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 .
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action dated 05/18/2026, as well as amendment to claims, filed on 07/23/2026 have been entered and made of record.
In light of Applicant’s amendment of independent claims, the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 13-19, and 21 are pending. Claims 12, 20, and 22-53 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites its dependency from the canceled Claim 12. Claim 19 is objected to because it is dependent from Claim 18, and therefore, inherently depends from the canceled Claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed on July 23, 2026 with respect to rejections of claims and 35 U.S.C. 101 have been carefully considered; however, they are not persuasive. In light of Applicant amendment of independent Claim 1, to incorporate the allowable subject matter of dependent Claim 12, Claim 1 and the claims, dependent from Claim 1, are not rejected over prior art. However, new analysis of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is presented below. Applicant has not addressed, in its remarks, the rejection of record of other independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Abstract Idea. Accordingly, the rejection of independent Claims 2 and 21, under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. New analyses with respect to the amended claims based on Abstract Idea are presented below. Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “checking alignment or positioning the pattern … by a sensor …” (emphasis added) in Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13-19, and 21. Note that Claims 5-7 are not interpreted under this section of the Rules, because the structure of the sensor is explicitly recited in these claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 17, and 21 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. Specifically, these claims use the term “approximately”. The term “approximately” in Claims 2, 17, and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the term “approximately into congruence”, “approximately perpendicular” or “approximately exactly aligned” renders the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and apparatus directed to align a pattern piece on a machine for further operations (see for example, Fig. 7 of Applicant’s specification). For example, with respect to analysis of independent method Claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitation “feeding an aligned and/or positioned pattern piece to an apparatus at least near a surface region or edge region by a conveyor in a travel direction parallel to an edge region and is pressed by the conveyor against a support member of the conveyor and transported along the support member, if the alignment of the web piece deviates from the target alignment of the web piece more toward the conveyor, the incorrectly aligned portion or edge region of the web piece is moved by an appropriate amount away from the conveyor by a force acting toward the plane spanned by the web piece or parallel to that plane by a means exerting a force transverse to the travel direction so that the deviating alignment of the web piece is corrected to the target alignment, checking alignment or positioning the pattern piece by reference to registration marks on the pattern piece an actual path of the marks with a desired mark path”, “determining correction values or correction specifications on determination of a deviation of the actual path of the marks from the desired mark path”, “transmitting the correction values or the correction specifications to a correction station”, “manually
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, in this instance, the additional limitations are the recitation of “by a sensor”, which is essentially considered a generic computing/data gathering component and “manually” and “automatically”, replacing a manual may not be considered a limitation that should be relied on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant generic computing/data gathering component, as well as, manually or automatically performing a manual operation, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent Claims 2 and 21 are analyzed in the manner, and found not to be patent eligible under this section of the rules.
In addition, with regard to dependent claims 3-11 and 13-19 viewed individually, these additional elements, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea (mental processes), and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Huau et al. (US 4,730,824).
Consider Claim 1, Huau discloses “A method of precisely positioning and processing a textile or pattern pieces” (Huau, Column 1, lines 7-10
PNG
media_image1.png
82
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), “the method comprising the following steps: mechanically or manually feeding a aligned and/or positioned pattern piece to an apparatus” (Huau, Fig. 3, and Column 4, lines 3-6: disclosure of the feed means), “checking alignment and/or positioning the pattern piece by reference to registration marks on the pattern piece by a sensor” (Huau, Column 4, lines 48-52, discloses angular position measurement and edge detection, which are interpreted as alignment and/or positioning the pattern piece
PNG
media_image2.png
106
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), “and comparing the path of the marks with a desired mark path, determining correction values or correction specifications on determination of a deviation of the path of the marks from the desired mark path, and transmitting the correcting value or the correction specification to a correction station, manually or automatically correcting alignment of the pattern piece by the correction station in accordance with the correction values or correction specification to bring the determined mark path at least approximately into congruence with the desired mark path” (Huau, Column 7, lines 15-27 discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
236
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), “and feeding the pattern piece in a travel direction to a processing station processing the pattern piece where a processing step is carried out” (Huau, Column 5, lines 11-35 discloses the details of the movement operation of the pattern piece and Column 5, lines 36 -44 discloses the travel direction
PNG
media_image4.png
154
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the processing is sewing, which is disclosed in Column 7, lines 15-23).
Consider Claim 2, Huau discloses “A method of precisely positioning and processing a textile or pattern pieces” (Huau, Column 1, lines 7-10
PNG
media_image1.png
82
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), “the method comprising the following steps: feeding a first aligned and/or positioned pattern piece to an apparatus” (Huau, Fig. 3, and Column 4, lines 3-6: disclosure of the feed means), “feeding the first pattern piece in a travel direction to a processing station processing the pattern piece” (Huau, Column 5, lines 11-35 discloses the details of the movement operation of the pattern piece and Column 5, lines 36 -44 discloses the travel direction
PNG
media_image4.png
154
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the processing is sewing, which is disclosed in Column 7, lines 15-23), “checking the alignment and/or positioning the pattern piece by reference to registration marks on the pattern piece by a sensor” (Huau, Column 4, lines 48-52, discloses angular position measurement and edge detection, which are interpreted as alignment and/or positioning the pattern piece
PNG
media_image2.png
106
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), “and comparing the actual path of the marks with the desired mark path, determining correction values or correction specifications on determination of the deviation of the actual path of the marks from the desired mark path, transmitting the correction values or the correction specifications to a correction station, and manually or automatically correcting alignment of subsequent pattern pieces by the correction station in accordance with the correction values or correction specifications to bring the determined actual mark path at least approximately into congruence with the desired mark path” (Huau, Column 7, lines 15-27 discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
236
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Consider Claim 21, Huau discloses “An apparatus for precisely positioning and processing a textile or pattern pieces” (Huau, Column 1, lines 7-10
PNG
media_image1.png
82
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), “wherein the apparatus comprises: a station to which the pattern piece is fed in (Huau, Fig. 3, and Column 4, lines 3-6: disclosure of the feed means), a conveyor connected to the station and begins upstream from the station for displacing the pattern piece through the apparatus” (Huau, Column 4, lines 3-14, wherein the movement means of the pattern piece is disclosed), “a checking station in which the actual path of the marks of marks of the pattern piece are detected by sensor and compared with a desired mark path, with a correction value or a correction specification being created, a correction station for the precise alignment of the pattern piece according to the correction value or according to the correction specification, a processing station to which the pattern piece is fed in at least approximately exactly aligned and processable form” (Huau, Column 7, lines 15-27 discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
236
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Allowable Subject Matter
In light of Applicant’s amendment of independent Claim 1 to incorporate the allowable subject matter of the original dependent Claim 12 (now canceled), Claims 1 and dependent Claims 3-11, and 13-16, and 18-19 are not rejected over prior art, and will be allowed if the above-described rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Abstract Idea is overcome. In addition dependent Claim 17 is not rejected over prior art and will be allowed if the above-described rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights