositions and then combining the compositions and extruding the combination from a spinneret into a melt spun bicomponent filament (see Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 31 wherein the difference in relative viscosity is chosen to effect different cross-sectional geometries).
However, while Helms is silent on the at least one rheological property being melt viscosity being made different due to an additive selected from the group consisting of an intrinsic viscosity enhancer, a flow aid, a molecular weight booster, a melt flow manipulating agent, a colorant, a plasticizer, or a nucleating agent, Hirano, in analogous art pertaining to melt spinning, teaches in the last paragraph of Page 3 of the machine translation that melt viscosity can be changed by adding a molecular weight modifier such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would thus understand changing melt viscosity would change relative viscosity, and further that increasing molecular weight would thus change relative viscosity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to, per Hirano, achieve the relative viscosity differential in Helms by using a molecular weight booster to make the two polymer compositions have a different melt viscosity and thus relative viscosity so that Helms works as intended.
Claims 170-174 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helms and Hirano as applied to Claim 169 above, and in view of Takeuchi (WO 2004/003271 A1, hereinafter Takeuchi).
Regarding Claim 170, Helms and Hirano teach the method as applied above with particular emphasis on the utility of there being one differential stress, but are silent on the method comprising selecting a second property of the first and second polymer compositions such that the rheology of the combined polymer melts produces a second differential stress between the first and second polymer compositions.
In analogous art pertaining to melt spinning, Takeuchi on Page 11 Lines 7-13 introduces the idea that the process can have multiple different stresses to provide desired effects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further investigate the effect of further differential stresses in the previous combination and produce a second differential stress between the first and second polymer compositions of the previous combination to build on the desirable effects already noted by Helms.
Regarding Claim 171, the method necessarily comprises configuring a distance from the spinneret to a godet since melt spinning uses a godet for collection.
Regarding Claim 172, further comprising the addition or removal of a draw point localizer that changes the stress on the filament as it leaves the spinneret (as the instant specification does not define a draw point localizer, the quencher in Column 4 Lines 17-31 of Helms is considered a draw point localizer as it changes the stress on the filament as it leaves the spinneret).
Regarding Claim 173, wherein the method is performed with one environmental condition selected from the group of varying temperature, varying humidity, or combinations thereof owing to the quenching which will generate varying temperature and humidity.
Regarding Claim 174, wherein cooling and/or quenching the bulked continuous bicomponent filament is performed with a process of one of varying the stack height, varying the stack draw, varying the mechanical draw, or combinations thereof, since the mechanical draw will vary with the differential solidification mentioned by Helms in the quenching process in Column 4 Lines 17-31.
Claim 175 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helms in view of Hirano and Clark (US 2021/0172088 A1, hereinafter Clark).
Regarding Claims 175-177, Helms and Hirano as applied above teach a method of manufacturing a plurality of bulked continuous filaments, the method comprising:
providing two polymer melt streams and treating the first portion to have a different rheological property than the second portion, wherein treating the first portion to have a different rheological property comprises adding a molecular weight booster to make the two portions have different molecular weights;
combining the first and second portions; and
melt spinning the combined portions into the plurality of bulked continuous filaments.
However, while Helms and Hirano are silent on providing the two polymer melt streams by providing a polymer melt and separating the polymer melt into a first portion and a second portion, Clark, in analogous art pertaining to melt spinning, teaches in [0004] that a known way to achieve two polymer streams is to split one polymer stream, and therefore it would have been obvious to apply the known technique per Clark of splitting one polymer stream to achieve the predictable result of two polymer streams.
Regarding Claim 178, wherein melt spinning comprises extruding the combined first and second portions from a plurality of capillaries and wherein the combined first and second portions are distributed non-symmetrically along a cross-section of the plurality of capillaries (“asymmetric” in Column 2 Lines 55-65 of Helms).
Regarding Claim 179, the combined first and second portions are distributed along the cross-section of the plurality of capillaries configured to extrude a core and sheath filament, wherein the core comprises the first portion and the sheath comprises the second portion (“two distinct cross-sectional domains respectively formed of polymer having different relative viscosities … intended to include … sheath-core” in Column 2 Lines 55-65 of Helms).
Regarding Claim 180, the combined first and second portions are distributed along the cross-section of the plurality of capillaries configured to extrude trilobal filaments, wherein a first lobe of each of the trilobal filaments comprises the first portion, and wherein a second and third lobe of each of the trilobal filaments comprises the second portion (Helms in Column 4 Lines 8-9 teaches a trilobal structure, is silent about which portions make up which lobes, but as some portion must be chosen for each lobe from a small and finite set of possibilities, it would have been obvious to make one trilobal filament comprise the first portion with a second and third lobe comprising the second portion).
Regarding Claim 181, the plurality of bulked continuous filaments is quenched by cooling the filaments with a fluid of varying temperature, varying humidity, or combinations thereof (Helms teaches quenching with air in Column 4 Lines 17-31, which is a fluid that would thus have varying temperature and humidity as it moves around the melt).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights