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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bory (US 4248577 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bory discloses a spinneret made up of a rigid supporting plate pierced with holes designed for the passage therethrough of the spinning material, each of said holes (which corresponds to the closed inner surface of claim 1) being coaxially associated with one individual spinneret and having at least a zone, the cross sectional area of which is less than the surface of each individual spinneret; and that the spinneret may be used for all types of spinning processes, i.e., melt, semi-melt, solution spinning, etc (column 1, lines 11-52; claims 1-12; figures 1-27; column 2, lines 4-10; column 3, line 28 - column 4, line 4; column 3, line 63 - column 4, line 8).
Bory further discloses that pierced orifices may have any desired shape (col.3, ll15-20, col.4, ll1-8) and that the spinneret is made up of a rigid supporting plate pierced with holes designed for the passage therethrough of the spinning material, each of said holes being coaxially associated with one individual spinneret (col.2, ll4-10) and having at least a zone, the cross sectional area of which is less than the surface of each individual spinneret where the relation between the total piercing area and the total surface of the assembly varies between 30% and 90%, preferably between 55% and 75% (col.2, ll17-24). By "total piercing area" is meant the sum of the areas pierced on every individual spinneret which corresponds to the surface delimited or defined by a perimeter passing through the axes of the outer orifices of every individual spinneret (col.2, ll17-24). The relation between the total surface of holes and the total surface of the assembly varies between 0.5% and 40%, and preferably between 2% and 4% for orifices ≤ 0.12 mm in diameter and between 8% and 16% for orifices >0.12 mm in diameter (col.2, ll31-40). The spinneret of Bory discloses "holder" 2, which corresponds to the tube of claim 1 and whose shape may be round or polygonal, for example, triangular, square, rectangular or hexagonal in shape, the polygonal shape corresponding to a possible maximum piercing (col.3, ll14-31). Pierced orifices may have any desired shape such as circular, polygonal, multilobal, or Y, X, T, L, I, etc., shape, and be of different shapes on the same individual spinneret or from one individual spinneret to another (col.4, ll 5-9). The first area of extension is understood to mean the area of the closed inner surface extending along the machine direction longitudinal axis and the second area of extension is understood to mean the cross-sectional plane perpendicular to this.
From the above cited passages, it may be assumed that the pierced area, of Bory, i.e. the hole area (corresponding to the closed inner surface of claim 1) of each individual
spinneret occupies less than 90% of the cross-sectional plane of the surface of the
spinneret.
Therefore, the teachings of Bory meet the limitations of a tube for a multirow coaxial melt-blown system, defining a development axis and comprising at least one closed inner surface that extends around said development axis and defines a plurality of mutually identical profiles arranged one after the other along said development axis;
-said profile being defined on a sectional plane perpendicular to said developmental axis, defining a first extension area on said sectional plane, and being inscribable in a circle defined on said sectional plane and defining a second extension area on said sectional plane;
-said tube being characterized in that said first extension area is less than 90% of said second extension area.
Regarding claim 11, Bory teaches a pack of tubes for a multirow coaxial melt-blown system, comprising at least one tube according to claim 1 (assembly of spinnerets, col.1, ll 1-12).
Regarding claims 12-13, Bory teaches the pack of tubes according to claim 11, comprising a plurality of said tubes all defining one and the same profile or all defining mutually different profiles (col.4,ll5-8).
Regarding claim 14, Bory teaches the pack of tubes according to claim 11, comprising a plurality of said tubes and a plurality of tubes each defining a circular profile (col.4, ll5-6).
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.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bory (US 4248577 A) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Bory appears to teach said first extension area is less than 60% of said second extension area (fig.6-7) although it is not explicitly stated. However, if this were not the case, this would amount to a mere change in shape. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claims 3-10, Bory discloses that pierced orifices may have any desired shape (col.3, ll15-20, col.4, ll1-8) but is not specific to wherein said profile is convex and defines at least a first maximum dimension and a second maximum dimension perpendicular to said first dimension, wherein said second dimension is less than 90% of said first maximum dimension; said second dimension is less than 60% of said first dimension; said profile defines an approximately equilateral triangular shape or an approximately rectangular shape; said profile is concave and includes at least one convex portion identifiable within said profile, such that it is at least partially delimited by said profile, and defining at least a third maximum dimension and a fourth maximum dimension perpendicular to said third dimension, wherein said fourth dimension is less than 90% of said third maximum dimension; said fourth dimension is less than 60% of said third dimension; said profile is formed by two or more intersecting convex portions; said profile defines a cross shape having three to five pointed ends; at least one closed outer surface that extends around the inner surface and is connected to said inner surface via a wall so that said surfaces define opposite faces of said wall, said outer surface being cylindrical or shaped like said inner surface, thereby determining a constant thickness for said wall.
However, this amounts to a mere change in shape. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bory (US 4248577 A) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Jana (US 20160023392 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Bory teaches spinnerets and tubes but is not specific a multirow coaxial melt-blown system comprising a pack of tubes.
Jana, in the same field of endeavor, fiber production, teaches a multirow coaxial melt-blown system comprising a pack of tubes (P0122, fig. 23-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the spinneret assembly of Bory to a multirow coaxial melt-blown system as in Jana for the purpose of producing fibers with core and sheath morphologies as taught by Jana (P0122).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741