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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the detector assembly is mounted to a movable support configured to change a position of the detector assembly relative to the fiber tow” of claims 1 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
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(s) is/are: “the first controller configured to at least one of: operate the detector assembly in a tow position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase, switch between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis, adjust at least one of a pixel value of an exposure of the imaging sensor, or adjust an intensity of the light source” in claim 10, lines 2-3.
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.
The above limitation in Claim 10 is being interpreted in light of specification paragraph [0033]: “Controller 130 may include a discrete processor and memory unit (not pictured)” and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. US10118792 in view of Miyahara et al, US8345246.
Regarding independent claim 1, Grossman et al. discloses an unwinding system (10, Fig. 1) for unwinding a fiber (12, Fig. 1) from a bobbin (14, Fig. 1), the unwinding system comprising: a detector assembly (26, Fig. 2) ) including an imaging sensor ("a receiver 29 (e.g. a camera)" Column 4, lines 13-14) and a single LED light source ("a light emitter 28 (e.g. via a LED array)" Column 4, line 13; an LED array necessarily has a single LED), configured to detect a position of a fiber tow ("the sensor 26 is configured to determine the position of the fiber" Column 3, lines 25-26) including a multifilament ceramic fiber suitable for forming a ceramic matrix composite ("during the manufacturing process of CMC" Column 1, lines 15-17); and a controller (30, Fig. 2) configured to maintain consistent tension on the fiber tow by increasing or decreasing a rotational speed of the bobbin (Column 5, lines 1-5) and to adjust a lateral position based on the detected position of the fiber tow ("the sensor 26 can then generate a signal that is received at a controller 30...the controller 30 is configured to move the bobbin 14 laterally in the axial direction 20 along the first axis 18" Column 4, lines 15-20) and wherein the detector assembly is mounted to a support (Column 7, lines 28-31).
Grossman et al. does not disclose detecting a presence of fuzz on or adjacent to the fiber tow and switching the detector assembly between a tow position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase and wherein the detector assembly is mounted to a movable support configured to change a position of the detector assembly relative to the fiber tow to maintain the fiber tow within a focal depth as a diameter of the bobbin changes during unwinding.
Miyahara et al. teaches a detector assembly for detecting a presence of fuzz (11, Fig. 6) on or adjacent to the fiber tow (y5, Fig. 6) and switching the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to add the detection of a presence of fuzz on the fiber tow as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Grossman et al. to make the support movable, configured to change a position of the detector assembly relative to the fiber tow to maintain the fiber tow within a focal depth as a diameter of the bobbin changes during unwinding, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize the detector assembly and ensure continuous and accurate detection of the fiber tow.
Regarding claim 3, Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and the fiber tow is disposed between the single LED light source and the imaging sensor ("the sensor 26 is a light sensor having a light emitter 28 (e.g., via a LED array) and a receiver 29 (e.g., a camera) that detects the location of the fiber 12 between the bobbin 14 and the pulley 22", Column 4, lines 12-15; an LED array necessarily has a single LED).
Regarding claim 5, Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and an unwinding system having a detector assembly.
Grossman et al. does not disclose the controller is configured to switch between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis.
Miyahara et al. teaches a detector assembly having a controller ("the data processing means" Column 3, line 8) is configured to switch between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to have the controller switch between a position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and an unwinding system having a detection assembly.
Grossman et al. does not disclose during the fuzz detection phase the controller is configured to count a number of fuzz elements.
Miyahara et al. teaches a detection assembly wherein during the fuzz detection phase the controller is configured to count a number of fuzz elements ("if such a recording medium is used, which yarn and what portion of the yarn have been found to have a defect (disorder) can be specified, and the defect data of every yarn or every yarn package can be recorded" Column 11, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to count the number of fuzz elements during a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Regarding independent claim 20, Grossman et al. discloses an apparatus (apparatus of Figure 1) for treating a fiber (12, Fig. 1; "the fibers, usually in the form of long fiber tows, can be unwound from a bobbin (i.e., the fiber source) to begin further processing, such as coating" Column 5, lines 23-25) to be formed into a ceramic matrix composite ("the fiber 12 is...a ceramic fiber such as silicon carbide for forming a fiber reinforced ceramic matrix composites (CMCs)" Column 5, lines 6-8), the apparatus comprising: a vacuum chamber ("a vacuum chamber" Column 7, line 29) having positioned therein: a bobbin ("a vacuum chamber, wherein...the bobbin...are positioned within the vacuum chamber" Column 7, lines 29-31); and a detector assembly (26, Fig. 1) having a radiation source ("the fiber sensor comprises a light sensor having a light emitting diode (LED) array" Column 6, lines 40-41) and a sensor assembly and configured to receive a fiber unwound from the bobbin between the radiation source and the sensor assembly, the detector assembly configured to detect both a position of the fiber ("the fiber sensor further comprises a receiver comprising a camera that detects the location of the fiber between the bobbin and the pulley based on light from the light emitting diode (LED) array" Column 6, lines 42-46); one or more motors (32, Fig. 3) configured to adjust a rotation speed of the bobbin to maintain consistent tension on the fiber tow (Column 5, lines 1-5); and a controller (30, Fig. 3) configured to maintain consistent tension on the fiber tow by increasing or decreasing the rotational speed of the bobbin (Column 5, lines 1-5) and to adjust the lateral position of the bobbin based on the detected position of the fiber ("the sensor 26 can then generate a signal that is received at a controller 30...the controller 30 is configured to move the bobbin 14 laterally in the axial direction 20 along the first axis 18" Column 4, lines 15-20) and wherein the detector assembly is mounted to a support (Column 7, lines 28-31).
Grossman et al. does not disclose detecting a presence of fuzz on or adjacent to the fiber and switching the detector assembly between a tow position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase and wherein the support is movable, configured to change a position of the detector assembly relative to the fiber tow to maintain the fiber tow within a focal depth as a diameter of the bobbin changes during unwinding.
Miyahara et al. teaches a detector assembly which detects a presence of fuzz (11, Fig. 6) on or adjacent to the fiber (y5, Fig. 6) and switching the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to add the detection of a presence of fuzz on the fiber tow as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support for the detector assembly of Grossman et al. to have the support be movable and configured to change a position of the detector assembly relative to the fiber tow to maintain the fiber tow within a focal depth as a diameter of the bobbin changes during unwinding, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize the detector assembly and ensure continuous and accurate detection of the fiber tow.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. US10118792, in view of Miyahara et al. US8345246 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20010022656, Henze et al.
Regarding claim 7, Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and an unwinding system having a detector assembly.
Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., does not teach wherein the controller is configured to adjust at least one operational parameter of the imaging sensor or the light source when switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Miyahara et al. teaches a controller ("the data processing means" Column 3, line 8) is configured to switch operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to have the controller switch between a position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Henze et al. teaches a detector assembly wherein the controller (10, Fig. 2) is configured to adjust at least one operational parameter of the imaging sensor or the light source ("the intensity of the light for a second measurement is set as a function of the first signal" Abstract, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al. to add the capability of adjusting an operational parameter of the imaging sensor or the light source as taught by Henze et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification to in order to fine-tune the detector and because it "improves the detection of impurities" (Abstract, lines 8-9; Henze et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and an unwinding system having a detector assembly.
Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., does not teach the controller is configured to adjust an intensity of the light source when switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Miyahara et al. teaches a controller ("the data processing means" Column 3, line 8) is configured to switch operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to have the controller switch between a position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Henze et al., teaches a detector assembly wherein the controller (10, Fig. 2) is further configured to adjust an intensity of the light source ("the intensity of the light for a second measurement is set as a function of the first signal" Abstract, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., to add the capability of adjusting an intensity of the light source as taught by Henze et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification to in order to fine-tune the detector and because it "improves the detection of impurities" (Abstract, lines 8-9; Henze et al.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Grossman et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a second controller associated with a motor and configured to adjust the rotational speed of the bobbin (Column 5, lines 1-5).
Grossman et al., does not disclose the controller includes: a first controller positioned on the detector assembly, the first controller configured to switch between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis.
Miyahara et al. teaches a first controller ("the data processing means" Column 3, line 8) is configured to switch between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to have the controller switch between a position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Henze et al. teaches a detector assembly wherein the controller is positioned on the detector assembly ("the control and memory elements can be arranged in a single microprocessor, or in any other arrangement inside or outside of the measuring station" Paragraph [0033], lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al. to add the controller on the detector assembly in order to optimize the available space near the winding machine. One would have been motivated to make this modification to eliminate running wires from the control device to the detector and/or the requirement for wireless communication.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al., US10118792 in view of Miyahara et al., US8345246, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barea et al., US20210114838.
Regarding claim 8, modified Grossman et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described in claim 1 above, and an unwinding system having a controller.
Grossman et al., does not teach the controller is further configured to adjust at least one of a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor when switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Miyahara et al. teaches a controller ("the data processing means" Column 3, line 8) is configured to switch operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of modified Grossman et al. to have the controller switch between a position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Barea et al. teaches a method for detecting a characteristic of a fiber wherein the controller (8, Fig. 3) is further configured to adjust at least one of a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor ("the system may be pulsed, carrying out selective detection through both the photodiodes and the CMOS sensors." Paragraph [0076], lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al. to add the ability to adjust a pixel value or exposure of the imaging sensor as taught by Barea et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensor can be fine-tuned for a variety of types of fiber and to ensure accurate detection of defects in the fiber.
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al., US10118792, in view of Miyahara et al., US8345246 as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Henze et al., US20010022656 and Barea et al., US20210114838.
Regarding claims 21 and 24, modified Grossman et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claims 1, and 20, and switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Grossman et al. does not disclose adjusting a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor and adjusting an intensity of the light source.
Barea et al. teaches a method for detecting a characteristic of a fiber wherein the controller (8, Fig. 3) is further configured to adjust at least one of a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor ("the system may be pulsed, carrying out selective detection through both the photodiodes and the CMOS sensors." Paragraph [0076], lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al. to add the ability to adjust a pixel value or exposure of the imaging sensor as taught by Barea et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensor can be fine-tuned for a variety of types of fiber and ensure accurate detection of defects in the fiber.
Henze et al., teaches a detector assembly wherein the controller (10, Fig. 2) is further configured to adjust an intensity of the light source ("the intensity of the light for a second measurement is set as a function of the first signal" Abstract, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al. to add the capability of adjusting an intensity of the light source as taught by Henze et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification to in order to fine-tune the detector and because it "improves the detection of impurities" (Abstract, lines 8-9; Henze et al.).
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. US10118792 in view of Miyahara et al, US8345246 and Henze et al ‘408, US6175408.
Regarding independent claim 11, Grossman et al. discloses a method for unwinding a fiber from a bobbin (402-408, Fig. 4), the method comprising: unwinding a fiber from a bobbin (402, Fig. 4) defining a first axis (18, Fig. 2), the fiber (12, Fig. 2) extending from the bobbin (14, Fig. 2) along a second axis (coincident with fiber 12, Fig. 2) different from the first axis (at angle 19 from axis 18, Fig. 2); passing the fiber through a detector assembly (26, Fig. 2) disposed along the second axis (fiber 12 passes through detector assembly 26, Fig. 2) and configured to detect a position of the fiber tow ("the sensor 26 is configured to determine the position of the fiber 12" Column 3, lines 25-26) the detector assembly (26, Fig. 2) including an imaging sensor ("a receiver 29 (e.g. a camera)" Column 4, lines 13-14) and a single LED light source ("a light emitter 28 (e.g. via a LED array)" Column 4, line 13; an LED array necessarily has a single LED); providing a value relating to the position of the fiber tow to a controller ("controller 30 in response to real-time signals received at the controller 30 from sensor 26 regarding the position of the fiber 12" Column 4, lines 57-59); maintaining consistent tension on the fiber tow by increasing or decreasing a rotational speed of the bobbin (Column 5, lines 1-5); and adjusting a lateral position of the bobbin based on the position of the fiber tow ("the motor 32 can actuate the bobbin 14 laterally in the axial direction 18 as controlled by the controller 30 in response to real-time signals received at the controller 30 from the sensor 26 regarding the position of the fiber 12" Column 4, lines 55-59).
Grossman et al. does not disclose the detecting a presence of fuzz on the fiber tow and switching the detector assembly between a tow position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase and adjusting electrical current driving the single LED light source during operation to offset a reduction in light intensity incident on the imaging sensor due to optical contamination or degradation of the single LED light source.
Miyahara et al. teaches a detector assembly to detect a presence of fuzz (11, Fig. 6; "the defects of running yarns found by the running yarn inspection method of the invention include, for example, fluffs and fuzz formed on the running yarns" Column 1, lines 19-21) and switching the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to add the detection of a presence of fuzz on the fiber tow as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Henze et al. ‘408 teaches a method of detecting defects in fibers, including adjusting electrical current driving the single LED light source during operation to offset a reduction in light intensity incident on the imaging sensor due to optical contamination or degradation of the single LED light source (Column 2, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Grossman et al. to adjust the electrical current as taught by Henze et al. ‘408 so that aging of the LED can be compensated and ensure accurate detection of impurities (Column 2, lines 37-47).
Regarding claim 12, modified Grossman et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 11, and illuminating the fiber by the single LED light source of the detector assembly; and imaging the fiber at an imaging sensor of the detector assembly ("the sensor 26 is a light sensor having a light emitter 28 (e.g., via a LED array) and a receiver 29 (e.g., a camera) that detects the location of the fiber 12" Column 4, lines 12-14; an LED array necessarily has at least a single LED).
Regarding claim 14, modified Grossman et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 11, and a detector assembly.
Grossman et al. does not disclose switching the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis.
Miyahara et al. teaches a method of operating a detector assembly by switching the detector assembly ("the data processing means" Column 3, line 8) between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase on a periodic basis ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of modified Grossman et al. to switch between position detection and fuzz detection as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Regarding claim 15, modified Grossman et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 11, and a detector assembly.
Grossman et al., does not disclose counting a number of fuzz elements during the fuzz detection phase.
Miyahara et al. teaches a detector assembly comprising counting a number of fuzz elements ("if such a recording medium is used, which yarn and what portion of the yarn have been found to have a defect (disorder) can be specified, and the defect data of every yarn or every yarn package can be recorded" Column 11, lines 25-28) during the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of modified Grossman et al. to count the number of fuzz elements during a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Regarding claim 16, modified Grossman et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 11, and a method for unwinding having a detector assembly.
Grossman et al., does not teach adjusting at least one operational parameter of the imaging sensor or the light source when switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Miyahara et al. teaches switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of Grossman et al. to have the controller switch between a position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Henze et al. ‘408 teaches a detector assembly wherein the controller is configured to adjust at least one operational parameter of the imaging sensor or the light source (Column 2, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al., to add the capability of adjusting an operational parameter of the imaging sensor or the light source as taught by Henze et al. ‘408 since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that aging of the LED can be compensated and ensure accurate detection of impurities (Column 2, lines 37-47).
Regarding claim 18, modified Grossman et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 16, and a method for unwinding having a detector assembly.
Grossman et al. does not teach adjusting at least one operation parameter includes adjusting an intensity of the light source when switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Miyahara et al. teaches switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11) and the fuzz detection phase ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; "" the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unwinding system of modified Grossman et al. to have the controller switch between a position detection phase and a fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Henze et al. ‘408 teaches a detector assembly wherein adjusting at least one operational parameter includes adjusting an intensity of the light source (Column 2, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al., to add the capability of adjusting the intensity of the light source as taught by Henze et al. ‘408 since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that aging of the LED can be compensated and ensure accurate detection of impurities (Column 2, lines 37-47).
Claim(s) 17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al., US10118792, in view of Miyahara et al., US8345246 and Henze et al., US6175408 as applied to claims 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Barea et al., US20210114838.
Regarding claim 17, modified Grossman et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described in claim 16, and a method for unwinding having a detector assembly.
Grossman et al. does not disclose adjusting at least one operational parameter includes adjusting at least one of a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor.
Barea et al. teaches a method for detecting a characteristic of a fiber wherein the controller (8, Fig. 3) is further configured to adjust at least one of a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor ("the system may be pulsed, carrying out selective detection through both the photodiodes and the CMOS sensors." Paragraph [0076], lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al., to add the ability to adjust a pixel value of exposure of the imaging sensor as taught by Barea et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensor can be fine-tuned for a variety of types of fiber and to ensure accurate detection of defects in the fiber.
Regarding claim 22, modified Grossman et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 11, and switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Grossman et al., does not disclose adjusting a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor and adjusting an intensity of the light source.
Barea et al. teaches a method for detecting a characteristic of a fiber wherein the controller (8, Fig. 3) is further configured to adjust at least one of a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor ("the system may be pulsed, carrying out selective detection through both the photodiodes and the CMOS sensors." Paragraph [0076], lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al., to add the ability to adjust a pixel value or exposure of the imaging sensor as taught by Barea et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensor can be fine-tuned for a variety of types of fiber and ensure accurate detection of defects in the fiber.
Henze et al. ‘408 teaches a detector assembly which includes adjusting an intensity of the light source (Column 2, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al., to add the capability of adjusting the intensity of the light source as taught by Henze et al. ‘408 since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that aging of the LED can be compensated and ensure accurate detection of impurities (Column 2, lines 37-47).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al., US10118792 in view of Miyahara et al. US8345246, Abilock et al., US3717771, and Henze et al. ‘408, US6175408.
Regarding independent claim 19, Grossman et al. discloses a method for unwinding a fiber from a bobbin (402-408, Fig. 4), the method comprising: unwinding a fiber from a bobbin (402, Fig. 4) defining a first axis (18, Fig. 2), the fiber (12, Fig. 2) extending from the bobbin (14, Fig. 2) along a second axis different from the first axis (second axis coincident with fiber 12, at an angle 19 from first axis 18, Fig. 2); passing the fiber through a detector assembly disposed along the second axis (fiber 12 passes through detector assembly 26 disposed along axis coincident with 12, Fig. 2), the detector assembly (26, Fig. 2) including an imaging sensor ("a receiver 29 (e.g. a camera)" Column 4, lines 13-14) and a single LED light source ("a light emitter 28 (e.g. via a LED array)" Column 4, line 13; an LED array necessarily has a single LED); operating the detector assembly in a tow position detection phase to determine position of the fiber ("sensor 26 is configured to determine the position of the fiber 12" Column 3, lines 26-27); adjusting a lateral position of the bobbin based on the determined position of the fiber ("the motor 32 can actuate the bobbin 14 laterally in the axial direction 18 as controlled by the controller 30 in response to real-time signals received at the controller 30 from the sensor 26 regarding the position of the fiber 12" Column 4, lines 55-59); maintaining consistent tension on the fiber tow by increasing or decreasing the rotational speed of the bobbin (Column 5, lines 1-5).
Grossman et al., does not disclose switching operation of the detector assembly from the tow position detection phase to a fuzz detection phase to determine a presence of fuzz value; adjusting at least one of the lateral position or the rotational speed of the bobbin based on the presence of fuzz value; and switching operation of the detector assembly back to the tow position detection phase.
Miyahara et al. teaches switching operation of the detector assembly from the tow position detection phase to a fuzz detection phase to determine a presence of fuzz value ("a second data processing procedure for comparing the data obtained by the first data processing procedure with a predetermined threshold value" Column 3, lines 14-16; " the data obtained from the second data processing procedure...may be used to specify defects of yarns" Column 3, lines 25-28); and switching operation of the detector assembly ("the data processing means" Column 3, line 8) back to the tow position detection phase ("a first data processing procedure for specifying positions of the yarns from the received light data" Column 3, lines 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of unwinding of Grossman et al. to add the detection of a presence of fuzz on the fiber tow and switching between the position detection phase and fuzz detection phase as taught by Miyahara et al. in order to detect deterioration of fiber quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because "it is very important for quality control of yarns themselves and textile products, to accurately detect and identify the defects of yarns" (Column 1, lines 46-48; Miyahara et al.).
Abilock et al. teaches a detector assembly having the ability to adjust the rotational speed of the bobbin based on the determined presence of fuzz value (“yarn inspectors are well known for detecting defects in a sheet of yarn while it is moving. Such yarn inspectors may comprise guide bars over which the yarns run to flatten the yarn sheet, a light source at one side of the sheet for directing a beam of light across the sheet, a photo-detecting head at the opposite side of the sheet in line with the light beam and circuitry for producing a signal when the light received by the detecting head varies a predetermined amount, for example by reason of a defect in one of the yarns of the sheet. The signal thus produced is used as desired, for example to count the defects and to stop the warper or other equipment with which the yarn inspector is used” Column 1, lines 12-25; “other equipment” such as a bobbin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of unwinding of Grossman et al., in view of Miyahara et al., to adjust the speed of the bobbin when the presence of a defect (fuzz) is detected as taught by Abilock et al. One would have been motivated to make this modification to stop the bobbin in order to repair the defective or broken yarn.
Henze et al. ‘408 teaches a method of detecting defects in fibers, including adjusting electrical current driving the single LED light source during operation to offset a reduction in light intensity incident on the imaging sensor due to optical contamination or degradation of the single LED light source (Column 2, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Grossman et al. to adjust the electrical current as taught by Henze et al. ‘408 so that aging of the LED can be compensated and ensure accurate detection of impurities (Column 2, lines 37-47).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al., US10118792, in view of Miyahara et al., US8345246, Abilock et al., US3717771, and Henze et al. ‘408, US6175408 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Barea et al., US20210114838.
Regarding claim 23, modified Grossman et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 19, and switching operation of the detector assembly between the tow position detection phase and the fuzz detection phase.
Grossman et al. does not disclose adjusting a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor and adjusting an intensity of the light source.
Barea et al. teaches a method for detecting a characteristic of a fiber wherein the controller (8, Fig. 3) is further configured to adjust at least one of a pixel value or an exposure of the imaging sensor ("the system may be pulsed, carrying out selective detection through both the photodiodes and the CMOS sensors." Paragraph [0076], lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al. to add the ability to adjust a pixel value or exposure of the imaging sensor as taught by Barea et al. since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensor can be fine-tuned for a variety of types of fiber and ensure accurate detection of defects in the fiber.
Henze et al. ‘408 teaches a detector assembly which includes adjusting an intensity of the light source (Column 2, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detector assembly of modified Grossman et al., to add the capability of adjusting the intensity of the light source as taught by Henze et al. ‘408 since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that aging of the LED can be compensated and ensure accurate detection of impurities (Column 2, lines 37-47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights