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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherif (US 2002/0133913)(hereinafter Cherif’913) in view of Strobel (US 2006/0162129) and Konig (US 2015/0292123).
Regarding claim 14, Cherif’913 teaches an autoleveller draw frame (fig. 3), comprising: a drafting system having a plurality of roller combinations (fig. 3, rollers 23, 24, 25) situated one behind the other for drafting a fibrous web from one or more slivers (fig. 3, slivers 13);
a drive unit (fig. 3, motors 19, 20 and control device 22) configured with the plurality of roller combinations, the drive unit comprising:
a main motor (fig. 3, motor 19) that drives a first of the roller combinations at a constant main rotational speed (para. [0023]);
a regulating motor (fig. 3, motor 20) that regulates a rotational speed of a second of the roller combinations, wherein, due to the regulation, the rotational speed of the second roller combination is changeable from a basic rotational speed (para. [0023], preset speed of motor 20) into an autolevelling speed (para. [0023], the changed speed by the control device 22 with the aid of a setting signal which is correlated with the mass fluctuations of the slivers), the basic rotational speed depending on the main rotational speed (para. [0023], the ratio between velocity of roll pairs is set as the drafting of the slivers is set) and the autolevelling speed being independent of the main rotational speed (fig. 3, there is no mechanical coupling between the two drawing zones), wherein the drafting of the fibrous web is adjustable (para. [0023], the rpm changes of the motor 20 result in a change of the extent of draft),
the regulating motor being drive-independent of the main motor to drive the second roller combination independently of the main motor at the autolevelling speed (para. [0023], a change of the motor is controlled by the control device 22 with the aid of a setting signal which is correlated with the mass fluctuations of the slivers in the input zone of the draw unit);
wherein the autoleveller draw frame further comprises:
a pair of scanning rollers (fig. 3, rollers 14a, 14b) that detect a thickness of the slivers entering the drafting system (para. [0023]); and
wherein the drive unit further comprises a control unit (fig. 3, control device 22) configured with the regulating motor.
Cherif’913 does not teach the autolevelling speed is obtained according to an electrical signal that is based on the main rotational speed; a speed sensor that detects the main rotational speed of the first roller combination or rotation of the main motor; a transmission unit that transforms a signal from the speed sensor into a signal for the basic rotational speed of the second roller combination; a specification unit electrically connected to the pair of scanning rollers, the specification unit setting a superimposition speed for the basic rotational speed based on the thickness of the slivers; and the control unit calculating the autolevelling speed from the superimposition speed and the basic rotational speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Strobel teaches the autolevelling speed is obtained according to an electrical signal that is based on the main rotational speed (para. [0035], the actual indicator (53) delivers a signal corresponding to the rotational motor speed to a central control and/or regulating unit (19); the control and/or regulating unit (19) determines on basis of these signals which one of the drives 30, 40,50, 60 should currently be the master drive, whereby the other drives then serve as slave drives); a speed sensor (fig. 1, sensor 53) that detects the main rotational speed of the first roller combination or rotation of the main motor (para. [0035]); a transmission unit (fig. 1, bus system 70) that transforms a signal from the speed sensor into a signal for the basic rotational speed of the second roller combination; a specification unit (fig. 1, regulating computer 18) electrically connected to the pair of scanning rollers (fig. 1, rollers 5), the specification unit setting a superimposition speed for the basic rotational speed based on the thickness of the slivers (para. [0036], the regulating computer 18 computes the rotational target speed of the motor 42 based on the measured values of the cross-section measuring device 5); and the control unit calculating the autolevelling speed from the superimposition speed and the basic rotational speed (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cherif’913 with the control method of Strobel so that the rotational speeds of the motors are coordinated with each other to drive machine elements, in particular fiber material drafting elements, measuring elements, conveying elements and/or storing elements, as well as with at least one measuring device for the determination of actual value of drive and/or fiber material related measured values (Strobel, para. [0001]).
The modified structure Cherif’913-Strobel does not teach the regulating motor comprises a reluctance motor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konig teaches the drive of the rollers comprises a reluctance drive (para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the regulating motor of the modified structure Cherif’913-Strobel with a reluctance motor as suggested by Konig for the benefit of obtaining the desired draft (Konig, para. [0021] and delivering high power density at low cost.
Regarding claim 20, the modified structure Cherif’913-Strobel-Konig teaches the autolevelling speed is transmitted to the regulating motor as an electrical signal (Strobel, fig. 1, by bus system 70).
Regarding claim 22, Cherif’913 teaches a method for operating an autoleveller draw frame (fig. 3), wherein the autoleveller draw frame includes:
a drafting system having a plurality of roller combinations (fig. 3, rollers 23, 24, 25) situated one behind the other for drafting a fibrous web from one or more slivers (fig. 3, slivers 13);
a drive unit (fig. 3, motors 19, 20 and control device 22) configured with the plurality of roller combinations, the drive unit comprising:
a main motor (fig. 3, motor 19) that drives a first of the roller combinations at a constant main rotational speed (para. [0023]);
a regulating motor (fig. 3, motor 20) that regulates a rotational speed of a second of the roller combinations, wherein, due to the regulation, the rotational speed of the second roller combination is changeable from a basic rotational speed (para. [0023], preset speed of motor 20) into an autolevelling speed (para. [0023], the changed speed by the control device 22 with the aid of a setting signal which is correlated with the mass fluctuations of the slivers), the basic rotational speed depending on the main rotational speed (para. [0023], the ratio between velocity of roll pairs is set as the drafting of the slivers is set) and the autolevelling speed being independent of the main rotational speed (fig. 3, there is no mechanical coupling between the two drawing zones), wherein the drafting of the fibrous web is adjustable (para. [0023], the rpm changes of the motor 20 result in a change of the extent of draft),
the method comprising driving the regulating motor independent of the main motor to drive the second roller combination independently of the main motor at the autolevelling speed (para. [0023], a change of the motor is controlled by the control device 22 with the aid of a setting signal which is correlated with the mass fluctuations of the slivers in the input zone of the draw unit);
wherein the autoleveller draw frame further comprises:
a pair of scanning rollers (fig. 3, rollers 14a, 14b) that detect a thickness of the slivers entering the drafting system (para. [0023]); and
wherein the drive unit further comprises a control unit (fig. 3, control device 22) configured with the regulating motor.
Cherif’913 does not teach the autolevelling speed is obtained according to an electrical signal that is based on the main rotational speed; a speed sensor that detects the main rotational speed of the first roller combination or rotation of the main motor; a transmission unit that transforms a signal from the speed sensor into a signal for the basic rotational speed of the second roller combination; a specification unit electrically connected to the pair of scanning rollers, the specification unit setting a superimposition speed for the basic rotational speed based on the thickness of the slivers; and the control unit calculating the autolevelling speed from the superimposition speed and the basic rotational speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Strobel teaches the autolevelling speed is obtained according to an electrical signal that is based on the main rotational speed (para. [0035], the actual indicator (53) delivers a signal corresponding to the rotational motor speed to a central control and/or regulating unit (19); the control and/or regulating unit (19) determines on basis of these signals which one of the drives 30, 40,50, 60 should currently be the master drive, whereby the other drives then serve as slave drives); a speed sensor (fig. 1, sensor 53) that detects the main rotational speed of the first roller combination or rotation of the main motor (para. [0035]); a transmission unit (fig. 1, bus system 70) that transforms a signal from the speed sensor into a signal for the basic rotational speed of the second roller combination; a specification unit (fig. 1, regulating computer 18) electrically connected to the pair of scanning rollers (fig. 1, rollers 5), the specification unit setting a superimposition speed for the basic rotational speed based on the thickness of the slivers (para. [0036], the regulating computer 18 computes the rotational target speed of the motor 42 based on the measured values of the cross-section measuring device 5); and the control unit calculating the autolevelling speed from the superimposition speed and the basic rotational speed (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cherif’913 with the control method of Strobel so that the rotational speeds of the motors are coordinated with each other to drive machine elements, in particular fiber material drafting elements, measuring elements, conveying elements and/or storing elements, as well as with at least one measuring device for the determination of actual value of drive and/or fiber material related measured values (Strobel, para. [0001]).
The modified method Cherif’913-Strobel does not teach the regulating motor comprises a reluctance motor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konig teaches the drive of the rollers comprises a reluctance drive (para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the regulating motor of the modified method Cherif’913-Strobel with a reluctance motor as suggested by Konig for the benefit of obtaining the desired draft (Konig, para. [0021] and delivering high power density at low cost.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherif (US 2002/0133913, Strobel (US 2006/0162129) and Konig (US 2015/0292123), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of DE3150784 (hereinafter DE’784).
Regarding claim 21, the modified structure Cherif’913-Strobel-Konig does not teach the main motor comprises an induction motor.
However, DE’784 teaches the main motor comprises an induction motor (machine translation, para. [0025], the roller 15 is driven by a 3 phase AC motor 18, which can be a synchronous or an asynchronous motor).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the main motor of the modified structure Cherif’913-Strobel-Konig with an induction motor as suggested by DE’784 for the benefit of providing simplicity, affordability, robustness, and high efficiency to the system.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherif (US 2005/0198784)(hereinafter Cherif) in view of Strobel (US 2006/0162129).
Regarding claim 23, Cherif teaches a method for converting an autoleveller draw frame from an initial configuration, the initial configuration including: a drafting system (fig. 1)having a plurality of roller combinations (fig. 1, rollers 5, 6, 7) situated one behind the other for drafting a fibrous web from one or more slivers (fig. 1, fiber band);
a drive unit (fig. 1, motors 37, 22) configured with the plurality of roller combinations, the drive unit including:
a main motor (fig. 1, motor 22) for driving a first of the plurality of roller combinations at a constant main rotational speed (para. [0022]);
a differential gear (fig. 1, differential drive 24) that transmits the main rotational speed of the main motor to a second of the plurality of roller combinations such that a basic rotational speed of the second roller combination depends on the main rotational speed of the first roller combination (para. [0042]); and
a superimposition motor (fig. 1, motor 37) that superimposes a superimposition speed (para. [0039], a computed speed in accord with the desired corrective drafting adjustment) on the basic rotational speed by means of the differential gear such that, due to the superimposition, a rotational speed of the second roller combination is changeable from the basic rotational speed into an autolevelling speed (para. [0039]);
the method comprising:
removing the differential gear from the drive unit (from fig. 1 to fig. 3);
replacing the superimposition motor with a regulating motor (fig. 3, motor 42) that is drive-independent of the main motor;
wherein the regulating motor drives the second roller combination independently of the main motor at the autolevelling speed (fig. 3, there is mechanical coupling between the two motors 42 and 52).
Cherif does not teach the autolevelling speed is obtained according to an electrical signal that is based on the main rotational speed.
However, Strobel teaches the autolevelling speed is obtained according to an electrical signal that is based on the main rotational speed (para. [0035], the actual indicator (53) delivers a signal corresponding to the rotational motor speed to a central control and/or regulating unit (19); the control and/or regulating unit (19) determines on basis of these signals which one of the drives 30, 40,50, 60 should currently be the master drive, whereby the other drives then serve as slave drives).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cherif with the teaching of Strobel that the autolevelling speed is obtained according to an electrical signal that is based on the main rotational speed so that the rotational speeds of the motors are coordinated with each other to drive machine elements, in particular fiber material drafting elements.
The modified method Cherif-Strobel does not clearly teach wherein at least one drive element or output element of the differential gear is reused as a transmission element of the regulating motor.
However, Cherif teaches the respective motors can drive additional machine elements, advantageously by belt drives or the like (para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to reuse part of the transmission elements from the differential drive system (24, 23) as part of the transmission elements from the regulating motor to the middle roller because using machine elements (such as belts, gears) to connect from the motor to the roller is well known in the art.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherif (US 2005/0198784) in view of Strobel (US 2006/0162129), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of EP2149628 (hereinafter EP’628).
Regarding claim 25, the modified method Cherif-Strobel does not teach removing a mechanical or electromagnetic brake of the drive unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, EP’628 teaches removing a mechanical or electromagnetic brake of the drive unit (machine translation, para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Cherif-Strobel with the teaching of removing a mechanical or electromagnetic brake of the drive unit as taught by EP’628 as the mechanical or electromagnetic brake is subject to wear and tear, so adjustment and maintenance work is required from time to time (EP’628, machine translation, para. [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732