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 .
Claims 39-58 are pending.
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 39-40, 42-43, 48-51, and 54-58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,071,713 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the teaching by claim 6 of the ‘713 patent would encompass the claimed system including the number spin stations, the spin pumps, the processor and further regarding the pump rate varying by 40% and of the extruded thermoplastic varying 5% which are also taught in the listed claims.
Claim 39, claim 6 of the ‘713 patent encompasses the features.
Claim 40, the spin stations and yarns numbers are taught by claim 6 of ‘713 patent.
Claim 42, see the varying of the 5% taught by the ‘713 patent.
Claim 43, drawing the bundle of filaments are taught by claim 6 of ‘713 patent.
Claims 48 concerning varying pump by 40%.
Claims 49 concerns the spin stations including bundle filaments into yarn such that N yarns are produced, which is taught by claim 6 the ‘713 patent.
Claims 50-51, see varying of the 5%.
Claim 54 is taught by claim 6 of ‘713 patent.
Claims 55 includes about spin pump being varied greater than 40%.
Claims 56-58 concerns controlling the spin pump/station with the varying about 5%.
Claims 41, and 46-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,071,713 B2 in view of KALIES (US 2010/0297442 A1).
Re: 41, 46, 47 regarding the time interval operations, the ‘713 patent does not teach of this additional feature. However, in the spinning arts, the control program for controlling and adjusting the time intervals of the pump drives are known as seen in KALIES, see [0054].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of the ‘713 patent with the control program as taught by KALIES for adjusting and thereby advantageously produce continuous patterns.
Claims 44-45, and 52-53 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,071,713 B2 in view of CHUAH (US 6113825 A) and LAWRENCE (US 2005/0106391 A1).
Re: 44, 45, and 52-53 of the tacking and texturizing devices, the ‘713 patent does not teach of the tacking and texturizing devices.
However, as seen in CHUAH that teaches of filament yarn being spun and includes the filaments being spun in to yarn, drawing the yarn at a draw ratio, and further texturizing the drawn yarn, see abstract. And further in LAWRENCE, regarding the teaching of thermally tacking the fibres and filaments together by various means, for bonding the fibres to form a fibrous web or filaments laid into web of loops., see [0028].
Here, these are known devices used in the processing of the spun filaments within a system. The application of these additional devices as part of the processing are known in the art. Wherein, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the claimed device of the ‘713 patent with the additional tacking, drawing, and texturizer as taught in CHUAH and LAWRENCE in order to provide further processing upon the filaments in the production process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744