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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 04/22/2026. Currently claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 24-28, 30, 34-36, 45, 47, 50, and 61-62 are pending in the application.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 45, and 47, without traverse, drawn to a system, in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the ratio is a first ratio for the first spin station and a second ratio for the second spin station”, without defining it, and followed by a limitation, and it is unclear what is the purpose of the above recitation relating to the limitation, rendering it indefinite.
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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Cascio (WO 2020/123127 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Cascio”, in view of Hoyt et al. (CA 2 208 494 C), hereafter, referred to as “Hoyt”.
Regarding claim 1, Cascio teaches a system for producing a bundle of filaments ("filaments, strands and bundles of melt spun polymer filaments, and yarns and textile products comprising such, and methods to produce the same" p 1 In 10-12; "A process to provide a yam is shown in figure 1” p 11 In 6), the system comprising: N extruders (extruders such as 102, 103, Fig 1; "Alt least M extruders" p 1 In 33), wherein N is an integer greater than 1 (two extruders 102, 103, Fig 1), each extruder comprising a polymer having a color, hue, luster, and/or dyability characteristic, the colors, hues, lusters, and/or dyability characteristics of the polymers in the N extruders being different from each other (extruder 103 with dye pack 136 and extruder 102 with dye pack 116, Fig 1; p 11 In 21-25); and M spin stations (spinning stations 100a, 101a, 100b, 101b, Fig 1) for receiving molten polymer streams from the N extruders (receiving polymer from extruders 102, 103, Fig 1; p 8 In 18-21), wherein M is an integer of 1 or more (four spinning stations 100a, 101a 100b and 101 b, Fig 1 ), each spin station spinning N bundles of filaments that are combined into a yarn (turning into yarn 300a, 300b from bundles 200a, 200b, Fig 1 ), and each spin station comprising: N spinnerets through which a plurality of melt-spun filaments are spun from each of the N molten polymer streams received by the spin station (spinnerets 114a, 114b, 134a, 134b, Fig 1; "providing molten polymer to a spinneret 114a, 114b, 134a respectively 134b." p 11 In 11-15); and N spin pumps upstream of the N spinnerets (spin pumps 112a, 112b, 132a, 132b, Fig 1), wherein each spin pump is in fluid communication and is paired with one of the N extruders (pumps 112a and 112b receiving polymer from extruder 102 and pumps 132a and 132b with extruder 103, Fig 1; "said spin pumps receive molten polymer from the at least one extruder and spin a strand of filaments by pushing said polymer through said coupled spin pack" p 8 In 19-21); and a processor in electrical communication with the N*M spin pumps {controller 120, Fig 1; "The spinning device may comprise a control unit to control the spinning output of each of the spin pumps." p 8 In 11-12), the processor being configured to execute computer readable instructions that cause the processor to adjust a volumetric flow rate of the polymers pumped by each spin pump in each spin station to achieve a ratio of the polymers to be included in the yam that comprises the N bundles of filaments spun from the respective spin station ("A control device 120 controls, via the settings of the spin pumps 112a, 112b, 132a and 132b, how much volume of polymer is spun through the spinnerets 114a, 114b, 134a and 134b per time unit." p 11 In 26-28), wherein the volumetric flow rate extruded by each of the spin pumps in a respective one of the M spin stations is greater than zero and is variable such that flow of the polymer streams through the spinnerets of the respective spin station is continuous and supports continuous filament formation (“The two variations of pumps 112a and 132a are tuned to each other such that the total volume of polymer spun by the two spin pumps, remains substantially constant. The two variations of pumps 112b and 132b are tuned to each other such that the total volume of polymer spun by the two spin pumps, remains substantially constant. The two variations of pumps 112a and 112b are tuned to each other such that the total volume of polymer taken from extruder 102 remains substantially constant. The two variations of pumps 132a and 132b are tuned to each other such that the total volume of polymer taken from extrude 103, remains substantially constant” p 11 In 33 – p 12 ln 4) and wherein the volumetric flow rate of at least one pump in each spin station is variable ("whereby some or all the spin pump outputs of the spin pumps being varied over time such that for the group of N spinning stations, the sum of the spin pump outputs of the N spin pumps varies over time in a range of 5 percent v around the average sum of spin pump of this group of these N spinning stations" p 2 In 13-18) but is silent as to wherein the volumetric flow rate is variable by greater than ± 40 percent of a baseline volumetric flow rate, the baseline volumetric flow rate being equal to a total volumetric flow rate through the spin station divided by N. However, it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and design choices could have arrived at varying the volumetric flow rate by greater than ±40 percent of a baseline volumetric flow rate and accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the pump flow rates as claimed to ensure proper filaments being extruded and spun as desired.
But Cascio fails to explicitly teach that a first extruder of the N extruders is configured to extrude a first polymer selected from a group consisting of a polyamide, a polyester, and a polyolefin, and a second extruder is configured to extrude a second polymer selected from a group consisting of a polyamide, a polyester, and a polyolefin, wherein the first polymer and the second polymer are different. However, Hoyt teaches a novel bicomponent fibers useful as carpet face fibers have a polyamide domain co-melt-spun with a polyolefin domain. The preferred fibers are sheath-core bicomponent fibers having the polyamide domain as the sheath and the polyolefin domain as the core, wherein the carpet comprising a backing material and fibers formed from a yarn of bicomponent fibers made from polyamide and polyolefin, affixed in the backing material and bound thereto comprising a yarn of bicomponent fibers (abstract). Hoyt further teaches that the use of polyolefin in the core layer results in replacement by a non-polyamide material resulting in lower cost (p 1, ln 20-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Hoyt, and combine the feature of extruding a first polymer selected from a group consisting of a polyamide, a polyester, and a polyolefin, and a second extruder is configured to extrude a second polymer selected from a group consisting of a polyamide, a polyester, and a polyolefin, wherein the first polymer and the second polymer are different; because that would result in significant cost savings (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143). Since the references deal with manufacturing of filaments/yarns, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Cascio teaches a system, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine the volumetric flow rate of each polymer to be pumped by each spin pump and generate the instructions to the spin pumps based on the volumetric flow rate determinations ("A control device 120 controls, via the settings of the spin pumps 112a, 112b, 132a and 132b, how much volume of polymer is spun through the spinnerets 114a, 114b, 134a and 134b per time unit" p 11 In 26-28).
Regarding claim 3, Cascio teaches a system, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine an amount of time during which the determined volumetric flow rate of each polymer is pumped by each spin pump ("The output of the spin pumps, expressed as liters per minute, may be varied over time by multiple measures, such as increasing or decreasing the pump pressure over time" p 2 In 25-28; see Figure 2, wherein Figure 2 is a schematic view of the spin pump output of the pumps used in the method of figure 1; see also p 13, In 27-p 14, In 4; p 15, In 16-17).
Regarding claim 5, Cascio teaches a system, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to randomly vary the volumetric flow rate of each polymer to be pumped by each spin pump ("a control device 120 controls, via the settings of the spin pumps 112a, 112b, 132a and 132b, how much volume of polymer is spun through the spinnerets 114a, 114b, 134a and 134b per time unit. As shown in figure 1, the volume spun via spin pump 112a and 112b is stepwise but cyclically increased and decreased, the volume spun via spin pump 112a is alternatingly changed in comparison to the volume spun via spin pump 112b. In the meantime, and alternating with this variation in spun volume of pump 112a and 112b, the volume spun via spin pumps 132a and 132b are stepwise but also cyclically decreased and increased." p 11 In 26-p 12 In 4; see also p 4, In 15-20).
Regarding claim 6, Cascio teaches a system, wherein M is greater than 1 and the system comprises at least a first spin station and a second spin station, and wherein a sum of the volumetric flow rates extruded from each extruder by the spin pumps paired with the respective extruder varies 0 to ±5%; by teaching to provide a spinning device, wherein at least M extruders for melting M polymers, M>1 (p 1, last line); whereby some or all the spin pump outputs of the spin pumps being varied over time such that for each of the M groups of spinning stations, the sum of the spin pump outputs of the N spin pumps varies over time in a range of 5% v around the average sum of spin pump of this group of these N spinning stations.
Claims 8, 45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Cascio (WO 2020/123127 A1), in view of Hoyt et al. (CA 2 208 494 C), in view of Collins et al. (US Patent Number 5,250,245), hereafter, referred to as “Collins”.
Regarding claim 8, Cascio, in view of Hoyt teaches a system for producing a bundle of filaments. But the references fail to explicitly teach that the average denier of each yarn varies by +5% or less along a length of each yarn. However, Collins teaches a system and process that produces improved fine filaments of polyester. Collins teaches preparing spin-oriented polyester fine filaments, wherein, Dpf is the denier per filament of the spin-oriented polyester fine filament, preferably in the range of about 1 to about 0.2 dpf, more desirably in the range of about 0.8 to about 0.2 dpf, and especially in the range of about 0.6 to about 0.2 dpf; and desirably an average along-end denier spread (DS) less than about 4%, and preferably Jess than about 3%, and especially Jess than about 2% (col 4, ln 16-27); characterized by having excellent mechanical quality permitting yarns made from these filaments to be used in high speed textile processes, having excellent denier uniformity (as defined herein by along length denier spread, DS) permitting use in critically dyed fabrics (col 12, ln 59-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Collins, and combine the feature of average denier of each yarn varies by +5% or less along a length of each yarn, because that would allow excellent mechanical quality permitting yarns made from these filaments to be used in high-speed textile processes. Since the references deal with manufacturing of filaments/yarns, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 45, Cascio, in view of Hoyt teaches a system for producing a bundle of filaments. Hoyt teaches to use polyamide as the sheath and polyolefin or polyester as the core material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the first polymer is capable of absorbing an acid dye, wherein polyamide is considered as the first polymer, which is capable of absorbing an acid dye. Additionally, Hoyt also teaches use of polyester as the core material (p 2, ln 6), and when considered polyester as the second polymer, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the second polymer would be capable of absorbing a disperse dye, as polyesters exclusively relies on disperse dye to absorb color.
Regarding claim 47, Cascio, in view of Hoyt teaches a system for producing a bundle of filaments. Hoyt teaches to use polyamide as the sheath and polyolefin or polyester as the core material. Therefore, based on the use of polyamide and polyolefin/polyester, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the first polymer has a first luster type, the first luster type chosen from clear, bright, dull, semi-dull, extra dull, and super dull, wherein the second polymer has a second luster type, the second luster type chosen from clear, bright, dull, semi-dull, extra dull, and super dull, and wherein the first luster type and second luster type are different.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights