DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on July 30th, 2025 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim(s) 1-19, drawn to a method of making yarn, classified in D01H 13/032.
II. Claim(s) 20, drawn to a system for making yarn, classified in D01H 1/02.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group I and Group II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method of Group I does not require a pipage system as required in Group II.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jennifer Knight on 1/5/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claim(s) 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim(s) 20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Fig. 5 “32b” needs review as the formatting seems incorrect
Figs. 7(a), 9(a), and 10(a) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, as indicated by [0034], [0060], and [0079], respectively. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0028] “had at a higher twist multiplier” should delete the term “had”
[0029] should initially establish 5a as a top front roller since 5a is referred to as “top roller”, “front roller”, and “top front roller”
[0030] similarly, 5b should be initially established as a bottom front roller as it is referred to as both a bottom roller ([0029]), bottom front roller ([0030])
[0029] and [0030] needs consistency as to whether 11 is a “yarn guide” or “guide eye”, or it should be established that the terms are interchangeable
[0038] “Mpa” should read “MPa” for megapascals
[0044] should clearly establish that l/hr is referring to liters/hour
[0045] “Mpa” should read “MPa”
[0045] “0.01 l/to 50 °C” needs review
[0046] “comprises;” should delete the semicolon and utilize a colon
[0057] “yarb” should read “yarn”
[0058] Table 1 “um” should read “µm”
[0058] Table 1 clarity should be provided as to what cv% means (coefficient of variation?), especially in light of the repetitive use of the term throughout the rest of the disclosure
[0061] Table 2 should clarify that gF/den is gram Force per denier, especially in light of the repetitive use of the term throughout the rest of the disclosure
[0061] Table 2 should clarify what CVm% stands for
[0068] should end in a period
[0068] Table 4 should clarify what “Fiber Portion n Roving” means, especially in light of the repetitive use of the term throughout the rest of the disclosure (ex. Tables 5 and 6)
[0069] before “it does not yield significant advantages” add –and--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7, 8, 12, 15-18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 it is recommended to write out the abbreviated units (liter/hour) to avoid abbreviation periods
Claim 8 “Mpa” should read “MPa”; occurs twice
Claim 12 “primary product” is interpreted as “primary yarn product” and should be corrected
Claim 15 Line 2 abbreviations should be written out
Claim 16 “Mpa” should read “MPa”; occurs twice
Claim 17 Line 2 before “back rollers” delete “a”
Claim 18 Line 1 “primary product” is interpreted as “primary yarn product” and should be corrected
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “front rollers or on a top front roller” in Claim 1 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the two structures are related (as best understood, the terms overlap in 5a).
The term “the front rollers” in Claim 1 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 Line 2 indicated that there are two options, whereas Line 5 narrows within the same claim to be the option with the plurality of front rollers. It is unclear whether claims intended for Claim 1 to only be directed to embodiment Fig. 2 (front rollers) as opposed to a top front roller (Figs. 1, 3-6 embodiments).
The term “the liquid-impacted spinning triangle is more compact than dry spinning triangle of the yarn made from the roving fiber without adding the liquid” in Claim 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 2 is attempting to positively claim a structure (dry spinning triangle) which is not a structure of the preamble (method of producing yarn). It may be recommended to instead rewrite the claim in light of the definition in [0028]. However, examiner notes that inasmuch as the positive structure of the claim has been met, so would any comparison. As such, examiner recommends positively claiming the structure of the actual claim instead of a comparison, such as values of the liquid-impacted spinning triangle.
The term “the front rollers” in Claim 8 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if Claim 8 means to further narrow from Claim 1 Line 2’s options.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the tenacity" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends “a tenacity of a comparison yarn product.”
The term “primary yarn product produced from the liquid-exposed roving fiber has a tenacity at least 5% higher than the tenacity of a comparison yarn product” in Claim 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Though the disclosure provides an explicit definition in [0028] for “primary yarn product” and “comparison yarn product”, the Claim is attempting to positively claim a structure (comparison yarn product) which is not a structure of the preamble (method of producing yarn). Examiner notes that inasmuch as the positive structure of the claim has been met, so would any comparison. As such, examiner recommends positively claiming the structure of the actual claim instead of a comparison, such as actual values of the tenacity of the primary yarn product, or the flowrate of Claim 7, based on the values from Table 2 of [0061] indicating Claim 7 produces the tenacity as claimed.
The term “primary yarn product” in Claim 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Although the term is explicitly defined in Claim 11, the term “yarn” of “primary yarn product” is not clear relative to the term “yarn” in the preamble of Claim 1.
The term “primary product produced from the liquid-exposed roving fiber at a twist multiplier of 3.6 has a tenacity at least as large as a high-twist yarn product produced at a twist multiplier of 4.0” in Claim 12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Though the disclosure provides an explicit definition in [0028] for “primary yarn product” and “high-twist yarn product”, the Claim is attempting to positively claim a structure (high-twist yarn product) which is not a structure of the preamble (method of producing yarn). Examiner notes that inasmuch as the positive structure of the claim has been met, so would any comparison. As such, examiner recommends positively claiming the structure of the actual claim instead of a comparison/relative to a non-positive element, such as claiming actual values of the tenacity of the primary yarn product, or the flowrate of Claim 7, based on the values from Table 2 of [0061] indicating Claim 7 produces the tenacity as claimed.
The term “primary product” in Claim 12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even assuming the term is directed to “primary yarn product,” and although that term is explicitly defined in Claim 11, the term “yarn” of “primary yarn product” is not clear relative to the term “yarn” in the preamble of Claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hairiness value" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends “a hairiness value of a comparison yarn product.”
The term “primary yarn product produced from the liquid-exposed roving fiber has a hairiness value at least 25% lower than the hairiness value of a comparison yarn product” in Claim 13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Though the disclosure provides an explicit definition in [0028] for “primary yarn product” and “comparison yarn product”, the Claim is attempting to positively claim a structure (comparison yarn product) which is not a structure of the preamble (method of producing yarn). Examiner notes that inasmuch as the positive structure of the claim has been met, so would any comparison. As such, examiner recommends positively claiming the structure of the actual claim instead of a comparison, such as claiming actual values of the hairiness of the primary yarn product, or the flowrate of Claim 7, based on the values from Table 2 of [0061] indicating Claim 7 produces the hairiness as claimed.
The term “primary yarn product” in Claim 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Although the term is explicitly defined in Claim 11, the term “yarn” of “primary yarn product” is not clear relative to the term “yarn” in the preamble of Claim 1.
The term “front rollers or on a top front roller” in Claim 14 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
The term “the front rollers” in Claim 14 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
The term “primary yarn product produced from the liquid-exposed roving fiber has a tenacity at least 5% higher than the tenacity of a comparison yarn product” in Claim 14 Lines 8-9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 11.
The term “the front rollers” in Claim 15 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 8.
The term “the front rollers” in Claim 17 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 15.
Claim 18 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 12.
Claim 19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 13.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Specific Definitions
Examiner notes the following terms have explicit definitions in the specification:
See [0027] for “ring spinning apparatus” in Claims 1, 14 (requires drafting system with paired top and bottom rollers, twisted roving fiber, yarn guide, traveler, and bobbin on a spindle)
See [0028] for “primary yarn product” in Claims 11, 13, 14, 19
See [0028] for “comparison yarn product” in Claims 11, 13, 14, 19
See [0028] for “primary product” in Claim 12, 18
See [0028] for “high-twist yarn product” in Claims 12, 18
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.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al (CN 107604490), herein Du.
Regarding Claim 1, Du teaches a method of producing yarn (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, for the structure for the method, see Fig. 1; [0052] "Figure 1 and Figure 2 are the front view and side view of the spinning device for stretched short fiber yarn based on the ring spinning system"), the method comprising:
adding a liquid to a roving fiber directly before a nip in front rollers or on a top front roller of a ring spinning apparatus to produce a liquid-exposed roving fiber (see Fig. 1 for both before a nip and on a top front roller; [0025] "under the traction of the dual airflow formed by the front upper roller and the front lower roller, the short fiber roving forms a stretched short fiber yarn…and is output after being simultaneously set by the hot steam containing the setting agent"; [0054] "front upper roller 21, a front lower roller 22...a hot steam supply device 24, and a hot air flow duct 25", wherein steam adds liquid to the roving; see claim interpretation for ring spinning apparatus—wherein Fig. 1 shows paired top/bottom rollers, twisting at 3, yarn guide 31, traveler, and bobbin on a spindle (where 33 is indicating); [0049] “3-twisting and winding mechanism, 31-yarn guide hook, 33-fine yarn tube, 34-train, 35-ring plate”),
wherein the liquid-exposed roving fiber produces a liquid-impacted spinning triangle of the roving fiber leaving the front rollers ([0033] "invention…enables…roving output at the front roller nip to become a stretching structure fiber web, and then twisted in the twisting triangle area to form a twisted yarn that becomes a stretching structure fiber web").
Regarding Claim 2, Du teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid-impacted spinning triangle is more compact than a dry spinning triangle of the yarn made from the roving fiber without adding the liquid (inasmuch as structurally defined-- Du teaches the liquid-impacted spinning triangle and the structure of Claim 1 and therefore is more compact than as recited).
Regarding Claim 3, Du teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the roving fiber comprises a hydrophilic fiber ([0062] "cotton staple fiber roving slivers are selected as raw materials"; wherein it is known in the art that cotton is hydrophilic); or
wherein the roving fiber comprises a hydrophilic fiber ([0062]), and
wherein the hydrophilic fiber comprises cotton, bamboo, linen, hemp, viscose, rayon, modal, Tencel and/or wool ([0062]).
Regarding Claim 4, Du teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the roving fiber comprises from 0 wt.% to 100 wt.% cotton and from 0 wt.% to 100 wt.% hemp [0062] "cotton staple fiber roving slivers are selected as raw materials"; therefore 100 wt% cotton).
Regarding Claim 5, Du teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid comprises water, ethyl alcohol, soap, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyacrylamide, and/or polyvinyl alcohol ([0025] "hot steam containing the setting agent", wherein steam is water).
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.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (CN 107604490), herein Du, in view of Umehara et al (USPN 6716256), herein Umehara.
Regarding Claim 6, Du teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Du does not explicitly teach wherein a temperature of the liquid ranges from 20 °C to 90 °C.
However, Du does teach that the liquid temperature is adjustable ([0028] "temperature and flow rate of the hot steam are adjustable").
Umehara teaches wherein a temperature of the steam ranges from 20 °C to 90 °C (see Fig. 2; Col. 10 Lines 15-21 "Between this nip roller groups and the nip roller groups which consists of top rollers (12), (13), and bottom rollers (14), (15) and (16), the animal fiber is drawn using the difference of the rotation speed of the both roller groups, while passing through...a steam processing machine (18) installed between the roller groups"; Col. 8 Lines 14-20 "animal fiber...subsequently drawn at actual draw ratio of no less than 1.20, preferably of 1.20 to 1.60 and still preferably of 1.30 to 1.60. If the drawing is performed in...in steam at 90 to 95 °C., the drawing can be carried out with a little fiber breakage in roving"; Col. 11 Lines 39-41 "animal fiber…may be mixed and spun with other fiber, such as polyester, polyamide, acrylics, and cotton"; Col. 6 Lines 20-23 "As animal fiber used in the present invention, a fiber comprising protein fiber, such as wools, mohair, alpaca, cashmere, llama, vicuna and camel are mentioned").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Du’s steam to be at the temperature of Umehara, such as at 90 °C, for reducing fiber breakage (Col. 8 Lines 14-20).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (CN 107604490), herein Du, in view of Furukawa (JPS 61063731) and Whitehead et al (USPN 2581566), herein Whitehead.
Regarding Claim 9, Du teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Du at least suggests wherein the liquid is added through a nozzle (see Fig. 1; [0054] "hot steam supply device 24").
Nevertheless, Furukawa teaches wherein the liquid is added through a nozzle (pages 5-6 "a method of dropping an appropriate amount of liquid on to the surface of the nip roller using a metered pump from the tip of a needle, a method of applying it using…spraying it using a spray nozzle may be used…applied to…the top…roller").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Du to utilize a nozzle as taught by Furukawa as a known method of applying liquid to a roller.
Du also does not explicitly teach the nozzle has a pressure ranging from 0.1 MPa to 3 MPa.
Whitehead teaches wherein the pressure of the steam ranging from 0.1 MPa to 3 MPa (see Fig. 1; Col. 1 Lines 19-22 "invention to provide a process for producing spun yarns of high-tenacity regenerated cellulose staple fibers"; Col. 5 Lines 52-54 "plasticizing agent such as steam under pressure is admitted into the compartment 26 through a pipe 39"; Col. 5 Lines 62-65 "to limit the flow of steam through the aperture 34, cold water under a pressure only slightly less than the pressure of the steam is forced into the compartment 23"; Col. 7 Lines 42-47 "saturated steam at a pressure of about 45 pounds per square inch above atmospheric and a temperature of about 130 C is admitted into the compartment 26 and acts to plasticize the filaments in the tow as it passes therethrough"; Col. 5 Lines 59-61 "if this flow of steam were permitted to proceed unchecked it would break the filaments in said tow", wherein 45 psi is 0.31 MPa, see extrinsic evidence Unit Converters NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Du’s nozzle, as provided by Furukawa, to provide the steam at the pressure taught by Whitehead as a known pressure to prevent breakage (Col. 5 Lines 59-61).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (CN 107604490), herein Du, in view of Halder et al (WO 2020/222244), herein Halder.
Regarding Claim 10, Du teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Du does not explicitly teach wherein a twist multiplier level ranges from 2.5 to 5.5.
However, Du teaches that the material is cotton ([0062]).
Halder teaches wherein a twist multiplier level for cotton ranges from 2.5 to 5.5 (see Fig. 1; page 5 Line 5 "rovings( 110, 120) are passed through a front drafting roller (180)"; page 5 Line 9 "yarn has a twist multiplier value ranges from 2.5 -5.0"; page 6 Lin 20 "recycled fibers in the roving include cotton fibers").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Du’s twist multiplier to be that of Halder as a known effective twist multiplier for cotton material.
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 7, 8, 11-19, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Yeung (USPN 10161066), Du et al (CN 101736469) directed to addition of spandex filament to the back or front rollers; Speranzin (USPN 4040241), Greive (USPN 4114357) directed to storage compartment, pump inlet/outlet, pipage system, and valve; Takai (USPN 4316358) directed to pipage; directed to Van der Jagt (USPN 1779505) directed to valve; Cresswell (USPN 2558734) directed to pump inlet/outlet; Gwaltney (USPN 1940749) directed to pipage and valve; Groves (USPN 1867664) directed to water trough for roller; Sapronov et al (SU 1359362) directed to steam to drawing device; Bird (EP 0100192) directed to a flume at front rollers; Qiu et al (USPN 7913483), Tao et al (US Publication 2013/0255217), Chen et al (CN 104278369) directed to triangle; Obata et al (JPS 60185824) directed to wetted hemp; Stark (GB 191013220), Foster (USPN 2089021) directed to liquid being soap; Schutz et al (USPN 3885277) directed to liquid being polyvinyl alcohol; Miyauchi et al (USPN 9388516), Goto (USPN 12529166), Okaniwa et al (JPH 0197206), Ishii et al (USPN 6699368), Olson (USPN 3558760) directed to flowrate; Newkirk et al (USPN 4430406) directed to adjusting flowrate based on roller speed; Smith et al (USPN 3852946) directed to nozzle pressure range; Lulay (USPN 4244173) directed to twist multiplier; Bueno et al (USPN 11866849) directed to tenacity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732