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 § 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 60, 64-66 and 70-72 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.
Claims 64-65 and 70-71 are replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
60. (Currently amended) The method of claim 59, wherein: the filaments spun from the at least one spinneret further include a third group of filaments, the third group of the filaments have a third color, hue, and/or dyability characteristic, wherein the third color, hue, and/or dyability characteristic is a mixture of the first color, hue, and/or dyability characteristic and the second color, hue, and/or dyability characteristic.
64. (Currently amended) The method of producing a yarn of claim 63, comprising:
measuring a volumetric flow rate for each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for each of the spin stations;
receiving the N streams of polymer melt by a second spin station of the M spin stations;
spinning at least one group of bundles of filaments from the N streams of received polymer melt by the second spin station.
65. (Currently amended) The method of producing a yarn of claim 64, comprising:
adjusting the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station of the M spin stations to achieve a first ratio of the N streams of polymer melt to be spun into the plurality of bundles of filaments; and
adjusting the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the second spin station of the M spin stations to achieve a second ratio of the N streams of polymer
melt to be spun into the at least one group of bundles of filaments by the second spin station.
70. (Currently amended) The method of producing a yarn of claim 67, comprising:
measuring a volumetric flow rate for each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for
each of the spin stations;
receiving the N streams of polymer melt by a second spin station of the M spin stations;
spinning at least one group of bundles of filaments from the N streams of received polymer melt by the second spin station.
71. (Currently amended) The method of producing a yarn of claim 70, comprising:
adjusting the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station of the M spin stations to achieve a first ratio of the N streams of polymer melt to be spun into the plurality of bundles of filaments; and
adjusting the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the second spin station of the M spin stations to achieve a second ratio of the N streams of polymer melt to be spun into the at least one group of bundles of filaments by the second spin station.
Claims not listed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
For further examination purposes, the scope of the claims are read in light of the suggested Examiner amendments.
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.
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(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) in view of Tietze et al. (US 6,736,624).
Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) disclose a method (fig. 2) of producing a yarn 24.1, comprising:
providing N extruders 1.1-1.3, wherein:
each extruder 1.1-1.3 is configured to extrude a stream of polymer melt 2.1-2.3, and
N is an integer greater than 1 (i.e., three extruders);
providing M spin stations 8.1-8.2, wherein:
each spin station 8.1-8.2 is configured to receive a portion of each stream 2.1-2.3 of polymer melt from each of the N extruders 1.1-1.3,
a first spin station 8.1 of the M spin stations is configured with a plurality of channels 7.1, 7.3, 7.5, and
M is an integer greater than 1 (i.e., two spin stations);
providing N spin pumps 4.1-4.3 for each of the M spin stations, wherein each spin pump of the N spin pumps for each of the M spin stations is fluidly connected to one of the N extruders, and fluidly connected to its respective spin station (fig. 2);
extruding N streams 2.1-2.3 of polymer melt, wherein each of the N streams of polymer melt is extruded from only one of the N extruders (fig. 2);
receiving the N streams of polymer melt by the first spin station 8.1 of the M spin stations (fig. 2);
wherein:
a first 2.1 of the N streams of the received polymer melt flows through a first channel 7.1 of the plurality of channels, and
a second 2.2 of the N streams of the received polymer melt flows through a second channel 7.3 of the plurality of channels;
spinning a plurality of bundles 10.1-10.6 of filaments, wherein:
a first bundle 10.1 of filaments is spun from the first 2.1 of the N streams of received polymer melt, and
a second bundle 10.2 of filaments is spun from the second 2.2 of the N streams of received
polymer melt;
texturing the first bundle 10.1 of filaments and the second bundle 10.2 of filaments wherein the first bundle 10.1 of filaments is textured separately from the second bundle 10.2 of filaments via separate texturing nozzles 23.1 and 23.2;
combining the first bundle 10.1 of filaments with the second bundle 10.2 of filaments (fig. 2; col. 3, line 63, to col. 6, line 34).
However, Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) does not disclose the first spin station being configured with a mixing plate comprising the plurality of channels.
Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) further disclose the first spin station 8.1 including spinnerets 9.1-9.3, wherein each channel respectively feeds one of the spinnerets (fig. 2).
Tietze et al. (US 6,736,624) disclose a spin station 1 including a plurality of spinnerets 3 and a mixing plate 12 comprising a plurality of channels 7, wherein each channel 7 respectively feeds one of the spinnerets 3 (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 40-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the first spin station of Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) with a mixing plate, as disclosed by Tietze et al. (US 6,736,624), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the spin station known to be operable in the art for feeding spinnerets.
Claim(s) 62-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) in view of Tietze et al. (US 6,736,624) as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442).
Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) further discloses the method wherein the first spin station 8.1 produces a multicolored yarn 24.1 wherein each extruder 1.1-1.3 extrudes a polymer melt flow of different color so that each received stream 7.1, 7.3, 7.5 of the first spin station 8.1 produces different colored bundles 10.1-10.3 which are combined into the multicolored yarn 24.1. However, Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) and Tietze et al. (US 6,736,624) do not disclose the limitations of claims 62-66.
Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442) disclose a method of making a multicolored yarn, wherein a spin station 3 receives streams 5.1-5.3 of polymer melt of different colors respectively from extruders 1.1-1.3 so that each received stream 5.1-5.3 of the spin station 3 is spun into a plurality of bundles 13.1-13.3 of filaments of different color which are combined into the multicolored yarn 14 (fig. 1, [0041]-[0044], wherein the method includes adjusting a volumetric flow rate of each of the received streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station 3 to achieve a ratio of the streams of polymer melt to be spun into the plurality of bundles of filaments ([0050]-[0055], pump drives 7.1-7.3 are adjusted to change the conveying amounts of the streams (i.e., to adjust a volumetric flow rate) to change the mass ratio of the bundles created during extrusion (i.e., to achieve a ratio of the streams spun into the bundles)).
As to claims 62-63, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method by adjusting the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station of the M spin stations to achieve a ratio of the N streams of polymer melt to be spun into the plurality of bundles of filaments, as disclosed by Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method capable of changing the mass ratio of the bundles created during spinning. As to measuring the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station of the M spin stations, Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442) further discloses a total conveying amount is controlled, such that if one conveying amount (i.e., volumetric flow rate) is increased then at least one of the other conveying amounts (i.e., volumetric flow rates) is decreased to that a total conveying amount is not exceeded. Thus, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to measure the volumetric flow rates of each of the streams (i.e., how much increased/how much decreased) in order to make sure the total conveying amount is not exceeded.
As to claims 64-65, while the combination above was to the first spin station 8.1, since Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) discloses a second spin station 8.2, it would have been further obvious to similarly modify the second spin station to enable changing the mass ratio of the bundles created during spinning by the second spin station.
As to claim 66, in view of the combination above and adjusting the mass ratios, there are only two possibilities for the mass ratios of the bundles created during spinning by the first and second spin station, either the ratios are the same or they are different. Thus, it would have been further obvious for the ratios to be different.
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) in view of Berger et al. (US 5,902,531).
Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) disclose a method (fig. 2) of producing a yarn 24.1, comprising:
providing N extruders 1.1-1.3, wherein:
each extruder 1.1-1.3 is configured to extrude a stream of polymer melt 2.1-2.3, and
N is an integer greater than 1 (i.e., three extruders);
providing M spin stations 8.1-8.2, wherein:
each spin station 8.1-8.2 is configured to receive a portion of each stream 2.1-2.3 of polymer melt from each of the N extruders 1.1-1.3,
a first spin station 8.1 of the M spin stations is provided, and
M is an integer greater than 1 (i.e., two spin stations);
providing N spin pumps 4.1-4.3 for each of the M spin stations, wherein each spin pump of the N spin pumps for each of the M spin stations is fluidly connected to one of the N extruders, and fluidly connected to its respective spin station (fig. 2);
extruding N streams 2.1-2.3 of polymer melt, wherein each of the N streams of polymer melt is extruded from only one of the N extruders (fig. 2);
receiving the N streams of polymer melt by the first spin station 8.1 of the M spin stations (fig. 2);
spinning at least M bundles 10.1-10.3 of filaments (fig. 2; col. 3, line 63, to col. 6, line 34).
However, Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) does not disclose the first spin station being configured with a manifold; wherein a first of the N streams of the received polymer melt flows into and mixes with a second of the N streams of the received polymer melt flows in the manifold; spinning at least M bundles of filaments after the first and second streams of the N streams of received polymer melt flows are mixed in the manifold.
Berger et al. (US 5,902,531) discloses a method (fig. 3) of making a yarn including providing extruders 1, 2; providing spin stations 24.1, 24.2, wherein each spin station receives a portion of each stream from the extruders 1, 2 (fig. 3), wherein a first spin station 24.1 is configured with a manifold 10,
wherein a first 23.1 of the streams of the received polymer melt flows into and mixes with a second 27.1 of the streams of the received polymer melt flows in the manifold; spinning bundles of filaments from spinnerets 9 after the first and second streams 23.1, 27.1 of the streams of received polymer melt flows are mixed in the manifold 10 (fig. 3; col. 3, line 33, to col. 4, line 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the method of Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) wherein the first spin station being configured with a manifold; wherein a first of the N streams of the received polymer melt flows into and mixes with a second of the N streams of the received polymer melt flows in the manifold; spinning at least M bundles of filaments after the first and second streams of the N streams of received polymer melt flows are mixed in the manifold, as disclosed by Berger et al. (US 5,902,531), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method known to be operable in the art for mixing received flows.
Claim(s) 68-72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) in view of Berger et al. (US 5,902,531) as applied to claim 67 above, and further in view of Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442).
Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) further discloses the method wherein the first spin station 8.1 produces a multicolored yarn 24.1 wherein each extruder 1.1-1.3 extrudes a polymer melt flow of different color so that each received stream 7.1, 7.3, 7.5 of the first spin station 8.1 produces different colored bundles 10.1-10.3 which are combined into the multicolored yarn 24.1. However, Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) and Berger et al. (US 5,902,531) do not disclose the limitations of claims 68-72.
Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442) disclose a method of making a multicolored yarn, wherein a spin station 3 receives streams 5.1-5.3 of polymer melt of different colors respectively from extruders 1.1-1.3 so that each received stream 5.1-5.3 of the spin station 3 is spun into a plurality of bundles 13.1-13.3 of filaments of different color which are combined into the multicolored yarn 14 (fig. 1, [0041]-[0044], wherein the method includes adjusting a volumetric flow rate of each of the received streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station 3 to achieve a ratio of the streams of polymer melt to be spun into the plurality of bundles of filaments ([0050]-[0055], pump drives 7.1-7.3 are adjusted to change the conveying amounts of the streams (i.e., to adjust a volumetric flow rate) to change the mass ratio of the bundles created during extrusion (i.e., to achieve a ratio of the streams spun into the bundles)).
As to claims 68-69, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method by adjusting the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station of the M spin stations to achieve a ratio of the N streams of polymer melt to be spun into the plurality of bundles of filaments, as disclosed by Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method capable of changing the mass ratio of the bundles created during spinning. As to measuring the volumetric flow rate of each of the received N streams of polymer melt flow for the first spin station of the M spin stations, Kalies et al. (US 2010/0298442) further discloses a total conveying amount is controlled, such that if one conveying amount (i.e., volumetric flow rate) is increased then at least one of the other conveying amounts (i.e., volumetric flow rates) is decreased to that a total conveying amount is not exceeded. Thus, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to measure the volumetric flow rates of each of the streams (i.e., how much increased/how much decreased) in order to make sure the total conveying amount is not exceeded.
As to claims 70-71, while the combination above was to the first spin station 8.1, since Gross et al. (US 6,406,650) discloses a second spin station 8.2, it would have been further obvious to similarly modify the second spin station to enable changing the mass ratio of the bundles created during spinning by the second spin station.
As to claim 72, in view of the combination above and adjusting the mass ratios, there are only two possibilities for the mass ratios of the bundles created during spinning by the first and second spin station, either the ratios are the same or they are different. Thus, it would have been further obvious for the ratios to be different.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-34, 36-38 and 59 are allowed.
Claim 60 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the method, as recited by claims 32-34, 36-38 and 59-60, particularly the spin station comprising at least one dynamic manifold comprising N inlets and at least N +1 outlets, wherein each inlet of the N inlets receives a respective one of the N streams of thermoplastic polymer, and wherein at least one inlet of the N inlets is in communication with at least two outlets of the at least N +1 outlets via channels that extend between the inlet of the at least one inlet and the outlets of the at least two outlets and comprises at least one valve that controls flow of the respective polymer stream between the at least one inlet and the at least two outlets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J. DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights