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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 06/09/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all the objections. However, Applicant's amendments to the claims have introduced new claim objections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) have overcome the claim rejections. However, Applicant's amendments to the claims have introduced new 112(b) rejections set forth below.
With respect to the double patenting claim rejection(s), Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “at least partially solidified; pneumatically drawing” should be changed to --at least partially solidified; and pneumatically drawing--.
Claim 11, “providing a second stream of molten polymer having a second temperature and wherein the second temperature is at least 50C lower than the first temperature wherein the first and second streams of molten polymers have different amounts of secondary components or additives” should be changed to --providing a second stream of molten polymer having a second temperature, [[and]] wherein the second temperature is at least 50C lower than the first temperature, and wherein the first and second streams of molten polymers have different amounts of secondary components or additives--.
Claim 11, “at least partially solidifying said second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments; pneumatically drawing” should be changed to --at least partially solidifying said second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments; and pneumatically drawing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-20 is/are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the first and second streams of molten propylene polymers have different amounts of secondary components” and “extruding the first stream of molten propylene polymer through the exit openings in a first zone of the spinneret thereby forming a first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. The first limitation contradicts the second limitation. The term “secondary components” is disclosed as encompassing thermoplastic polymers different from the main/propylene polymer/component ([0067] of Applicant’s published application). It is unclear how the first stream of molten propylene polymer can form molten monocomponent filaments when it comprises amounts of secondary components because monocomponent filaments cannot comprise secondary/multiple components. The scope of the claim can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which Applicant no longer limits the claims to monocomponent filaments. Under that interpretation, references applied to the parent application (See prosecution history in the parent Application including Applicant’s arguments about the term “monocomponent” and previously applied references disclosing bicomponent/multicomponent filaments) or new references may become available as prior art. For at least the reasons set forth above, Examiner cannot reasonably apprise the intended scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between claim 1 and the prior art at this time.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the first and second streams of molten propylene polymers have different amounts of secondary components” and “extruding the second stream of molten propylene polymer through the exit openings of a second zone thereby forming a second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. The first limitation contradicts the second limitation. The term “secondary components” is disclosed as encompassing thermoplastic polymers different from the main/propylene polymer/component ([0067] of Applicant’s published application). It is unclear how the second stream of molten propylene polymer can form molten monocomponent filaments when it comprises amounts of secondary components because monocomponent filaments cannot comprise secondary/multiple components/polymers. The scope of the claim can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which Applicant no longer limits the claims to monocomponent filaments. For at least the reasons set forth above, Examiner cannot reasonably apprise the intended scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between claim 1 and the prior art of record at this time.
Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “wherein the first and second streams of molten polymers have different amounts of secondary components” and “extruding the first polymer stream through and out of the conduits in the first zone thereby forming a first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. The first limitation contradicts the second limitation. The term “secondary components” is disclosed as encompassing thermoplastic polymers different from the main/propylene polymer/component ([0067] of Applicant’s published application). It is unclear how the first stream of molten polymer can form molten monocomponent filaments when it comprises amounts of secondary components because monocomponent filaments cannot comprise secondary/multiple components. The scope of the claim can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which Applicant no longer limits the claims to monocomponent filaments. Under that interpretation, references applied to the parent application or new references may become available as prior art. For at least the reasons set forth above, the Examiner cannot reasonably apprise the intended scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between claim 11 and the prior art at this time.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “wherein the first and second streams of molten polymers have different amounts of secondary components” and “extruding the second polymer stream through and out of the conduits in the second zone thereby forming a second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. The first limitation contradicts the second limitation. The term “secondary components” is disclosed as encompassing thermoplastic polymers different from the main/propylene polymer/component ([0067] of Applicant’s published application). It is unclear how the second stream of molten polymer can form molten monocomponent filaments when it comprises amounts of secondary components because monocomponent filaments cannot comprise secondary/multiple components. The scope of the claim can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which Applicant does not wish to limit the claims to monocomponent filaments. Under that interpretation, references applied to the parent application may become available as prior art. For at least the reasons set forth above, Examiner cannot reasonably apprise the intended scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between claim 11 and the prior art of record at this time.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 11 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Notes
Claims 1-20 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the Examiner cannot reasonably apprise the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claims and the prior art due to the 112 (b) issues explained above.
With respect to the indication of allowable subject matter in the previous Office action, Examiner withdraws the indication of allowable subject matter in view of Barbier (US 6164950 – of record) who teaches the allowable subject matter and the newly added limitation (see discussion below) and was provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 03/12/2026 filed. Examiner also withdraws the indication of allowable subject matter in view of Applicant’s claim amendments broadening the scope of the claims and introducing the new 112(b) issues explained above.
Prior art made of Record
Barbier (US 6164950 – of record) discloses a method for producing non-woven webs comprising:
providing a spinneret (1) having an upper surface, lower surface, and opposed first and second sides (Figs. 1a and 2a), wherein the spinneret includes a pattern of conduits extending through a thickness of the spinneret (Figs. 1a and 2a), the pattern of conduits forming an extrusion region between the first and second sides (Figs. 1a and 2a), and further wherein the conduits have an intake opening on the upper surface and exit opening on the lower surface (Figs. 1a and 2a);
directing a first stream of molten … polymer having a first temperature (directing a molten stream of a matrix component polymer having a higher temperature) into a region (edge region) adjacent to the first side (left side) of the spinneret (Fig. 2a and accompanying text);
directing a second stream of molten … polymer having a second temperature (directing molten stream of a binding component polymer having a lower spinning temperature) into a region (opposite edge region) distal to the first side (distal to left side of 1) of the spinneret (Fig. 2a and accompanying text), wherein the second temperature is lower than the first temperature (C5, L47-60, Fig. 4b and accompanying text), wherein the first and second streams of molten … polymers have different amounts of secondary polymers (C5, L47-60),
extruding the first stream of molten … polymer through the exit openings (8) in a first zone of the spinneret (left zone of 1) thereby forming a first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments (molten monocomponent matrix filaments 3: C5, L47-60, Fig. 1a & 2a and accompanying text), the first zone extending a length of the extrusion region and extending inwardly from the extrusion region adjacent the first side having a width … (Fig. 2a);
extruding the second stream of molten … polymer through the exit openings (7) of a second zone of the spinneret (right zone of 1) thereby forming a second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments (molten monocomponent binding filaments 4: C5, L47-60, Fig. 1a & 2a and accompanying text), the second zone is distal to the first side with the first zone being between the second zone and the first side and further wherein the second zone extends the full length of the extrusion region and has a width … (Fig. 2a);
directing a first flow of quench air (2) directly onto said first curtain of monocomponent filaments (3) thereby forming a first curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments that are at least partially solidified, and further wherein said first flow of quench air continues past said first curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments onto said second curtain of monocomponent filaments (4) thereby forming a second curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments that are at least partially solidified (Fig. 1a and accompanying text).
Osaka (US 20030052432) discloses a method comprising:
providing a spinneret (4) having an upper surface, lower surface, and opposed first and second sides (Fig. 1), wherein the spinneret includes a pattern of conduits extending through a thickness of the spinneret (P0099, Fig. 1), the pattern of conduits forming an extrusion region between the first and second sides (P0099, Fig. 1), and further wherein the conduits have an intake opening on the upper surface and exit opening on the lower surface (P0099, Fig. 1);
directing a first stream of molten … polymer having a first temperature (molten polymer stream B from extruder 2B having a first/higher spinning temperature) into a region (edge region) adjacent to the first side (right side) of the spinneret (P0031, 0047-0051, 0090, 0099, claim 9, Fig. 1);
directing a second stream of molten … polymer having a second temperature (molten polymer stream A from extruder 2A having a second/lower spinning temperature) into a region (opposite edge region) distal to the first side (distal to right side of 4) of the spinneret (P0031, 0047-0051, 0090, claim 9, Fig. 1), wherein the second temperature is lower than the first temperature (P0031, 0039, claim 9; Fig. 1), wherein the first and second streams of molten … polymers have different amounts of secondary polymers or additives (compositions for A and B are disclosed as having different amounts of secondary polymers or additives: P0051, 0099, claim 9, Table 1, and Table 4);
extruding the first stream of molten … polymer through the exit openings in a first zone of the spinneret (right zone of 4) thereby forming a first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments (molten monocomponent filaments 5B: P0050, 0099, Fig. 1), …;
extruding the second stream of molten … polymer through the exit openings of a second zone of the spinneret (left zone of 4) thereby forming a second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments (molten monocomponent filaments 5A: P0050, 0099, Fig. 1), …; and
directing a first flow of quench air directly onto said first curtain of monocomponent filaments thereby forming a first curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments that are at least partially solidified, and further wherein said first flow of quench air continues past said first curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments onto said second curtain of monocomponent filaments thereby forming a second curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments that are at least partially solidified (P0042, 0051, Fig. 1) for the benefit(s) of producing monofilaments having different properties such as elongation (P0010, 0044).
Fare’ (US 20100099321 – of record) discloses a method of making nonwoven webs (P0001, Fig. 1), comprising:
providing a spinneret (2) having an upper surface, lower surface, and opposed first and second sides (upper, lower, and left and right sides of 2: P0037, Fig. 1), wherein the spinneret includes a pattern of conduits extending through a thickness of the spinneret (P0042, and Fig. 1a, Fig. 3; inherent/characteristic features of a spinneret in the art), the pattern of conduits forming an extrusion region between the first and second sides (P0042, and Fig. 1a, Fig. 3), and further wherein the conduits have an intake opening on the upper surface and exit opening on the lower surface (Fig. 1a);
directing a first stream of molten … polymer (5’) having a first temperature into a region adjacent to the first side (left side) of the spinneret (P0038, Figs. 1 and 3);
directing a second stream of molten … polymer (5) having a second temperature into a region distal to the first side (left side) of the spinneret (P0038, Figs. 1 and 3),
extruding the first stream of molten … polymer (5’) through the exit openings in a first zone (7) of the spinneret thereby forming a first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments (P0042, Fig. 1, Fig. 3), the first zone extending the length of the extrusion region and extending inwardly from the extrusion region adjacent the first side having a width of at least 3 cm (P0041-0042, Fig. 3);
extruding the second stream of molten … polymer (5) through the exit openings of a second zone (8) thereby forming a second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments (P0042, Fig. 1, Fig. 3), the second zone (8) is distal to the first side (left side) with the first zone (7) being between the second zone and the first side and further wherein the second zone extends the full length of the extrusion region and has a width of at least 3 cm (P0041-0042, Fig. 3);
directing a first flow of quench air (depicted Y flow of cooling air entering the left side of cooling chamber 10) directly onto said first curtain of monocomponent filaments thereby forming a first curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments that are at least partially solidified, and further wherein said first flow of quench air continues past said first curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments onto said second curtain of monocomponent filaments thereby forming a second curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments that are at least partially solidified (P0045-0048, Figs. 1-1A);
pneumatically drawing the quenched monocomponent filaments thereby reducing their diameter (P0070, Fig. 1); and
depositing the drawn monocomponent filaments onto a forming surface (28) thereby forming a nonwoven web (P0071-0072, Fig. 1, and Fig. 5).
Conrad (US 20170306536 – of record) discloses a relevant method including the step of pneumatically drawing the quenched monocomponent filaments thereby reducing their diameter (Fig. 1 and accompanying text). Conrad further discloses that propylene polymer is a suitable/desirable material for a non-woven web comprising monocomponent filaments (P0024, 0028-0029, 0032).
Bentley (US 20070216059) discloses the technique of adding different amounts of secondary components and/or additives/colorants to first and second streams of molten polymer for the benefit(s) of producing multicomponent filaments and/or filaments with slightly different compositions, colors/shades, properties, or flow rates (P0037-0038, Figs. 1-5).
Eaton (US 20110250378) discloses/suggests the technique of adding different amounts of secondary components and/or additives/pigments to first and second streams of molten polymer for the benefit(s) of producing multicomponent filaments or filaments with slightly different compositions, colors/shades, and properties (P0048-0050, Fig. 1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. US 12037713 in view of ordinary knowledge in the art and/or Bentley (US 20070216059).
Regarding instant claims 1-10, claims 1-10 of Patent ‘713 explicitly disclose all the steps/limitations of the instant claims except for “wherein the first and second streams of molten propylene polymers have different amounts of secondary components or additives”.
However, since claim 11 of Patent ‘713 recites that “each of the first and second streams of molten propylene polymer comprise a polymer composition consisting essential of the same composition”, claim 11 of Patent ‘713 implicitly discloses/suggests that the first and second streams of molten propylene polymers can have different amounts of additives.
As evinced by [0066] of Applicant’s published Application, it is well known in the art to add additives to polymer compositions to impart slightly different properties.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of making nonwoven webs, Bently discloses the technique of adding different amounts of secondary components and/or additives/colorants to first and second streams of molten propylene for the benefit(s) of producing multicomponent filaments and/or filaments with slightly different compositions, colors/shades, properties, or flow rates (P0037-0038, Figs. 1-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Patent ‘713 in view of ordinary knowledge in the art and/or Bentley by adding different amounts of secondary components or additives/colorants to the first and second streams of molten propylene polymers for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of producing multicomponent filaments or filaments with slightly different compositions, colors, properties, and/or flow rates as suggested by well-known knowledge in the art and/or Bently. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding instant claims 11-20, claims 12-21 of Patent ‘713 explicitly disclose all the steps/limitations of the instant claims except for “wherein the first and second streams of molten polymers have different amounts of secondary components or additives”.
However, since claim 22 of Patent ‘713 recites that “each of the first and second streams of molten polymer comprise a polymer composition consisting essential of the same composition”, claim 11 of Patent ‘713 implicitly discloses/suggests that the first and second streams of molten propylene polymers can have different amounts of additives.
As evinced by [0066] of Applicant’s published Application, it is well known in the art to add additives to polymer compositions to impart slightly different properties.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of making nonwoven webs, Bently discloses the technique of adding different amounts of secondary components and/or additives/colorants to first and second streams of molten polymer for the benefit(s) of producing multicomponent filaments and/or filaments with slightly different compositions, colors/shades, properties, or flow rates (P0037-0038, Figs. 1-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Patent ‘713 in view of ordinary knowledge in the art and/or Bentley by adding different amounts of secondary components or additives/colorants to the first and second streams of molten polymers for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of producing multicomponent filaments or filaments with slightly different compositions, colors, properties, and/or flow rates as suggested by well-known knowledge in the art and/or Bently. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 03/12/2026 prompted the withdrawal of the indication of allowable subject matter 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 JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights