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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 5/14/2025. Currently claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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 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.
Claims 1, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Brown et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0258099 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Brown”.
Regarding claim 1, and 3, Brown teaches a die (cf. Fig. 2: die block / spinneret assembly 26) for a spunbond and/or melt blown (cf. Fig. 1 and 19 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", while the equipment described is used in conjunction with a spinning dope, it would be suitable for the melt-blown and spunbond techniques) coaxial (cf. Fig. 2, Fig. 5 and §[0057]: pressurized gas 34 flows coaxially around the hollow cylindrical tube 46) multi-row (cf. § [ 0044] : "first member 42 has multiple nozzles 44 arranged in rows and/or columns or in some other desired pattern"; see also Fig. 13-18) type plant developing along a main axis and a main plane, defining a vertical axis perpendicular to said main axis and said main plane (these features are implicitly known from Fig. 2) and comprising:
- a plurality of acceleration conduits (i.e. the hollow cylindrical tubes 46, cf. Fig. 2 and 5) each extending along its own dispensing axis (cf. Fig. 5) transverse to said main plane (cf. Fig. 2) and each suitable for delivering a respective polymeric filament along said dispensing axis (cf. § [0045]: "heated aqueous solution 20 is extruded through the inside diameter d of each of the hollow cylindrical tubes 46");
- a plate (cf. gas distribution plate 52 in Fig. 2, see § [0048]) including:
- first holes (i.e. the multiple openings 58) suitable for accommodating said accelerating ducts (§ [0048] : "Each of the multiple openings 58 is sized to permit one of the multiple nozzles 44, in the form of the elongated, hollow cylindrical tubes 46, to pass therethrough."), and
- second holes (i.e. the multiple corridors 54) separate from said first holes (§ [0048]: "multiple openings 58 formed therethrough which are separate and distinct from the corridors 54") and suitable for allowing the passage of air or gas (§ [0048]: "The corridors 54 function to route the pressurized gas 34 through the second member or gas distribution plate 52. ");
- a jig (i.e. the exterior plate 60, cf. § [0050]) adjacent to said plate along said vertical axis (cf. Fig. 2) , including a plurality of third holes (i.e. multiple openings 62) centered with respect to said first holes (cf. Fig. 2, 3 and 5) , in fluid passage connection with said second holes (cf. Fig. 2 and § [0052]: " Each of the first openings 62 is connected to the chamber 56 formed in the second member or gas distribution plate 52", i.e. via the corridors 54) and suitable for housing part of said acceleration ducts (cf. Fig. 3, § [0050]: "Each of the multiple first openings 62 is sized to freely permit one of the multiple nozzles 44, in the form of an elongated, hollow cylindrical tube 46, to pass therethrough") and allowing, at the same time, the passage of said air or gas (§ [0052]) : "Each of the first openings 62 is capable of emitting pressurized gas 34 therethrough such that the pressurized gas 34 at least partially surrounds the heated aqueous solution 20 extruded from each of the nozzles 44"); and characterized in that
- said second holes are more than four in number (cf. Fig. 13-18: the second holes correspond to reference number 64), distributed around at least part of said first holes and centered along circumferences each developing parallel to said main plane around a respective said first hole without lapping any other said first hole (this feature is true for Fig. 14, 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 4, Brown teaches that the spinneret, wherein said first holes define a diameter between 0.6 mm and 1 mm and the second and third holes define diameters between 1.2 mm and 1.7 mm; by teaching that the hollow cylindrical tubes (46) has an inside diameter d, and the inside diameter d can range from between about 0.125 millimeters (mm) to about 1.25 mm (§ [0044]), and the inside diameter d3 of each of the second openings 64 is at least 1.2 mm (§ [0053]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Brown et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0258099 A1), in view of Angelico (IT 2020 0000 4024 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Angelico”.
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches a die (equivalent to spinneret spunbond and/or melt-blown). But Brown fails to explicitly teach that the spinneret (die) comprising of a plate and a mask are in one piece. However, Angelico teaches in Fig. 1, 4a, and 5, a diffusion device for a multi-row coaxial melt-blown system comprising: a plate (2) including first holes (20) suitable for housing tubes (10) configured to distribute polymer fluid, and - second holes (21) separate from said first holes (20) and suitable for allowing the passage of air or gas, a mask (3) including a plurality of third holes (30) centered with respect to said first holes (20), in fluid passage connection with said second holes (21) and suitable for housing part of said tubes (10) and for allowing, at the same time, the passage of said air or gas, and characterized by the fact that said plate (2) and said mask (3) are in one piece (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Angelico, and form the spinneret in a known technique out of the plate and mask in one piece, because that would make the overall device compact and easy to maintain (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since the references deal with spinnerets for forming filaments, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Brown et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0258099 A1), in view of Schutt et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0295208 A1),), hereafter, referred to as “Schutt”.
Regarding claim 5, Brown teaches a die (equivalent to spinneret spunbond and/or melt-blown). Brown teaches to use the nozzles (die/spinneret) for forming multiple cellulose fibers. Each nozzle has a longitudinal central axis and includes a tube with a cross-section having a diameter through which an aqueous solution of cellulose and a solvent can be extruded into a molten filament (abstract). Based on the teaching of Figs, 1-2, 5, and 13, it would be obvious that the spinneret would comprise of a plate, that defines a first end of the 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 the spinneret arranged at a side of the spinneret opposite to the first end with respect to the main plane at which the polymeric fluid exits from the spinneret in the form of the polymeric filaments; and the acceleration conduits are distributed both along a distribution axis transverse to the main axis and the vertical axis so as to make a first row, and parallel to the main axis, making at least a second row offset from the first row along the main axis.
But Brown fails to explicitly teach that at least one of said dispensing axes of the acceleration conduits of the first row defining a first angle of inclination with respect to the main plane other than 90°, and at least one of the dispensing axes of the acceleration conduits of the second row defining a second angle of inclination with respect to the main plane different from the first angle of inclination.
However, Schutt teaches a spinneret bundle for producing fibers from a polymer melt includes an elongated nozzle plate that has a feed channel on an upper face and at least one row of nozzle bores that are arranged next to one another on a lower face. A distributing plate lies on the upper face of the nozzle plate and has a distributing chamber that faces the feed channel and a melt inlet that is connected to the distributing chamber (abstract). Schutt also teaches in Fig. 3 that the through-bores of bore group have an inclination angle within the perforated plate with respect to a perpendicular bisector. The inclination angle is identified by the reference α. The spaced through-bores of the second bore group also have an inclination angle within the perforated plate with respect to a perpendicular bisector. The inclination angle is identified by the reference β- The inclination angles α and B have different directions with respect to the perpendicular bisector, so that the through-bores of the two bore groups cross one another at a distance from one another within the perforated plate. In this embodiment, the inclination angles α and β have the same value, however, in general, the inclination angles α and β can have different values. Schutt further teaches to produce uniform fibers and fiber placements in a production width with nozzle bores, which are arranged in a row (§ [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Schutt and use a known technique of at least one of said dispensing axes of the acceleration conduits of the first row defining a first angle of inclination with respect to the main plane other than 90°, and at least one of the dispensing axes of the acceleration conduits of the second row defining a second angle of inclination with respect to the main plane different from the first angle of inclination; because that would allow to produce uniform fibers and fiber placements in a desired production width with nozzle bores (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since the references deal with spinnerets for forming filaments, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 6, Schutt teaches a spinneret, wherein said dispensing axes of all the acceleration conduits of the first row and/or the second row respectively define a same first angle of inclination and/or the same second angle of inclination; by teaching that the inclination angles α and β have the same value (§ [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Schutt teaches in Fig. 3, a spinneret, wherein said second angle of inclination is opposite or additional to the first angle of inclination.
Regarding claim 7, and 9, Schutt teaches a spinneret to produce uniform fibers and fiber placements in a production width with nozzle bores, which are arranged in a row (§ [0008]), by teaching in Fig. 3 to vary the angles α and β. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the production width would be optimized by optimizing the angles α and β. Therefore, maintaining the angles α and β, wherein one or more of the second angles of inclination are equal to 90°, and wherein the first angle of inclination is comprised between 60° and 90°, would be matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Brown et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0258099 A1), in view of Plomp (US Patent Number 3,439,381), hereafter, referred to as “Plomp”.
Regarding claims 10-11, Brown teaches a die (equivalent to spinneret spunbond and/or melt-blown). Brown teaches to use the nozzles (die/spinneret) for forming multiple cellulose fibers. Each nozzle has a longitudinal central axis and includes a tube with a cross-section having a diameter through which an aqueous solution of cellulose and a solvent can be extruded into a molten filament (abstract). But Brown fails to explicitly teach a spinneret, wherein one or more of the acceleration conduits comprises at least one closed inner surface, developing around the dispensing axis and defining a plurality of mutually identical outlines arranged in succession along the dispensing axis; wherein the outline is determined on a section plane normal to the dispensing axis; wherein the outline defines a first extension area on the section plane; wherein the outline is inscribable in a circle determined on the section plane; and wherein the circle defines a second extension area on the section plane; the first extension area being less than 90%, or 60% of the second extension area. However, Plomp teaches in Figs. 3, 7, 9 and 11, various configurations of the cross section of the tube of the spinneret for manufacturing of filaments of desired shape. Plomp teaches to vary the first extension area compared to the first extension area in the above-mentioned figures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Plomp and use a known technique to form a spinneret, wherein one or more of the acceleration conduits comprises at least one closed inner surface, developing around the dispensing axis and defining a plurality of mutually identical outlines arranged in succession along the dispensing axis; wherein the outline is determined on a section plane normal to the dispensing axis; wherein the outline defines a first extension area on the section plane; wherein the outline is inscribable in a circle determined on the section plane; and wherein the circle defines a second extension area on the section plane; the first extension area being less than 90% (as claimed in claim 10), or 60% (as claimed in claim 11) of the second extension area to form filaments of desired shape and dimension (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since the references deal with spinnerets for forming filaments, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claims 12-15, Brown teaches a die (equivalent to spinneret spunbond and/or melt-blown). Brown teaches to use the nozzles (die/spinneret) for forming multiple cellulose fibers. Each nozzle has a longitudinal central axis and includes a tube with a cross-section having a diameter through which an aqueous solution of cellulose and a solvent can be extruded into a molten filament (abstract). Brown also teaches that the nozzles are formed from elongated hollow tubes (§ [0044]). Brown teaches that by "tube" it is meant a hollow cylinder, especially one that conveys fluid or functions as a passage. Each of the hollow cylindrical tubes has a longitudinal central axis X-X and a uniquely shaped cross-section. Desirably, the cross-section is circular but almost any geometrical cross-section can be utilized (§ [0044]). Additionally, Plomp teaches in Figs. 3, 7, 9 and 11, various configurations of the cross section of the tube of the spinneret for manufacturing of filaments of desired shape. Plomp also teaches that the tri-lobed cross-section is formed from convex shaped outline near the apex of the lobes, whereas the central portion is formed from concave shaped outline. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the spinneret comprise of, wherein the outline is convex and defines at least a first maximum dimension and a second maximum dimension perpendicular to the first dimension and less than 90% of the first dimension (as claimed in claim 12); and wherein the outline is concave and includes at least one convex portion identifiable within the outline in such a way as to be delimited by at least part of the outline and defining at least a third maximum dimension and a fourth maximum dimension, perpendicular to the third dimension and less than 90% of the third dimension (as claimed in claim 13). It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan based on Plomp’s teaching of Figs. 3, 7, 9 and 11, that a spinneret, wherein said outline is formed by two or more said mutually crossed convex portions (as claimed in claim 14), and a spinneret, would comprise of a plurality of the acceleration conduits all defining the outline, or the mutually different outlines and/or of which one or more of circular type (as claimed in claim 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights