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
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 169, 174, 180 as well as the addition of claims 183-189. Currently claims 169-181 and 183-189 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 175 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US 3408277).
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.
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(s) 169, 170, 183 and 188 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 5227109) in view of Martin et al. (US 3408277).
With regards to claim 169, Allen teaches a method of making a bulked continuous bicomponent filament (Abstract, col 1 ln 32-50) comprising providing a first (core) and second (sheath) polymer composition having different viscosity (col 7 ln 55-65). Allen teaches extruding the first and second polymer compositions at different pressures (Table 2). As seen in Figures 1-5 the spinneret comprisses passages that combine the first and second polymer composition to extrude in a combined core sheath state from the spinneret to form a bicomponent filament (col 4 ln 6-58). While Allen teaches that it is known for bicomponent fibers to have a use in forming naturally crimping fibers due to a difference in thermal properties (col 1 ln 32-50), Allen does not explicitly state that differences in viscosity of the polymers in a bicomponent fiber will cause the self-crimping behavior.
In a similar field of endeavor of forming bicomponent fibers, Martin teaches a method of making a plurality of bulked continuous filaments comprising providing a polymer melt in chamber (2), separating the polymer melt into a first and second portion with pumps (7, 7’), subjecting the first and second portion to different conditions in order to have a different rheological property such as viscosity in different pathways (5, 6), combining the first and second portions in one compartment (10) and melt spinning the combined portions through a spinneret (13) to produce a plurality of bulked continuous fibers (Fig. 1, col 2 ln 8-58, col 3 ln 16-29, Example 1). The chemically identical portions formed by splitting a stream into at least two components and subjecting the two streams to different processes has the goal in Martin of resulting in different molecular weight or viscosity for the two constituents (col 2 ln 8-15). The difference results in a natural crimping or bulking of the resulting filament due to internal stress (col 1 ln 25-34, col 4 ln 3-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the differences in viscosity to induce natural crimping from differential stress in the resulting filaments as taught by Martin as both Martin and Allen relate to forming bicomponent fibers presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so is a known effect to achieve in bicomponent fibers particular from differences in viscosity of polymer compositions yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 170, both the first and second compositions, which are different, experience a stress. Thus there are two different stresses which causes the natural crimping.
With regards to claim 183, Allen teaches that both are polyester (Second through Fifth trials). Additionally, Martin teaches that a known method for providing a first and second polymer stream of different viscosities includes utilizing the same polymer subjected to different conditions presenting a reasonable expectation of success.
With regards to claim 188, Martin teaches that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize difference in temperature to impart different viscosities on the polymer components as discussed (col 2 ln 51-58) presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and Allen is silent with respect to the respective temperatures prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
Claim(s) 170-171 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 5227109) in view of Martin et al. (US 3408277) as applied to claim 169 above, and further in view of Takeuchi (WO 2004/003271 A1).
With regards to claim 170, Allen in view of Martin teaches a method of spinning a bicomponent fiber that naturally crimps, but does not teach multiple differential stresses in the filament.
In a similar field of endeavor, Takeuchi teaches that spinnerets and spinning conditions can be used to impart different stresses along the length of the fiber imparting multiple differential stresses in self-crimping fiber (pg 11 ln 7-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize multiple differential stresses as taught by Takeuchi as both Takeuchi and Allen in view of Martin relate to self-crimping or naturally crimping fiber presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so applies a known technique to a similar method yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 171, Takeuchi teaches that it was known in the art to utilize a take-up Godet roll (pg 46 ln 19-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize a known Godet take-up roll some distance from the spinneret as such is a known method for collecting the fiber presenting a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 172 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 5227109) in view of Martin et al. (US 3408277) and Takeuchi (WO 2004/003271 A1) as applied to claim 171 above, and further in view of Geerdes et al. (US 3452131).
With regards to claim 172, Allen as modified above teaches melt spinning a bicomponent filament which has a natural crimp due to differential stress in the resulting bicomponent material. Allen does not teach the addition or removal of a draw point localizer.
As is well known in the art of melt spinning, Geerdes teaches that the use or disuse of a draw point localizer at the spinneret nozzle has a direct result in the draw properties of the resulting filament (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, col 10 ln 20-43). Draw induces stress in a fiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a controllable draw point localizer which can be applied or not applied depending upon the desired draw properties of the fiber in the process of Allen as a draw point localizer is a well known component in melt spinning of fibers presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so allows for control of the draw of the fiber as discussed in Geerdes.
Claim(s) 173-174 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 5227109) in view of Martin et al. (US 3408277) and Takeuchi (WO 2004/003271 A1) and Geerdes et al. (US 3452131) as applied to claim 172 above and further in view of Martin (US 3221088, hereinafter referred to as Martin ‘088).
With regards to claims 173 and 174, Allen as modified above does not teach varying the temperature of a quenching means downstream of the spinneret. However, as discussed in Martin, it was well known in the art of melt spinning fibers that the quenching process can be controlled by varying the temperature of the quenching means (Fig. 1, col 2 ln 23-26). The manipulation of a known result effective variable such as quenching temperature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed barring a showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 184-187 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 5227109) in view of Martin et al. (US 3408277) as applied to claim 183 above, and further in view of Schuur (US 3582418).
With regards to claim 184-185, Allen teaches a method of extruding bicomponent fibers using two melts of different viscosity. Martin like Allen teaches a method of making a plurality of bulked continuous filaments comprising providing a polymer melt in chamber (2), separating the polymer melt into a first and second portion with pumps (7, 7’), subjecting the first and second portion to different conditions in order to have a different rheological property such as viscosity in different pathways (5, 6), combining the first and second portions in one compartment (10) and melt spinning the combined portions through a spinneret (13) to produce a plurality of bulked continuous fibers (Fig. 1, col 2 ln 8-58, col 3 ln 16-29, Example 1). The chemically identical portions formed by splitting a stream into at least two components and subjecting the two streams to different processes has the goal in Martin of resulting in different molecular weight or viscosity for the two constituents (col 2 ln 8-15). The difference results in a natural crimping or bulking of the resulting filament due to internal stress (col 1 ln 25-34, col 4 ln 3-14). Martin teaches effecting this difference through heating, but does not teach that the treatment comprises adding an additive chosen from the claimed group.
In the same field of endeavor, Schuur discusses that forming self-crimping fibers similar to the method of Martin can utilize either a heat treatment difference (the technique of Martin) or provide one of the polymer streams with a different amount of an additive that adjusts molecular weight (col 6 ln 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize addition of a different amount of molecular weight adjusting additive to the first and/or second portions of Martin as discussed in Schuur as both relate to the production of self-crimping fibers from a single polymer presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so presents a simple substitution of the mechanism by which molecular weight or rheological properties are adjusted yielding predictable results. A molecular weight stabilizing agent is interpreted to read upon either a molecular weight booster as the decrease in molecular weight is prevented or also the broadest reasonable interpretation of a melt flow manipulating agent as molecular weight determines properties of melt flow.
With regards to claim 186-187, the particular polymer is not limited and Allen teaches using homopolymers and copolymers of polyester (Trials 1-5).
Claim(s) 175-178 and 189 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 3408277) in view of Schuur (US 3582418).
With regards to claim 175, Martin teaches a method of making a plurality of bulked continuous filaments comprising providing a polymer melt in chamber (2), separating the polymer melt into a first and second portion with pumps (7, 7’), subjecting the first and second portion to different conditions in order to have a different rheological property such as viscosity in different pathways (5, 6), combining the first and second portions in one compartment (10) and melt spinning the combined portions through a spinneret (13) to produce a plurality of bulked continuous fibers (Fig. 1, col 2 ln 8-58, col 3 ln 16-29, Example 1). The chemically identical portions formed by splitting a stream into at least two components and subjecting the two streams to different processes has the goal in Martin of resulting in different molecular weight or viscosity for the two constituents (col 2 ln 8-15). The difference results in a natural crimping or bulking of the resulting filament due to internal stress (col 1 ln 25-34, col 4 ln 3-14). Martin teaches effecting this difference through heating, but does not teach that the treatment comprises adding an additive chosen from the claimed group.
In the same field of endeavor, Schuur discusses that forming self-crimping fibers similar to the method of Martin can utilize either a heat treatment difference (the technique of Martin) or provide one of the polymer streams with a different amount of an additive that adjusts molecular weight (col 6 ln 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize addition of a different amount of molecular weight adjusting additive to the first and/or second portions of Martin as discussed in Schuur as both relate to the production of self-crimping fibers from a single polymer presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so presents a simple substitution of the mechanism by which molecular weight or rheological properties are adjusted yielding predictable results. A molecular weight stabilizing agent is interpreted to read upon either a molecular weight booster as the decrease in molecular weight is prevented or also the broadest reasonable interpretation of a melt flow manipulating agent as molecular weight determines properties of melt flow.
With regards to claim 176, Martin and Schuur both teach adjusting molecular weight of the split polymer streams as discussed in the rejection of claim 175 above.
With regards to claim 177, Schuur teaches that the difference in molecular weight can either be the presence of the additive in one stream or different relative concentrations (col 6 ln 1-20), and thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to achieve a molecular weight difference through adding different amounts of the additive to the respective streams.
With regards to claim 178, Schuur teaches providing non-symmetrical cross-sections of the first and second portion through the capillaries or spinnerets (col 2 ln 45-48, col 4 ln 3-14, 12 filaments requiring 12 capillaries).
With regards to claim 189, Martin teaches melt spinning with the first and second portions subjected to different temperatures (col 2 ln 51-58).
Claim(s) 179 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 3408277) in view of Schuur (US 3582418) as applied to claim 178 above, and further in view of Allen (US 5227109).
With regards to claims 179, Martin as modified above teaches a method of melt extrusion of bicomponent fibers through a spinneret in which the melts have a difference in viscosity including non-symmetrical cross-section of the two components, but does not teach core-sheath shapes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Allen teaches a method of making a bulked continuous bicomponent filament (Abstract, col 1 ln 32-50) comprising providing a first (core) and second (sheath) polymer composition having different viscosity (col 7 ln 55-65). Allen teaches extruding the first and second polymer compositions at different pressures (Table 2). As seen in Figures 1-5 the spinneret comprisses passages that combine the first and second polymer composition to extrude in a combined core sheath state from the spinneret to form a bicomponent filament (col 4 ln 6-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize a core-sheath spinneret shape in the process of Martin as barring a showing of unexpected results as mere changes in shape present a case of prima facie obviousness and doing so presents a simple substitution of known spinneret shapes.
Claim(s) 180 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 3408277) in view of Schuur (US 3582418) as applied to claim 178 above, and further in view of Tanner (US 3117906).
With regards to claims 180, Martin as modified above teaches a method of melt extrusion of bicomponent fibers through a spinneret in which the melts have a difference in viscosity including non-symmetrical cross-section of the two components, but does not teach trilobal shapes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tanner teaches that it was well known in the art of bicomponent fiber spinning that the melt extrusion of bicomponent fibers can utilize spinneret shapes to produce trilobal fibers with two lobes of one component and another lobe of the other component (Fig. 11-12). Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as mere changes in shape present a case of prima facie obviousness and doing so presents a simple substitution of known spinneret shapes.
Claim(s) 181 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 3408277) in view of Schuur (US 3582418) as applied to claim 178 above, and further in view of Martin (US 3221088, hereinafter referred to as Martin ‘088).
With regards to claim 181, Allen as modified above does not teach varying the temperature of a quenching means downstream of the spinneret. However, as discussed in Martin, it was well known in the art of melt spinning fibers that the quenching process can be controlled by varying the temperature of the quenching means (Fig. 1, col 2 ln 23-26). The manipulation of a known result effective variable such as quenching temperature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed barring a showing of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights