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 .
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 1-4 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0103556) in view of Meijer et al. (PG Pub. 2011/0227247).
Regarding claim 1, Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. teaches (paragraphs[0008], [0086], [0093], [0094], [0097], [0107], [0108]; figures 1-8) a spinneret for melt spinning polymeric fibers is provided which includes a spinneret body having an overall length to hydraulic diameter ratio and defining orifices extending through the spinneret body, wherein the orifices comprise capillaries that opens at a face of the spinneret body for polymer filament extrusion therefrom, wherein the capillaries are arranged in a plurality of different rows at the face of the spinneret body, and wherein the plurality of different rows are arranged into a plurality of
different zones at the face of the spinneret body, wherein each of the plurality of different
zones has a capillary density; and each of the capillaries in each of the plurality of zones has a particular capillary length, cross-sectional shape, hydraulic diameter and a length to hydraulic diameter ratio.
Paragraph [0039] discloses a first zone located centrally at the face of the spinneret
body (311 or a combination of 311 with 331 and/or 332), comprising a plurality of first rows, each of said first rows comprising a plurality of first capillaries, wherein the first capillaries are arranged in a first capillary density, and the first capillaries individually having a first cross-sectional shape, a first hydraulic diameter, a first length, and a first length to hydraulic diameter ratio, a second zone located adjacent to the first zone at the face of the spinneret body (can be considered any of zones 321, 322, 331, 332, 341 and/or 342), comprising a plurality of second rows, each of said second rows comprising a plurality of second capillaries, wherein the second capillaries are arranged in a second capillary density, and the second capillaries individually having a second cross-sectional shape, a second hydraulic diameter, a second length, and a second length to hydraulic diameter ratio. The first L/DH ratio is larger than the second L/DH ratio [0013].
Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. nonwoven web or interlaid fibers, but are silent regarding the claimed single polymeric composition with different melting temperatures. However, Meijer et al. teach using a single polymeric composition for making polymeric articles wherein a first group of orifices and second group of orifices are located relative to each other wherein a first region of monocomponent fibers having a first onset of melting temperature produced form the first group of orifices and at least one second region of monocomponent fibers having a second onset of melting temperature produced from the second group of orifices and the second onset of melting temperature is less than the first onset of melting temperature in order to achieve better adherence and homogenous mechanical properties and recyclability [0114]. Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same polymer composition in order to ensure the highest adherence, homogenous uniform mechanical properties and recyclability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the single polymeric composition with different melting temperatures of Meijer et al. in Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. in order to ensure the highest adherence, homogenous uniform mechanical properties and recyclability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-3, Paragraph [0139] discloses a multi-zone spinneret, and makes reference to FIGS. 3-5, a 3.5 meter wide spinneret has zones A, located at each end of the spinneret that comprise the capillaries that have a hydraulic diameter of 0.6 mm and a length of 2.7 mm for a having a length of 2.2 mm and an exit hydraulic diameter of 0.55 mm to give a length to hydraulic diameter ratio of 4. The zone C capillaries have a length of 1.73 mm and an exit hydraulic diameter of 0.5 mm for a length to hydraulic diameter ratio of 3.46 and zone D capillaries have a 1.4 mm length and hydraulic diameter of 0.45 mm for a length to hydraulic diameter ratio of 3.12. Therefore, the first and second L/DH is in the claimed range and the zoned ratio between first L/DH and second L/DH is in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Figures 1, 2L, 3 for example, show spinnerets wherein the plurality of orifices comprises from about 50 to about 95% by number of a first group of orifices and comprises from about 5 to about 50% by number of a second group of orifices.
Regarding claims 7-8, De Leon de Izquierdo et al. teaches the first capillaries of the first group of orifices have a first round cross section at the face of the spinneret body and the second capillaries of the second group of orifices have a second round cross section at the face of the spinneret body and they are both taught as round, but differing [0015] and therefore, it is clear the aspect ratio of the first and second capillaries is in the claimed range. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed aspect ratio given circular cross sections are taught which would have an aspect ratio of 1:1. De Leon de Izquierdo et al. teaches the first capillaries of the first group of orifices have a first round cross section at the face of the spinneret body and the second capillaries of the second group of orifices have a second round cross section at the face of the spinneret body and they are both taught as round, but differing [0015] and therefore it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed aspect ratio given circular cross sections are taught which would have an aspect ratio of 1:1.
Regarding claims 9-11, Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. shows in Figures 1,2L, 3, and 6 for example, spinnerets wherein the at least one second zone comprises first group of one or more rows including a first outermost row extending along the width direction of the spinneret body, and wherein the at least one second zone comprises a second group of one or more rows including a second outermost row extending along a width direction of the spinneret body. The figures also show the at least first zone comprises a third group of one of more rows extending along a width direction of the spinneret body and being located directly or indirectly between the first group of one or more rows and the second group of one or more rows.
Regarding claim 12, Figure 3 of Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. shows a spinneret wherein the at least one first zone comprises a plurality or first zones, and the at least one second zone comprises a plurality of second zones, wherein the plurality of first zones and the plurality of second zones are located in an alternating pattern along (a) a length direction, (b) a width direction, or (c) both (a) and (b).
Regarding claim 13, Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. teaches (a) the at least one first zone comprises a continuous sea of the plurality of orifices, and the at least one second zone comprises a plurality of second zones comprising islands of the plurality of orifices dispersed throughout the continuous sea of the plurality of orifices, or (b) the at least one second zone comprises a continuous sea of the plurality of orifices, and the at least one first zone comprises a plurality of first zones comprising islands of the plurality of orifices dispersed throughout the continuous sea of the plurality of orifices. The continuous sea of plurality of orifices can be construed as zones 321, 322, 341, 342 (331, and 332 could be construed as part of the sea or the island) are the continuous sea of plurality of orifices and zone 311 (331, and 332 could be construed as part of the sea or the island) are islands of the plurality of orifices [Fig. 3].
Regarding claims 14-15, Diaz de Leon Izquierdo teaches a system (800) comprising a die with the die comprising a spinneret as set forth above and a polymer distribution pathway (can be construed as filter layer and braker plate) operatively connecting a first inlet to each of the plurality of orifices of the spinneret and a polymer source comprising a polymeric composition wherein the polymers source is operatively connected to the first inlet of the dies [Figure 8 and 0074].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0103556) in view of Meijer et al. (PG Pub. 2011/0227247) in view of Dwiggins et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0041335).
Regarding claims 5-6, Diaz de Leon Izquierdo et al. teaches first capillaries of the first group of first orifices have a first ribbon cross-section at the face of the spinneret body and the second capillaries of the second group of second orifices have a second ribbon cross-section at the face of the spinneret body, but is silent regarding the claimed aspect ratio. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed aspect ratio in order to yield ribbon shaped fibers and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Dwiggins et al. teach using an aspect ratio for capillaries of first and second orifices having a ribbon cross-section at the face of the spinneret body in the claimed range in order to improve properties including permeability and liquid barrier performance [0013, 0057-0058, 0123 and Examples]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the aspect ratio taught by Dwiggins et al. in the previous combination in order to improve properties including permeability and liquid barrier performance and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not in Rejection but Relevant
KR 960001202 teaches a spinneret for melt spinning polymeric fibers in which three or more slit-shaped spinnerets having a shape deformation ratio of 2 to 100 are mixed in the same spinneret.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Diaz de Leon Izquierdo does not teach the newly claimed single polymeric composition and first and second melting temperatures. However, as set forth above, Meijer et al. teach single polymeric composition used with first and second melting temperatures. Therefore, the present claims are not allowable. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 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