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
Claims 9-27 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus and fiber, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/25/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/25/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfell et al. (US Pat. 3,266,087) as evidenced by Umezawa et al. (US Pat. 6,214,145) or Opfell et al. (US Pat. 3,266,087) in view of Umezawa et al. (US Pat. 6,214,145).
Regarding claim 1, Opfell et al. teach a manufacturing method of a fiber comprising providing a polymer material and carrying out a melt extrusion on the material through a spinneret [2:70-3:4]. The spinneret comprises at least one spinneret orifice unit (14 or 16 or 18 for example) embedded in a spinneret body (10) [Figures]. The spinneret orifice unit includes a plurality of spinneret sub-orifices (groups of three orifices shown in 14, 16 or 18). Each spinneret sub-orifice penetrates through the spinneret body. Opfell et al. teach the spinneret sub-orifice has a diameter and the claimed diameter is obvious over the teachings of Opfell et al. (Opfell et al. teach the notch size is correlated to the orifice diameter and that the notch size and orifice diameter affects yarn design as Opfell et al. states “ The notching has the effect of bending the filaments and allowing a cooling before all three fuse, thereby preventing a return to a circular cross-section, i.e., aiding in the formation of the cloverleaf pattern… It will readily be seen that the smaller the notch, i.e., the lesser the deflection, the more pronounced is the cloverleaf design, to the point whereby a hollow trifilament yarn can be obtained if desired. On the other hand, obviously, the larger the notch, the greater the deflection, with a resultant lesser pronounced cloverleaf design. However, it is to be understood that the size of the notch is not critical, it may extend out from the projected edge of the orifice as far or as little as desired, depending on the type yarn desired, the only limitation being that the notch not touch the unnotched hole.” Therefore Opfell et al. teach the orifice diameter as a results effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed diameter. Opfell et al. teach a sticking space between every two adjacent spinneret sub-orifices is about 0.0023 inches or 0.05mm which is in the claimed range. Given Opfell et al. teach such a similar method, it is clear or obvious the method of Opfell et al. would enable polyurethane material to pass through the spinneret sub-orifices and stick together to form a polyurethane fiber. Opfell et al. teach the method is for synthetic polymer, but is silent regarding the method being for a polyurethane fiber. However, polyurethane fiber is a synthetic fiber and is included in polyurethane fibers and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method to produce polyurethane fibers for improved flexibility and elasticity as is evidenced by US Pat. 6,214,145. In the alternative, Umezawa et al. teaches spinning polyurethane fiber for improved flexibility and elasticity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyurethane of Umezawa in Opfell et al. for improved flexibility and elasticity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the spinneret body comprises a circular plate [Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 3, the spinneret orifice unit the claimed number of spinneret sub-orifices (Opfell et al. teach at least one group of three individual spinneret sub-orifices) [claim 1].
Regarding claim 4, the at least one spinneret orifice unit comprises a plurality of comprises a plurality of spinneret orifice units and the number of spinneret orifice units is in the claimed range (Opfell et al. teach at least one group of three individual spinneret sub-orifices) [claim 1].
Regarding claim 5, Given Opfell et al. teaches spinneret sub-orifices with such similar diameter and number of sub-orifices, the claimed spinneret sub-orifices have tube wall characteristics through which the polyurethane material passes through the spinneret sub-orifices at a shear rate in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, the spinneret sub-orifices of the spinneret orifice unit are arranged in a straight line as the unit is taught as a plurality of orifices is taught but not limited to three and includes 2 which would create a straight line. [claim 1].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfell et al. (US Pat. 3,266,087) in view of Yin et al. (PG Pub. 2022/0145496).
Regarding claims 7-8, Opfell et al. are silent regarding the claimed stretching. However, Yin et al. teach stretching polyurethane fiber with a dye material in the polyurethane material in a winding machine with a winding speed in the claimed range in order to provide a low shrinkage yarn with color. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the stretching and winding speed of Yin et al. in Opfell et al. in order to provide a low shrinkage yarn with elastic properties and color.
Art Not Used But Relevant
US Pat. 3,699,205 teaches a method of making a polyurethane fiber through a spinneret.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights