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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 75-81 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 62 and 67 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 62, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the disrupting sides” in line 10 to “the engagement sides” to be consistent with the engagement sides recited in line 9.
Regarding claim 67, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the disrupting sides” in line 1 to “the engagement sides” to be consistent with the engagement sides recited in claim 62.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 62, 67-69, 71, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US3485706), and further in view of Minehardtt et al. (US20180290879).
Regarding claim 62, Evans teaches a method of making at least one discrete fiberfill cluster (col 1 line 19-24), the method comprising:
obtaining a discrete bundle of a plurality of fibers having a denier of 1.5 and a length of 38.1 mm (see col 48 line 50-57; 1.5 inches converts to 38.1 mm), the plurality of fibers being longitudinally arranged together (col 19 line 13-16; a fibrous layer continuously moving on carrier belt 31 along a direction is interpreted as the plurality of fibers being longitudinally arranged together); and
disrupting the longitudinal arrangement of at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle such that they extend irregularly three-dimensionally and intermingle to form a discrete fiberfill cluster (col 8 line 2-8),
wherein the disrupting of the longitudinal arrangement of at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle comprises positioning the bundle between engagement sides of at least a pair of disrupting members such that the disrupting sides contact the bundle (see fibrous layer 29 between surfaces of orifice manifolds 35-40 and moving carrier belt 31 in Figure 2), and
translating at least one first disrupting member with respect to at least one second disrupting member along a pathway that extends laterally along a lateral direction oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (col 19 line 27-33).
While Evans does not explicitly teach the translator (oscillator 43 in Figure 2) moves both longitudinally along a longitudinal of the fibers of the bundle and laterally along a lateral direction oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, Evans does teach that the streams impinging on the web to form the discrete fiberfill clusters may be made to rotate or oscillate during production and that in a subsequent treatment step jet manifolds are oscillated in a circle to eliminate noticeable jet tracks (col 22 line 15-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the translator of Evans move both longitudinally along a longitudinal of the fibers of the bundle and laterally along a lateral direction oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, since Evans teaches the streams impinging on the web may be made to rotate and that oscillating jet manifolds in a circle has a known benefit of eliminating noticeable jet tracks.
While Evans teaches the plurality of fibers is a discrete bundle (col 4 line 43-46), Evans is silent on the number of fibers in a bundle and fails to explicitly teach the discrete bundle of a plurality of fibers is 25 to 3600 fibers.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a method of making at least one discrete fiberfill cluster, Minehardt teaches a discrete bundle of a plurality of 600-1,200 fibers ([0012] In some embodiments, the floccules may each include a total number of individual fibers within the range of about 600 total fibers to about 1,200 total fibers).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the number of fibers in the bundle of Evans be 600-1,200 fibers, as taught by Minehardt, to achieve the predictable result of forming at least one discrete fiberfill cluster. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for Evans to form at least one discrete fiberfill cluster with a discrete bundle of a plurality of 600-1,200 fibers, as taught by Minehardt, since both Evans and Minehardt are directed to forming at least one fiberfill cluster with spaced apart intermittent nips separated by an open portion (see Figure 3 and Figure 4 of Minehardt and col 2 line 35-39 of Evans) made from similar materials with a similar denier range (Minehardt teaches the plurality of fibers may be polyester with a denier in the range of 0.1 to 8.0 D in [0100] and Evans teaches the plurality of fibers may be polyester with a denier of 1.5 D in col 24 line 35-40).
Regarding claim 67, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches the method according to claim 62. Further, Evans teaches wherein a distance between the disrupting sides remains substantially constant during the disrupting (col 19 line 29-33).
Regarding claim 68, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches the method according to claim 62. Further, Evans teaches wherein:
the at least one of the engagement sides comprises a substantially flat and smooth surface (see moving carrier belt 31 in Figure 2) and the at least one of the engagement sides comprises a substantially planar array of particles or projections (col 18 line 54-59).
Regarding claim 69, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches the method according to claim 62. Further, Evans teaches wherein the disrupting of the longitudinal arrangement of at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle comprises subjecting the bundle to at least one stream of a gas and liquid (col 18 line 48-60).
Regarding claim 71, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches the method according to claim 70. Further, Evans teaches wherein said disrupting the longitudinal arrangement comprises subjecting the bundle to:
- treatment in a fiber opening machine (col 29 line 44-49); and
- air treatment (col 18 line 48-60).
Regarding claim 73, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches the method according to claim 62. Evans teaches the method further comprising, prior to the disrupting, bonding at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle together at least one point along the longitudinal length of the bundle to form at least one bonding point (col 12 line 5-18).
Regarding claim 74, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches a fiberfill cluster formed by the method according to claim 62 (see col 2 line 64-69 of Evans and rejection of claim 62 above).
Claim(s) 63-66, 70, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US3485706) and Minehardt et al. (US20180290879), and further in view of Demir et al. (“Air-Jet Textured Yarns: The Effects of Process and Supply Yarn Parameters on the Properties of Textured Yarns”, Textile Research Journal, 56 (6), pg. 318-328 (1988)).
Regarding claim 63, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches the method according to claim 62.
While Evans fails to teach wherein disrupting the longitudinal arrangement of at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle comprises disrupting the longitudinal arrangement of only some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle such that a bundle remnant portion of the plurality of fibers of the bundle remain longitudinally arranged together and are intermingled with the fibers that extend irregularly three-dimensionally, Evans does teach various jet orifice pressures that result in varying stream densities and energy fluxes during the disrupting (see col 15 of Evans), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art to determined how varying the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes vary the configuration of the fiber bundle.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a method for forming air-jet textured yarns, Demir teaches disrupting a longitudinal arrangement of at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle comprises varying the air pressure and overfeed such that a bundle remnant portion of the plurality of fibers of the bundle remain longitudinally arranged together and are intermingled with the fibers that extend irregularly three-dimensionally (se annotated Figure 4 below).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes of Evans modified with Minehardt such that the at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle comprise a bundle remnant portion of the plurality of fibers of the bundle that remain longitudinally arranged together and are intermingled with the fibers that extend irregularly three-dimensionally, as taught by Demir, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). Evans teaches varying the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes, and Demir teaches the jet orifice pressures are a result effective variable that determines the bundle linear density and instability (see Figure 4 of Demir). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the jet orifice pressures to establish various configurations for the plurality of fibers of the bundle including a bundle remnant portion and a portion that extends irregularly three-dimensionally.
PNG
media_image1.png
971
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 64, Evans modified with Minehardt and Demir teaches the method according to claim 63.
Further, Demir teaches wherein:
the fibers that extend irregularly three-dimensionally form an outer region that extends outwardly from the bundle remnant portion (see annotated Figure 4 above in the rejection of claim 63); and
the bundle remnant portion comprises a higher density of fibers than the outer region (see annotated Figure 4 above in the rejection of claim 63).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes of Evans modified with Minehardt such that the fibers that extend irregularly three-dimensionally form an outer region that extends outwardly from the bundle remnant portion and the bundle remnant portion comprises a higher density of fibers than the outer region, as taught by Demir, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). Evans teaches varying the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes, and Demir teaches the jet orifice pressures are a result effective variable that determines the bundle linear density and instability (see Figure 4 of Demir). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the jet orifice pressures to establish various configurations for the plurality of fibers of the bundle including fibers that extend irregularly three-dimensionally form an outer region that extends outwardly from the bundle remnant portion and the bundle remnant portion comprising a higher density of fibers than the outer region.
Regarding claim 65, Evans modified with Minehardt and Demir teaches the method according to claim 62.
Further, Demier teaches wherein disrupting the longitudinal arrangement of at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle comprises disrupting the longitudinal arrangement of all of the plurality of fibers of the bundle such that none of the plurality of fibers remain longitudinally arranged together (see annotated Figure 5 below).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes of Evans modified with Minehardt such that in at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle none of the plurality of fibers remain longitudinally arranged together, as taught by Demir, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). Evans teaches varying the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes, and Demir teaches the overfeed related to the stream densities are a result effective variable that determines the bundle linear density and instability (see Figure 5 of Demir). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the jet orifice pressures to establish various configurations for the plurality of fibers of the bundle including at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle having none of the plurality of fibers remain longitudinally arranged together.
PNG
media_image2.png
872
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 66, Evans modified with Minehardt and Demir teaches the method according to claim 65.
Further, Demir teaches wherein disrupting the longitudinal arrangement of all of the plurality of fibers of the bundle forms at least one inner relatively densely populated three-dimensional region of fibers, and an outer relatively less densely population region of fibers extending three-dimensionally outwardly from the at least one inner relatively densely populated region (see annotated Figure 5 in the rejection of claim 65 above).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes of Evans modified with Minehardt such that least the plurality of fibers of the bundle forms at least one inner relatively densely populated three-dimensional region of fibers, and an outer relatively less densely population region of fibers extending three-dimensionally outwardly from the at least one inner relatively densely populated region, as taught by Demir, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). Evans teaches varying the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes, and Demir teaches the overfeed related to the stream densities are a result effective variable that determines the bundle linear density and instability (see Figure 5 of Demir). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the jet orifice pressures to establish various configurations for the plurality of fibers of the bundle including at least some of the plurality of fibers of the bundle forming at least one inner relatively densely populated three-dimensional region of fibers, and an outer relatively less densely population region of fibers extending three-dimensionally outwardly from the at least one inner relatively densely populated region.
Regarding claim 70, Evans modified with Minehardt teaches the method according to claim 62.
Further, Evans teaches wherein the discrete bundle is obtained from filament yarn, and is a bundle comprising a plurality of fibers having a denier of 1.5 and a length of 38.1 mm (see col 48 line 50-57; 1.5 inches converts to 38.1 mm), the plurality of fibers being longitudinally arranged together, said fibers having a mingled nip portion wherein the plurality of fibers are entangled with each other col 2 line 63-69).
Further, Minehardt teaches the bundle comprises a plurality of 600-1,200 fibers ([0012] In some embodiments, the floccules may each include a total number of individual fibers within the range of about 600 total fibers to about 1,200 total fibers), and the rejection of claim 62 above established that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the number of fibers in the bundle of Evans be 600-1,200 fibers, as taught by Minehardt, to achieve the predictable result of forming at least one discrete fiberfill cluster.
Further, Demir teaches disrupting the longitudinal arrangement disrupts the plurality of fibers adjacent to a mingled nip portion, thereby forming at least one outer region of fibers extending three-dimensionally outwardly from the mingled nip portion, wherein, following said disrupting, the plurality of fibers are randomly and non-uniformly oriented with respect to one another, and the mingled nip portion, which corresponds to a bundle remnant portion of the plurality of fibers, has a higher density of fibers than the at least one outer region (see annotated Figure 5 below).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes of Evans modified with Minehardt such that at least one outer region of fibers extend three-dimensionally outwardly from a mingled nip portion, and following said disrupting the plurality of fibers are randomly and non-uniformly oriented with respect to one another, and the mingled nip portion, which corresponds to a bundle remnant portion of the plurality of fibers, has a higher density of fibers than the at least one outer region, as taught by Demir, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). Evans teaches varying the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes, and Demir teaches the overfeed related to the stream densities are a result effective variable that determines the bundle linear density and instability (see Figure 5 of Demir). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the jet orifice pressures to establish various configurations for the plurality of fibers of the bundle including a mingled nip portion that has a higher density of fibers than an at least one outer region.
PNG
media_image3.png
872
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 72, Evans modified with Minehardt and Demir teaches the method according to claim 70.
Further, Evans teaches the fibers within the cluster are randomly entangled with each other (col 2 line 64-69) and that the fibers are locked into place by physical fiber interactions (col 3 line 17-34).
Further, Demir teaches the plurality of fibers forming the fiberfill cluster are from a segment of intermingled filament yarn, and the mingled nip portion of the cluster corresponds to a mingled nip portion of the intermingled filament yarn; and
the plurality of fibers in the mingled nip portion extend non-linearly along their longitudinal length (see annotated Figure 5 in the rejection of claim 71 above).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes of Evans modified with Minehardt such that the mingled nip portion of the cluster corresponds to a mingled nip portion of the intermingled filament yarn and the plurality of fibers in the mingled nip portion extend non-linearly along their longitudinal length, as taught by Demir, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). Evans teaches varying the jet orifice pressures, stream densities, and energy fluxes, and Demir teaches the overfeed related to the stream densities are a result effective variable that determines the bundle linear density and instability (see Figure 5 of Demir). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the jet orifice pressures to establish various configurations for the plurality of fibers of the bundle including the plurality of fibers in the mingled nip portion extend non-linearly along their longitudinal length.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights