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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract ranges over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC OR AS A TEXT FILE VIA THE OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (EFS-WEB).
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on compact disc or as a text file via the Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web.)
The specification is objected to as failing to appropriately arrange specification as provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b). Appropriate titles of the sections such as background of the invention (field of the invention, description of related art), brief summary of the invention, brief description of the several views of the drawings, and the detailed description of the invention should be properly arranged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “in [[the]] a form of polymeric filaments” (lines 7-8), “of said polymeric filaments” (line 12).
Claim 2 should be corrected to “[[a]] the same said first angle of inclination” (line 3).
Claim 13 should be corrected to “two or more said which are mutually crossed” (line 2).
Claim 15 should be corrected to “a same type of said outline” (line 2), “one or more of a circular type” (line 3)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-15 recite the claimed limitations with numeral symbols presented in Specification. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” See MPEP 2111.01 II. For the purpose of examination, the numeral symbols would NOT be considered to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim for further clarification of the recited limitations.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said second angle of inclination is opposite or additional to said first angle of inclination” (lines 2-3). The limitation would be interpreted as “said second angle of inclination is opposite to said first angle of inclination with respect to the vertical axis or additional to said first angle of inclination” according to Instant Specification (see fig. 1).
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.
Claims 1-15 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 preamble “for multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant” in lines 1-2. The underlined preamble is not clear as the claim further recites the limitation in lines 19-23 that “a first angle of inclination is different from a second angle of inclination.” Thus, acceleration conduits of a first row cannot be coaxial to acceleration conduits of a second row each other. For the purpose of examination, the preamble “coaxial” would not be considered.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “said first angle of inclination is comprised between 60° and 90°” (line 2). The verb “comprise” (“be comprised”) is open-ended. Thus, It is unclear whether the limitation means that (1) the angle is between 60° and 90°, or (2) the angle includes beyond between 60° and 90°. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “said first angle of inclination ranges between 60° and 90°.”
Claim 8, which is not dependent from claim 6 but only from claim 1, recites the limitation “said outline” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 8 would be interpreted as being dependent from claim 6.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “a third maximum dimension” and “a fourth maximum dimension” in line 4. It is unclear whether the limitations means that (1) there are a first and a second maximum dimensions which are larger than the third and the fourth dimensions, or (2) the third maximum is the largest dimension within said outline. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said mutually different outlines” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “two or more types of said outlines which are mutually different from each other.”
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schutt (US 20130295208 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schutt teaches spinneret (perforated plate 13) for multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant developing along a main axis and a main plane, defining a vertical axis perpendicular to said main axis and said main plane (abstract; figs. 1-4; [0036-0042]: perforated plate 13; figs. 4 and [0007, 0019, 0036]: multi-row melt-blown type plant with multiple rows of holes 19.1 and 19.2) and comprising:
a first end (an upper surface of the perforated plate 13) adapted to interface with a polymeric fluid distributor (a distributing chamber 5) of a multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant (figs. 1-4 and [0037]);
a second end (a lower surface of the perforated plate 13) arranged at a side of said spinneret opposite said first end with respect to said main plane at which said polymeric fluid exits from said spinneret in the form of polymeric filaments (figs. 1-3; [0042]; of note, the melt exits the perforated plate via the though bores 17 as a form of a polymeric filament); and
a plurality of acceleration conduits (through bore 17 in the perforated plate 13),
- extending from at least said first end to said second end each along its own dispensing axis (fig. 3),
- adapted to dispense each one a respective said polymeric filament along said dispensing axis ([0042]), and
- distributed both along a distribution axis (see the distribution axes 20.1 and 20.2 as shown in fig. 4, [0040]) transversal to said main axis and said vertical axis (fig. 4) in such a way as to create a first row (e.g. first row of holes 19.1; [0037]), and parallel to said main axis, creating at least a second row (e.g. second row of holes 19.2; [0037]) offset with respect to said first row along said main axis (fig. 4);
characterized in that:
- at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said first row defines a first angle of inclination with respect to said main plane other than 90° (fig. 3; [0049]), and
- at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said second row defines a second inclination angle with respect to said main plane different from said first inclination angle (fig. 3; [0038]; of note, the inclination angles α and β can have the same (still with different directions) or different values).
Regarding claim 2, Schutt teaches spinneret according to claim 1, wherein said dispensing axes of all said acceleration conduits of said first row and/or said second row respectively define a same said first angle of inclination and/or the same said second angle of inclination (figs. 2-4; [0037-0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Schutt teaches spinneret according to claim 1, wherein one or more of said second angles of inclination are equal to 90° (figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Schutt teaches spinneret according to claim 1, wherein said second angle of inclination is opposite or additional to said first angle of inclination (figs. 2-4, 7-9; [0037-0039]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutt (US 20130295208 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schutt teaches spinneret according to claim 1, wherein said first angle of inclination is comprised between 60° and 90° (figs. 2-4, 7-9; claim 7; here, the claimed range lies inside the disclosed range). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20090258099 A1) in view of Schutt (US 20130295208 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches spinneret (fig. 2 and [0036]: a die block/spinnerette assembly 26) for multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant (figs. 1, 13-18 and [0002]: the die block assembly can include various components for directing and distributing the aqueous solution and pressurized gas through a plurality of nozzles to form a plurality of molten filaments) developing along a main axis and a main plane, defining a vertical axis perpendicular to said main axis and said main plane and comprising:
a first end (an upstream end surface of a first member 42) adapted to interface with a polymeric fluid distributor (passageway 28) of a multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant (figs. 2-3 and [0042, 0044]);
a second end (a downstream end surface of an exterior plate 60) arranged at a side of said spinneret opposite said first end with respect to said main plane at which said polymeric fluid exits from said spinneret in the form of polymeric filaments (figs. 2-3, 5 and [0050]; [0085]: polymeric fibers); and
a plurality of acceleration conduits (hollow cylindrical tubes 46 forming nozzles 44)
- extending at least from said first end to said second end each along its own dispensing axis (figs. 2-3, 5; [0050]),
- adapted to dispense each one a respective said polymeric filament along said dispensing axis (figs. 13, 19; [0073-0074]) and
- distributed both along a distribution axis transverse to said main axis and said vertical axis in such a way as to create a first row, and parallel to said main axis, creating at least a second row offset with respect to said first row along said main axis (figs. 13-18).
Brown does not specifically teach that “at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said first row defines a first angle of inclination with respect to said main plane other than 90° and at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said second row defines a second angle of inclination with respect to said main plane different from said first angle of inclination.” However, Schutt teaches the limitation(s) as presented above (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 by Schutt).
In the same field of endeavor of a spinneret for spunbond and/or melt-blowing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the one or more acceleration conduits of first/second rows of Brown to be arranged/inclined with a different angle as taught by Schutt in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of uniformly distributing a plastic melt and a following formation of filaments along a desired production width with nozzle bores by redistributing the melt introduced into the acceleration conduits during dispensing (Schutt: derived from abstract, [0008]).
Regarding claims 2-5, modified Brown teaches the spinneret as recited in claims 2-5 (see above, the 102 or 103 rejection(s) of claims 2-5). The motivation to combine applied to claim 1 equally applies here.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20090258099 A1) and Schutt (US 20130295208 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Plomp (US 3,439,381).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Brown teaches spinneret according to claim 1, wherein one or more of said acceleration conduits comprises at least one closed inner surface (inner closed circular surface of the hollow cylindrical tubes 46), developing around said dispensing axis and defining a plurality of mutually identical outlines (i.e., inner circles) arranged in succession along said dispensing axis (Brown: figs. 2-3, 5; [0050]); wherein said outline is determined on a section plane normal to said dispensing axis (id.); wherein said outline defines a first extension area (i.e., circle) on said section plane (id.).
However, modified Brown does not specifically teach that wherein said outline is inscribable in a circle determined on said section plane; and wherein said circle defines a second extension area on said section plane; said first extension area being less than 90% (claim 6) or less than 60% (claim 7) of said second extension area.
Plomp teaches spinneret structure for manufacture of profiled filaments of various shaped cross section using a profiled spinning channel (abstract). Plomp teaches that one or more of said acceleration conduits comprises at least one closed inner surface (e.g., a triangular shape with rounded tips), developing around said dispensing axis and defining a plurality of mutually identical outlines arranged in succession along said dispensing axis (Plomp: figs. 3-4, 6-11); wherein said outline is determined on a section plane normal to said dispensing axis (id.); wherein said outline defines a first extension area (e.g., a triangular shape with rounded tips) on said section plane (id.), wherein said outline is inscribable in a circle determined on said section plane (id.); and wherein said circle defines a second extension area on said section plane (id.). Although Plomp does not explicitly discloses a specific ratio of said first extension area to said second extension area, the ratio would be at least less than 100%, for example, an almost equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle occupies about 40% of the area of the circle.
In the same field of endeavor of a spinneret for spunbond and/or melt-blowing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify one or more acceleration conduits of modified Brown to be modified to have a profiled spinning channel as taught by Plomp in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of manufacturing a profiled filaments having a specific cross-sectional profile so as to increase the surface area of the filaments or to improve interception efficiency for various applications of the filaments.
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Brown teaches spinneret according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein said outline is convex and defines at least a first maximum dimension and a second maximum dimension perpendicular to said first dimension and less than 90% of said first dimension (claim 8), wherein said second dimension is less than 60% of said first dimension (claim 9), wherein said outline defines an almost equilateral triangular or almost rectangular shape (claim 10).
Plomp teaches that said outline (e.g., a triangular shape with rounded tips) is convex (i.e., at the rounded tips) and defines at least a first maximum dimension and a second maximum dimension perpendicular to said first dimension and less than 90% of said first dimension, wherein said second dimension is less than 60% of said first dimension, wherein said outline defines an almost equilateral triangular or almost rectangular shape (Plomp: figs. 3-4, 6-11; of note, for example, in case of an almost equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle, the second maximum dimension is about 59% of the first maximum dimension (i.e., 1 divided by the square root of 3)).
Thus, modified Brown further in view of Plomp teaches all the claimed limitations, and the motivation to combine applied to claim 6 equally applies here.
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Brown teaches spinneret according to claim 6, wherein said outline (e.g., a triangular shape with rounded tips) is concave (i.e., in lateral side) and includes at least one convex portion (i.e., at the rounded tips) identifiable within said outline in such a way as to be delimited by at least part of said outline and defining at least a third maximum dimension and a fourth maximum dimension, perpendicular to said third dimension and less than 90% of said third dimension, wherein said fourth dimension is less than 60% of said third dimension (Plomp: figs. 3-4, 6-11; of note, for example, in case of an almost equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle, the fourth maximum dimension is about 59% of the third maximum dimension (i.e., 1 divided by the square root of 3)).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Brown teaches spinneret according to claim 11, wherein said outline is formed by two or more said mutually crossed convex portions, wherein said outline defines a cross shape having three to five tips (Plomp: figs. 3-4, 6-11; with three convex portions or tips).
Regarding claim 15, modified Brown teaches spinneret according to claim 14, comprises a plurality of said acceleration conduits all defining a same said outline, or said mutually different outlines and/or of which one or more of circular type (Brown: figs. 13-18; Plomp: figs. 3-4, 6-11).
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 1-8, 11, 13, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-15 of copending Application No. 19/207966 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claims 1 and 5 of Reference
1. Spinneret for multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant developing along a main axis and a main plane, defining a vertical axis perpendicular to said main axis and said main plane and comprising:
- a first end adapted to interface with a polymeric fluid distributor of a multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant;
- a second end arranged at a side of said spinneret opposite said first end with respect to said main plane at which said polymeric fluid exits from said spinneret in the form of polymeric filaments; and
- a plurality of acceleration conduits - extending at least from said first end to said second end each along its own dispensing axis,- adapted to dispense each one a respective said polymeric filament along said dispensing axis and
- distributed both along a distribution axis transverse to said main axis and said vertical axis in such a way as to create a first row, and parallel to said main axis, creating at least a second row offset with respect to said first row along said main axis;
characterized in that:
- at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said first row defines a first angle of inclination with respect to said main plane other than 90° and
- at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said second row defines a second angle of inclination with respect to said main plane different from said first angle of inclination.
1. Spinneret for multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown type plant developing along a main axis and a main plane, defining a vertical axis perpendicular to said main axis and said main plane and comprising:
- a plurality of acceleration conduits each extending along its own dispensing axis transverse to said main plane and each adapted to dispense a respective polymeric filament along said dispensing axis;
- a plate including:- first holes adapted to house said acceleration conduits, and- second holes separated with respect to the first holes and adapted to allow the passage of air or gas;
- a mask adjacent to said plate along said vertical axis, including a plurality of third holes centered with respect to said first holes, in fluid passage connection with said second holes and adapted to house part of said acceleration conduits and to allow, at the same time, the passage of said air or gas; and characterized in that - said second holes are distributed around at least part of said first holes and more than four in number, around each respective said first hole, and
- for each said first hole all said second holes are distributed around said first hole distributed exclusively along a circumference developing parallel to said main plane around a respective said first hole without touching any other said first hole.
5. Spinneret according claim 4,
wherein said plate defines a first end of said spinneret adapted to interface with a polymeric fluid distributor of a multi-row coaxial spunbond and/or melt-blown plant, said mask defines a second end of said spinneret arranged at a side of said spinneret opposite to said first end with respect to said main plane at which said polymeric fluid exits from said spinneret in the form of said polymeric filaments; and
said acceleration conduits are distributed both along a distribution axis transverse to said main axis and said vertical axis so as to make a first row, and parallel to said main axis, making at least a second row offset from said first row along said main axis; at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said first row defining a first angle of inclination with respect to said main plane other than 90°, and at least one of said dispensing axes of said acceleration conduits of said second row defining a second angle of inclination with respect to said main plane different from said first angle of inclination.
As presented above, the underlined limitations of Instant Application and Reference are substantially identical (the first/second ends of Reference are from said plate and said mask the second end, respectively). Thus, claim 1 of Instant Application merely broaden the scope of claims 1 and 5 of Reference by eliminating some elements and/or functions (e.g., a mask, holes for air/gas passage, or the limitations of claims 3 and 4 of Reference).
Claims 2-8, 11, 13, and 15 of Instant Application
Claims 6-15 of Reference
Each of claims 2-8, 11, 13, and 15 of Instant Specification is substantially identical to corresponding claims 6-15 of Reference.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cai (US 20210291425 A1) teaches a fluid-flow modification plate and extruder for forming a composite material (abstract, figs. 3-5).
Takagi (US 20170355123 A1) teaches a spinning die for melt-blowing having discharge ports and blowing ports (abstract, claim 1, figs. 1-7).
Haberer (US 20070134478 A1) teaches a device and a method for making a non-woven fabric (abstract, figs. 3-5).
Bansal (US 20040157522 A1) teaches an apparatus for making multicomponent melt-blown fibers (abstract, figs. 1-5).
Fish (US 20010014358 A1) teaches a die head assembly for melt-blowing a thermoplastic polymer fiber (abstract, figs. 4-5, 8-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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 (Sam) 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights