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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 18-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al., (US 6,406,650) in view of in view of either Hahm et al. (US 9,333,721) or Kalies et al. (US 2010/0297442).
The patent issued to Gross et al., teaches a spinning apparatus for producing a plurality of yarns, wherein the yarns are produced by combining a plurality of filament bundles. The spinning apparatus includes a plurality of extruders for producing a plurality of melt flows, which are distributed by a plurality of distributor pumps to at least two spinning positions that are arranged side by side. Each of the spinning positions includes a plurality of spinnerets, which extrude a partial flow from a distributor pump to a filament bundle. Also, the spinning positions are arranged so that at least one filament bundle of one spinning position can be combined to a yarn with at least one filament bundle of an adjacent spinning position (abstract). Though, Gross et al., does not expressly teach the length of the filaments the Examiner is of the position that it would be within a worker skilled in the art to produce filaments with a suitable length and diameter as a matter of intended final use. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA) Regarding the claimed M filaments, the Examiner is of the position that the spinning apparatus comprising a plurality of spinnerets for producing a plurality of yarns meets the limitations directed to M filaments. Regarding the multi-colored limitations, Gross et al., teaches in the background of the invention that the plurality of filaments can be colored/dyed. The known apparatus, an extruder produces a corresponding melt flow for each color. For each color, the spinning position produces one filament bundle, with all filament bundles being combined to the multicolored yarn (column 1, 10-30 and 45-50, column 3, 5-10 , column 6, 20-30 and column 7, 10-25). Regarding the claimed polymer, Gross et al., teaches the claimed polyamide, polyester or polyolefin (column 7, 55-60). Regarding, the claimed uniform crystallinity, the Examiner is of the position that absent evidence to the contrary it is expected that the polymer filaments of Gross et al., would exhibit uniform crystallinity along the length of the filament. [I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) Regarding the entangling and crimp limitations, Gross et al., teaches treatment stations are designed and constructed as texturing nozzles, so that it is possible to produce a crimped yarn. It is also possible to combine the filament bundles within the treatment station by an entanglement nozzle. To produce a crimp in the yarn, the filament bundles are textured before they enter the entanglement nozzles (column 3, 35-40). The Examiner is of the position that the cited prior art of Gross et al., teach the structural and chemical features of the claimed multi-colored yarns/bundles.
Gross et al., does not expressly teach the claimed first and second titer limitations or the claimed variation between the titers.
However, each of Hahm et al., and Kalies et al., is believed to address output as such. See, for example, Hahm's similar fig. 1 provision of extruders 111-113 feeding spinning devices 131-132, whereby the discharge rate of extruder pumps may be controlled so as to provide either the same or different discharge rates so as to control material thickness (see at least 6:50-57), in addition to providing selective control to individual spinning nozzles as well (see at least 7:66-8:4). See also the Kalies disclosure of a fig. 1 apparatus closely resembling that of Gross, whereby pump drives 7.1-7.3 may be controlled individually and whereby the conveying amount for at least individual polymer melt streams is increased or reduced so as to control or customize color effects of the resulting product (see at least [0018], [0028], and [0042]), and/or whereby a total conveying amount is either kept constant [0029] (i.e. 0% variation) or is prevented from being exceeded [0052] (i.e. negative variation, if any). [I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from either Hahm et al., or Kalies et al., into Gross et al., as providing motivation to vary or otherwise control individual or collective pump outputs based on the impact this would have had on thickness and/or color effects (or appearance) of the Gross product and/or individual filaments, strands, yarns and/or bundles thereof.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights