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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/13/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “the thickness” should be changed to --a thickness--.
Claim 1, “the length” should be changed to --a length--.
Claim 1, “said first curtain of monocomponent filaments” should be changed to --said first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments--.
Claim 1, “said second curtain of monocomponent filaments” should be changed to --said second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments--.
Claim 1, “reducing their diameter;” should be changed to --reducing their diameter; and--.
Claim 2, “the width of the extrusion region” should be changed to --a width of the extrusion region--.
Claim 6, “at the interface” should be changed to --at an interface--.
Claim 6, “the inward edge” should be changed to --an inward edge--.
Claim 11, “fully along the length” should be changed to --fully along a length--.
Claim 11, “the existing interface” should be changed to --the first interface--.
Claim 11, “directing a first flow of quench air directly onto said first curtain of monocomponent filaments and at least partially solidifying the first curtain of monocomponent filaments and further wherein said first flow of quench air continues past said first curtain of filaments onto said second curtain of filaments at least partially solidifying said second curtain of filaments” should be changed to --directing a first flow of quench air directly onto said first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments and at least partially solidifying the first curtain of molten monocomponent filaments and further wherein said first flow of quench air continues past said first curtain of at least partially solidified monocomponent filaments onto said second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments at least partially solidifying said second curtain of molten monocomponent filaments--.
Claim 11, “reducing their diameter;” should be changed to --reducing their diameter; and--.
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) 1-22 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 limitation “pneumatically drawing the quenched monocomponent filaments” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the term “the quenched monocomponent filaments” is referring to the first curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments, the second curtain of quenched monocomponent filaments, or both (i.e. all quenched monocomponent filaments). The limitation has been examined below as if the limitation read --pneumatically drawing the first and second curtains of quenched monocomponent filaments--.
Claim(s) 2-10 and 21 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "20-80%, 25-75%, 35-65% or 40-55% of the extrusion region" which is indefinite. A broad range (i.e., 20-80%) together with a narrow range (i.e., 25-75%, 35-65% or 40-55%) that falls within the broad range in the same claim is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claims 4-5, 8, 11, 17, and 19 recite the term “about” which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “each of the existing interface between the first, second and third streams is maintained” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the existing interface between the first, second and third streams” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if the limitation read --an interface between the second and third streams is maintained--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “pneumatically drawing the monocomponent filaments” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the term “the monocomponent filaments” is referring to the molten monocomponent filaments or to the at least partially solidified monocomponent filaments. It is also unclear if the term “the monocomponent filaments” is referring to the first curtain of monocomponent filaments, the second curtain of monocomponent filaments, or both (i.e., all molten monocomponent filaments or all partially solidified monocomponent filaments). The limitation has been examined below as if the limitation read --pneumatically drawing the first and second curtains of at least partially solidified monocomponent filaments--.
Claim(s) 12-20 and 22 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Fare’ (US 20100099321) is regarded as the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Fare’ 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 only 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 only 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 only 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 only 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).
Fare’ differs from independent claim 1 in that Fare’ fails to disclose or suggest that 1) the first and second streams are molten propylene polymer streams and 2) the second temperature of the second molten propylene polymer stream is lower than the first temperature of the first molten propylene polymer stream.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of making non-woven webs (Fig. 1), Conrad (US 20170306536) discloses that propylene polymer is a suitable/desirable material for a non-woven web comprising monocomponent filaments (P0024, 0028-0029, 0032).
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 Fare’ in view of Conrad by using molten propylene as the polymer for the first and second streams for the benefit(s) of using a well-known suitable polymer in the art and making desirable propylene nonwoven web comprising monocomponent/propylene filaments.
The combination fails to disclose or suggest the limitation “the second temperature of the second molten propylene polymer stream is lower than the first temperature of the first molten propylene polymer stream”.
Yu (US 4619803) discloses the technique of directing a first stream of molten polymer (50) having a first temperature into a region (edge region) adjacent of the first side (left side) of the spinneret and directing a second stream of molten polymer (60) having a second temperature into a region (opposed edge region) distal to the first side of the spinneret, wherein the second temperature is lower than the first temperature (C3, L7-62, Fig. 2). However, the molten polymer streams in Yu are combined in the spinneret (C3, L7-62, Fig. 2). Thus, Yu teaches away from forming curtains of molten monocomponent filaments from the streams. As a result, Yu is not deemed combinable with Fare’.
Thus, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest the limitation “the second temperature of the second molten propylene polymer stream is lower than the first temperature of the first molten propylene polymer stream” in combination with the other limitations as claimed. Examiner did not find any motivation to modify the method of Fare’ to arrive at the claimed invention as the required modification will complicate the method of Fare’ of producing monocomponent filaments without a predictable benefit. No other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combining to render the claimed invention obvious. Furthermore, according to [0014], the claimed temperature difference of the molten propylene polymer stream in combination the other claimed limitations yield the benefit(s) of achieving a more uniform frost line across all of the extruded monocomponent filaments. Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 21 are deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, Fare’ (US 20100099321) is regarded as the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Fare’ discloses a method of making nonwoven webs (P0001, Fig. 1), comprising:
providing a first stream (5’) of molten polymer having a first temperature (P0038, Fig. 1);
providing a second stream (5) of molten polymer having a second temperature (P0038, Fig. 1)…;
directing the first and second streams into a common conduit (3) wherein the first and second streams are adjacent one another and form at least a first interface with one another (P0038, Fig. 1);
directing the adjacent first and second streams into a distributor (directing the streams into channels for distribution not shown from the pump to the holes of the spinneret) and spreading each of the adjacent first and second polymer streams over an expanded area and wherein the existing interface between the first and second streams is maintained (P0038, Fig. 1);
providing a spinneret (2) in fluid communication with the distributor (P0038, Fig. 1), said spinneret having an upper surface, lower surface, and first and second lengthwise sides (upper, lower, and left and right sides of 2: P0037, Fig. 1, Fig. 3), and further wherein the spinneret includes a pattern of conduits extending from the upper surface to the lower surface (P0042, and Fig. 1a, Fig. 3) and further wherein the conduits form an extrusion region formed by a first extrusion line adjacent the first lengthwise side and a second extrusion line adjacent the second lengthwise side (Fig. 1a, Fig. 3),
directing the first polymer stream into the conduits located within a first zone (7) of the spinneret, the first zone extending adjacent the first lengthwise side and fully along the length of the extrusion region and extending inwardly from the first extrusion line so as to encompass between 20-80% of the conduits in the spinneret (P0042, Fig. 1a, Fig. 3), 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 having a third temperature (P0042, Fig. 1, Fig. 3);
directing the second molten polymer stream into the conduits located within a second zone (8) of the spinneret, the second zone being distal to the first lengthwise side and wherein the first zone completely separates the second zone and the first lengthwise side and further wherein the second zone extends along the length of the extrusion region and extends along a width of the extrusion region so as to encompass between 20-90% of the conduits in the spinneret (P0042, Fig. 1, Fig. 3), 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 having a fourth temperature (P0042, Fig. 1, Fig. 3),
directing a first flow of quench air (directing depicted Y flow of cooling air entering the left side of cooling chamber 10) directly onto said first curtain of monocomponent filaments and at least partially solidifying the first curtain of monocomponent filaments and further wherein said first flow of quench air continues past said first curtain of filaments onto said second curtain of filaments at least partially solidifying said second curtain of filaments (P0045-0048, Figs. 1-1A);
pneumatically drawing the 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).
Fare’ differs from independent claim 11 in that Fare’ fails to disclose or suggest that 1) the second temperature of the second polymer stream is at least 5 °C lower than the first temperature of the first polymer stream, and 2) the fourth temperature is lower than the third temperature.
Yu (US 4619803) discloses the technique of directing a first stream of molten polymer (50) having a first temperature into a region (edge region) adjacent of the first side (left side) of the spinneret and directing a second stream of molten polymer (60) having a second temperature into a region (opposed edge region) distal to the first side of the spinneret, wherein the second temperature is lower than the first temperature (C3, L7-62, Fig. 2). However, the molten polymer streams in Yu are combined in the spinneret (C3, L7-62, Fig. 2). Thus, Yu teaches away from forming curtains of molten monocomponent filaments from the molten streams. As a result, Yu is not deemed combinable with Fare’.
Thus, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest the limitations
“the second temperature (of the second polymer stream) is at least 5 °C lower than the first temperature (of the first polymer stream)”, and 2) “said fourth temperature is lower than said third temperature” in combination with the other limitations as claimed. Examiner did not find any motivation to modify the method of Fare’ to arrive at the claimed invention as the required modification will complicate the method of Fare’ of producing monocomponent filaments without a predictable benefit. No other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combining to render the claimed invention obvious. Furthermore, according to [0014], the claimed temperature differences of the stream in combination the other claimed limitations yield the benefit(s) of achieving a more uniform frost line across all of the extruded monocomponent filaments. Accordingly, claims 11-20 and 22 are deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-22 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12037713. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
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