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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on February 10th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 16 has been canceled. Claim 25 is newly added. Claims 13 and 17-25 remain pending in the application. Claims 13 and 23 are currently amended. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed November 10th, 2025.
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.
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.
Claims 13, 17-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratani (JP 2012232808 A) in view of Hayakawa (JP 03239420 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Hiratani, Figures 1-17, teaches a device 1 for unwinding a strand (“yarn L”; See Hiratani, Para. 0025, Ln. 2) from a bobbin 11 comprising:
at least one bobbin holder 13 extending according to an axis (A) intended to receive a bobbin 11 able to rotate around said axis of the bobbin holder 13 (See Hiratani, Para. 0026, Ln. 2-3);
a movement means 20 for translationally moving the bobbin 11 according to the axis of the bobbin holder 13 (See Hiratani, Para. 0028, Ln. 6-9);
a control means 50 for controlling the movement means 20 (See Hiratani, Para. 0035, Ln. 7-8) configured to enable maintenance of the strand leaving the bobbin 11 at a substantially constant position along the axis (A) of the bobbin holder 13 (See Hiratani, Para. 0050, Ln. 3-5),
wherein the movement means 20 comprise a guiding means 24 for guiding a connecting part 21 in translation according to an axis parallel to the axis of the bobbin holder 11 (See Hiratani, Para. 0034, Ln. 5-10), this connecting part 21 being connected to a bobbin support 12 surrounding the bobbin holder 13, the bobbin support 12 being coupled in rotation to the bobbin holder 13 and free to translate along the bobbin holder 13 (See Hiratani, Para. 0028, Ln. 4-9, Para. 0033, Ln. 6-8),
wherein the connecting part 21 is connected in rotation about the longitudinal axis (A) to the bobbin support 12 and is secured in translation along said axis (A) with said bobbin holder 13 (See Hiratani, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-6),
wherein the guide means 24 comprise at least one rod (“rod-shaped guide bar 24”; See Hiratani, Para. 0034, Ln. 5) along which the connecting part 21 is slidably guided (See Hiratani, Para. 0034, Ln. 7-10).
Although Hiratani does not explicitly teach a plate, Hiratani discloses “The package rotation shaft 13 is provided horizontally, with … the transmission belt 142 of the rotation drive unit 14 connected to the other end,” (See Hiratani, Para. 0034, Ln. 7-10). This teaching combined with the illustrated structure (See Hiratani, Fig. 1), implies the use of a mounting plate oriented perpendicularly to the bobbin holder axis on which the bobbin holder is mounted. Because Hiratani discloses the guide means 24 running parallel to the bobbin holder 13 (See Hiratani, Para. 0034, Ln. 1-6), Hiratani further implies that the guide means comprising at least one rod is substantially perpendicular to the plate.
Additionally, Hayakawa, Figures 1-2, teaches a plate 1 supporting at least one bobbin holder 2 extending according to an axis (A) substantially perpendicular to the plate 1 and intended to receive a bobbin 4 able to rotate around said axis of the bobbin holder 2 (See Hayakawa, Pg. 4, Ln. 3-4);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiratani and Hayakawa to provide a perpendicular plate, as taught by Hayakawa, for the purpose of supporting the bobbin holder (See Hayakawa, Pg. 4, Ln. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 17, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hiratani further teaches wherein the movement means 20 comprise a motor 231 coupled in rotation by a belt 232 to a worm screw 22 driving the connecting part 21 in translation (See Hiratani, Para. 0035, Ln. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 18, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hiratani further teaches wherein the bobbin holder 13 is rotatably mounted relative to the connecting part 21 (See Hiratani, Para. 0033, Ln. 4-8).
Regarding Claim 20, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hayakawa further teaches wherein the bobbin holder 2 comprises ball bearings 5 for the translational movement of the bobbin holder 2 (See Hayakawa, Pg. 5, Ln. 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiratani and Hayakawa to provide ball bearings, as taught by Hayakawa, for the purpose of maintaining tension of the strand within predetermined limits (i.e., allowing the bobbin holder to drive the rotation of the bobbin while maintaining free axial movement of the bobbin along the bobbin holder to keep the angle of the strand leaving the bobbin consistent) (See Hayakawa, Pg. 3, Ln. 3-8, Pg. 5, Ln. 7-11).
Regarding Claim 21, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hayakawa further teaches wherein the bobbin holder 2 is rotatably mounted on the plate 1 (See Hayakawa, Pg. 5, Ln. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiratani and Hayakawa to provide a bobbin holder rotatably mounted on a plate, as taught by Hayakawa, for the purpose of rotating the bobbin (i.e., supporting the bobbin holder while allowing the bobbin holder to rotate and drive rotation of the bobbin) (See Hayakawa, Pg. 5, Ln. 5-11).
Regarding Claim 22, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hiratani further teaches wherein the control means 50 comprise a detection means 40 for detecting the axial position of the strand leaving the bobbin 11 (See Hiratani, Para. 0042, Ln. 1-11, Para. 0048, Ln. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 23, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hiratani further teaches wherein the detection means 40 comprise two position sensors 42, 43 spaced axially apart from each other and configured to detect the passage of the strand (See Hiratani, Para. 0042, Ln. 1-11).
Regarding Claim 24, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hiratani further teaches a unit 100 for winding at least one strand of a bobbin 11 by means of the device 1 according to claim 13 (See Hiratani, Para. 0002-0003, Para. 0024-0025).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratani (JP 2012232808 A) in view of Hayakawa (JP 03239420 A), as applied to claims 13, 17-18, and 20-24 above, and further in view of Bryant (US 2,757,884).
Regarding Claim 19, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hiratani in view of Hayakawa teach all the elements of the device except for a roller bearing mounted at the junction of the bobbin support and the connecting part.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 3 from Bryant
However, Bryant, Figures 1-3 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches wherein a roller bearing 12 is mounted at the junction of the bobbin support 5 and the connecting part 1 (See Bryant, Col. 1, Ln. 64-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiratani, Hayakawa, and Bryant to provide a roller bearing, as taught by Bryant, for the purpose of rotatably supporting the bobbin support in the connecting part (See Bryant, Col. 1, Ln. 64-66).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratani (JP 2012232808 A) in view of Hayakawa (JP 03239420 A), as applied to claims 13, 17-18, and 20-24 above, and further in view of Grossman (US 2018/0037433).
Regarding Claim 25, Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are advanced above.
Hiratani in view of Hayakawa teach all the elements of the device except for the position sensors being optical sensors.
However, Grossman, Figures 1-4, teaches wherein the position sensor 26 is an optical sensor (“at least one sensor (e.g., an optical sensor”)”; See Grossman, Para. 0017, Ln. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiratani, Hayakawa, and Grossman to provide optical sensors, as taught by Grossman, for the purpose of minimizing damage to the strand (i.e., assessing the strand’s position and translating the bobbin axially to maintain a desired angle between the bobbin and the strand output location) (See Grossman, Para. 0003, Ln. 2-6, Ln. 8-16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 6-9, filed February 10th, 2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant has amended the claims. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 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.
Hiratani in view of Hayakawa are utilized in the current rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 17-25, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 13 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
Regarding newly added Claim 25, the claim is a dependent of rejected claim 13, and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made for additional limitations outlined in claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm 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, 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights