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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 21 will be examined as written, as “the plurality of first projection sets into the work zone” on a conveyor can move simultaneously as well as “the plurality of second projection sets out of the work zone simultaneously”; these limitations are understood by the Examiner to not be required to both occur simultaneously together (for the same article and for the same work zone) on a conveyor.
The Examiner believes claim 21 may have been intended to have the claim 1 limitations of moving “the first projection sets out of the work zone and to move a plurality of second projection sets into the work zone” while introducing only the “simultaneously” limitations; however, there is no indefiniteness in claim 21 as it is written.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s page 6-9 arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1.
From the argument on page 7, the prior art of Nordstrom is understood by the Examiner to prima facie obviously teach ‘a plurality of first projection sets’ and ‘a plurality of second projection sets’. From the rejection in the last office action, Nordstrom teaches a frame (Fig. 3) with projecting pins around the perimeter. Nordstrom teaches fiber windings can be wound around a first plurality of the pins (item 140) in a first direction, while different fiber windings can be wound around a second plurality of the pins (item 142) in a second direction, in sequence [0042], after the first winding has been completed.
Nordstrom teaches the frame comprising the first and second projection sets will have a means to attach to a ‘workstation table’ or a “conveyor belt of a manufacturing system” [0042], the attachment means in the form of “a series of mechanical fastening features 208 (e.g., snap-fastener heads) for securing the workpiece frame 200 to a subjacent support surface” [0042].
These Nordstrom teachings alone provide enough information to make it prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that: the frame can be snap-attached to a conveyor; the frame could enter a first workstation to wind the first windings on the first projections; the second windings could be wound on the second projection sets at the same workstation or could be at a second workstation (after moving the frame further down the conveying path); the frame could be moved out of its workstation after each winding step; and more than one frame could be on a conveyor belt at a time (common assembly line). All of these obviousness assumptions would be based on a person of ordinary skill in the art’s knowledge of basic and very common conveyor belt assembly line systems.
Regarding the page 7-9 Ernstberger arguments, the prior art of Ernstberger was included to provide conveying details and illustrate how a multi-axial fiber winding process can take place on frame (or track) a moving platform, since Nordstrom does not illustrate or provide details of the basic conveyor system. Ernstberger is not needed to teach the element of moving workpieces between workstations, even though the Examiner believes it is evident the Ernsberger process also performs that step. The previous office action stated only “Nordstrom is silent on the details of a conveyor belt”. However, the conveying system steps are prima facie obvious from Nordstrom and the common knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim 12 arguments on pages 10-11 are drawn to the amendments, and will be discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections section.
The amendment to claim 12, the cancellation of claims 15-20, and new claims 21-26 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
In claim 21, line 2, it is suggested to place a comma after “simultaneously”. This would clarify that the elements of “moving the plurality of first projection sets into the work zone” and “moving the plurality of second projection sets out of the work zone” are not required to happen together simultaneously (for the same article at the same work zone).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the second work zone" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation is intended to be cited as “a second work zone”, or if claim 25 is intended to be dependent to claim 22, in which a “second work zone” has been introduced.
Due to this lack of clarity in claim 25, it is also unclear if “the work zone” in line 4 of claim 25 is intended to cite ‘a first work zone’ or “the second work zone”. Claim 25 does not have a clarifying phrase such as the phrase in claim 22 citing “wherein the work zone is a first work zone”.
For the sake of compact prosecution, due to the reasons listed, claim 25 will be examined as being dependent to claim 22 to avoid indefiniteness and a lack antecedent basis.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14 & 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US20230109805A1), in view of Ernstberger (DE102012206404A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method of manufacturing an article of apparel, the method comprising: moving a plurality of first projection sets positioned on a conveyor into a work zone, each first projection set comprising a plurality of projections disposed around a winding field; winding a respective continuous thread on each respective first projection set to form a thread layer on each first projection set, the thread layer comprising a plurality of thread lines, with each thread line extending between two respective projections and across the winding field; and after winding the respective continuous threads on each of the first projection sets, advancing the conveyor to move the first projection sets out of the work zone and to move a plurality of second projection sets into the work zone.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Nordstrom teaches a method of manufacturing an article that can be footwear comprising an upper (Fig. 2, items 112A-C; [0011, 0036]), the method comprising: moving a plurality of first projection sets (Fig. 3, items 210 – cylindrical wire posts) positioned on a conveyor into a work zone [0042], each first projection set comprising a plurality of projections disposed around a winding field (Fig. 3, ‘frame space’ item 201 within the workpiece frame item 200); winding a respective continuous thread on each respective first projection set to form a thread layer on each first projection set (Fig. 3, items 140; [0037]), the thread layer comprising a plurality of thread lines, with each thread line extending between two respective projections and across the winding field [0037].
Nordstrom teaches after winding the respective continuous threads on each of the first projection sets, the first and second projections sets could be moved by the conveyor to their respective workstations. This movement step is implicitly taught by Nordstrom, as the frame is positioned on ‘a conveyor belt of a manufacturing system’ [0042].
Nordstrom is silent on the details of a conveyor belt for the manufacturing system, instead detailing the alternative ‘workstation table’ embodiment [0042].
However, in a related field of art, the prior art of Ernstberger teaches a process using a conveyor to lay a multi-axial fiber workpiece (Fig. 7d, item 5), and moving the workpiece via the conveyor for the next processing step(s) [P. 10, last ¶ - P. 11, ¶ 1].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the process and controls of Ernstberger for using a conveyor belt to lay a multi-axial fiber workpiece, and advancing the workpiece to the next processing station(s), in place of the conveyor belt processing system that Nordstrom teaches but does not provide any operating details for the conveyor. This process modification of Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, would predictably provide details for the use and control of the conveyor of Ernstberger within the manufacturing process for a footwear upper of the Nordstrom process applied onto a conveyor.
Nordstrom teaches a set of wire windings (140) are laid over another set of wire windings (142) in a non-woven manner, with the sets typically in orthogonal directions to each other [0038]. This teaching indicates the laying each of the sets of windings are not intertwined, but overlap, and can take place sequentially. From this teaching, it would be prima facie obvious that the conveyor belt could advance the workpiece from one a work zone after winding the respective continuous threads on each of the first projection sets to the work zone where second projection sets are wound.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the thread layer defines at least a portion of a material for a footwear upper.
With respect to claim 2, Nordstrom teaches the thread layer defines at least a portion of a material for a footwear upper [0011, 0036].
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the respective continuous threads each comprise a fusible material, and the method further comprises fusing the respective continuous threads after the winding.
With respect to claim 3, Nordstrom teaches the respective continuous threads each comprise a fusible material of unwoven, superimposed wire sets (Fig. 3, items 140, 142; [0042]), and the method further comprises fusing the respective continuous threads after the winding via a welding head [0045].
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the respective continuous threads are fused on the conveyor.
With respect to claim 4, Nordstrom details the respective continuous threads can be fused while the workpiece is on the frame [0042]. In the modified process of Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, it would have been prima facie obvious to have the workpiece frame of Nordstrom secured to the conveyor of Ernstberger, just as the workpiece was secured to the workstation table in the process detailed by Nordstrom. The modified process would predictably fuse the threads together while on the workpiece frame which is secured to the conveyor.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the respective continuous threads are fused on the conveyor and after advancing the conveyor to move the plurality of first projection sets out of the work zone.
With respect to claim 5, Nordstrom details the respective continuous threads can be fused while the workpiece is on the frame [0042]. In the modified process of Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, it would have been prima facie obvious to have the workpiece frame of Nordstrom secured to the conveyor of Ernstberger, just as the workpiece was secured to the workstation table in the process detailed by Nordstrom. The modified process would predictably fuse the threads together while on the workpiece frame which is secured onto the conveyor.
Nordstrom teaches using a first select set of posts, or projection sets, for laying the first continuous wire [0042], then using a second select set of posts for laying another unwoven wire over the first wire [0042]; while Ernstberger teaches advancing the conveyor during processing steps.
Because Nordstrom teaches the plurality of sets (up to five sets [0007]) are sequentially laid atop each other and fused, this could prima facie obviously teach the first select set of posts could have been moved from the work zone before fusing the wires together to form the workpiece.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of projection sets comprises a support plate that is releasably coupled to the conveyor.
With respect to claim 6, Nordstrom teaches each of the first plurality of projection sets comprises a support plate, the workpiece frame (Fig. 3, item 200), that is releasably coupled (by snap fasteners) to the workstation table or conveyor [0042].
7. The method of claim 6, wherein each of the second plurality of projection sets comprises a support plate that is releasably coupled to the conveyor and the method further comprises loading the second plurality of projection sets onto the conveyor.
With respect to claim 7, Nordstrom teaches each of the second plurality of projection sets comprises a support plate that is releasably coupled (by snap fasteners) to the workstation table or conveyor [0042], and the method further comprises the second plurality of projection sets is loaded onto the support plate (workpiece frame Fig. 3, item 200) that is on the conveyor [0042].
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: advancing the conveyor to move a third plurality of projection sets out of the work zone before winding the respective continuous threads on each the first projection sets and while a thread layer is supported on each projection set of the third plurality of projection sets; and unloading the thread layers from the conveyor.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, shows it would be prima facie obvious that the conveyor belt could advance the workpiece from one a work zone after winding the respective continuous threads on each of the previous projection sets to the work zone where the desired group projection sets are to be wound.
Because Nordstrom teaches up to five projection sets [0007] can be sequentially laid atop each other and fused, this could prima facie obviously teach the first select set of posts could have been moved from the work zone before fusing the wires together to form the workpiece.
From these teachings, it would be prima facie obvious to advance the conveyor to move a third plurality of projection sets out of the work zone before winding the respective continuous threads on each the first projection sets and while a thread layer is supported on each projection set of the third plurality of projection sets.
Although Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, is silent on unloading the thread layers from the conveyor, it would have been prima facie obvious that after the winding the threads of the desired number of projection sets onto the frames on the conveyor, and after fusing the thread layers together to form a workpiece, to unload the semi-finished product workpiece from the conveyor for further processing.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the unloading comprises removing the thread layers from the third plurality of projection sets while the third plurality of projection sets remain on the conveyor.
With respect to claim 9, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, up to five projection sets [0007] can be sequentially laid atop each other and fused, and it would have been prima facie obvious to unload the semi-finished product workpiece from the conveyor for further processing after the winding the threads of the desired number of projection sets onto the frames on the conveyor and fusing the thread layers together to form a workpiece.
If it were desired to form a workpiece having three wound thread layers to form the particular workpiece, then it would have been prima facie obvious to remove the thread layers from the third plurality of projection sets while the third plurality of projection sets remain on the conveyor.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the conveyor comprises a conveyor belt and the plurality of projections of each first projection set protrude from the conveyor belt.
With respect to claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, teaches a frame for forming a workpiece is attached to the conveyor, wherein projections from each projection are protruding from the frame.
As understood by the Examiner, it would not be necessary for any reason to remove the frame from the conveyor to complete the manufacture of the workpiece.
Therefore, the use of a one-piece construction of the frame and conveyor instead of the structure disclosed in the prior arts would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to integrate the frame and conveyor together, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B)}. One would have been motivated to integrate the frame and conveyor as one piece in order to prevent unwanted movement of the frame on the conveyor, or detachment of the frame from the conveyor.
After this integration modification, the plurality of projections of each first projection set would be protruding from the conveyor belt.
12. A method of manufacturing an article of apparel, the method comprising: mounting a plurality of support plates on a conveyor, each support plate comprising a plurality of projections disposed around a winding field; advancing the conveyor to move the plurality of support plates through a work zone; winding a respective continuous thread on each respective support plate to form a thread layer, the thread layer comprising a plurality of thread lines, with each thread line extending between two respective projections and across the winding field of the respective support plate; and removing the thread layers from each support plate after the support plate exits the work zone.
With respect to claim 12, the prior art of Nordstrom teaches a method of manufacturing an article of apparel that can be footwear comprising an upper (Fig. 2, items 112A-C; [0011, 0036]), the method comprising: mounting a support plate, or workpiece frame (Fig. 3, item 200) on a conveyor [0042].
Nordstrom is silent on mounting a plurality of support plates, or workpiece frames, on the conveyor.
However, duplicating the workpiece frames taught by Nordstrom and having a plurality of the frames attached to the conveyor is not deemed to have patentable significance, as no new or unexpected result for the process would be expected. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
The motivation for having a plurality of workpiece frames is obvious for conveyor belt operations; this modification allows for multiple articles to advance through multiple steps of the process simultaneously, which greatly improves the production rate.
Nordstrom teaches each workpiece frame comprising a plurality of projections (Fig. 3, items 210 – cylindrical wire posts) disposed around a winding field (Fig. 3, ‘frame space’ item 201 within the workpiece frame item 200)
Nordstrom does not explicitly teach advancing the conveyor to move the plurality of support plates through a work zone, as Nordstrom is silent on the details of a conveyor belt for the manufacturing system, instead detailing the alternative ‘workstation table’ embodiment [0042].
However, in a related field of art, the prior art of Ernstberger teaches a process using a conveyor to lay a multi-axial fiber workpiece (Fig. 7d, item 5), and moving the workpiece via the conveyor for the next processing step(s) [P. 10, last ¶ - P. 11, ¶ 1].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the process and controls of Ernstberger for using a conveyor belt to lay a multi-axial fiber workpiece, and advancing the workpiece to the next processing station(s), in place of the conveyor belt processing system that Nordstrom teaches but does not provide any operating details for the conveyor. This process modification of Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, would predictably provide details for the use and control of the conveyor of Ernstberger within the manufacturing process for a footwear upper of the Nordstrom process applied onto a conveyor.
Nordstrom teaches winding a respective continuous thread on each respective support plate to form a thread layer (Fig. 3, items 140; [0037]), the thread layer comprising a plurality of thread lines, with each thread line extending between two respective projections and across the winding field of the respective support plate [0037].
Although not explicitly taught by Nordstrom or Ernstberger, it would a prima facie obvious step to remove the thread layers from each support plate after the support plate exits the work zone when the steps for manufacturing the product has been completed.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the respective continuous threads comprise a fusible material, and the method comprises fusing the respective continuous threads on each support plate after the support plate has exited the work zone.
With respect to claim 13, Nordstrom teaches the respective continuous threads each comprise a fusible material of unwoven, superimposed wire sets (Fig. 3, items 140, 142; [0042]), and the method further comprises fusing the respective continuous threads after the winding via a welding head [0045].
14. The method of claim 12, wherein the thread layer defines at least a portion of a material for a footwear upper.
With respect to claim 14, Nordstrom teaches the thread layer defines at least a portion of a material for a footwear upper (Fig. 2, items 112A-C; [0011, 0036]).
21. The method of claim 1, comprising moving the plurality of first projection sets into the work zone simultaneously and moving the plurality of second projection sets out of the work zone simultaneously.
With respect to claim 21, As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Nordstrom teaches the plurality of first projection sets are attached on the same frame on a conveyor system; and therefore would prima facie obviously move into the work zone simultaneously. Similarly, Nordstrom teaches the plurality of second projection sets are attached on the same frame on a conveyor system, and prima facie obviously would be moved out of the work zone by the conveyor belt simultaneously for further processing.
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the work zone is a first work zone, and the method comprises: advancing the conveyor to move the plurality of first projection sets from the first work zone into a second work zone after winding the respective continuous threads on each of the first projection sets; and performing a second operation on each of the first projection sets while the plurality of first projection sets is positioned in the second work zone.
With respect to claim 22, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Nordstrom teaches a set of wire windings (140) can be laid over another set of wire windings (142) in a non-woven manner, with the sets typically in orthogonal directions to each other [0038]. This teaching indicates the laying each of the sets of windings are not intertwined, but overlap, and can take place sequentially. From this teaching, it would be prima facie obvious that the conveyor belt could advance the workpiece from one a work zone after winding the respective continuous threads on each of the first projection sets to the work zone where second projection sets are wound.
Nordstrom teaches the frame comprising the first and second projection sets will have a means to attach to a “conveyor belt of a manufacturing system” [0042], the attachment means in the form of “a series of mechanical fastening features 208 (e.g., snap-fastener heads) for securing the workpiece frame 200 to a subjacent support surface” [0042].
Nordstrom teaches that after the threads are wound around the plurality of second projection sets, a bonding step occurs which bonds the first and second windings together. Nordstrom teaches “the unwoven, overlapping wires 140, 142 may be joined together at multiple predefined locations, e.g., via stitching, bonding, fusing and/or fastening the wires” [0042].
These Nordstrom teachings provide enough information to make it prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that: the frame could enter a first workstation to wind the first windings on the first projections; the second windings could be wound on the second projection sets at the same workstation or could be at a second workstation (after moving the frame further down the conveying path); and a second operation can take place each of the first projection sets (to bond the first and second windings) while the plurality of first projection sets is either positioned in the second work zone or further down the manufacturing conveyor path. All of these obviousness assumptions would be based on a person of ordinary skill in the art’s knowledge of basic and very common conveyor belt assembly line systems.
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the second operation comprises bonding the continuous threads.
With respect to claim 23, as set forth in the rejection of claim 22, Nordstrom teaches the second operation comprises a means for bonding the continuous threads, including adhesive bonding [0033].
24. The method of claim 22, wherein the second operation comprises winding additional continuous threads on each of the first projection sets.
With respect to claim 24, Nordstrom teaches the second operation comprises winding additional continuous threads on each of the first projection sets. Nordstrom teaches a plurality, but not all, of first projection sets are a part of the second projection sets that have an overlapping second winding (See Fig. 3, items 140, 142).
As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Nordstrom teaches a set of wire windings (140) are laid over another set of wire windings (142) in a non-woven manner, with the sets typically in orthogonal directions to each other [0038]. This teaching indicates the laying each of the sets of windings are not intertwined, but overlap, and can take place sequentially.
25. The method of claim 22, comprising: winding the respective continuous threads on each respective first projection set simultaneously using an arm that comprises multiple thread guides while the plurality of first projection sets is in the work zone; and winding a respective further continuous thread on each respective second projection set simultaneously using the arm while the plurality of second projection sets is in the second work zone.
With respect to claim 25, Nordstrom teaches winding the respective continuous threads (Fig, 3, item 140) on each respective first projection set simultaneously using a vision-guided articulated robot arm [0044] that comprises multiple thread guides while the plurality of first projection sets in the first work zone [0008-0009, 0037]; and winding a respective further continuous threads (Fig, 3, item 142) on each respective second projection set simultaneously using a vision-guided articulated robot arm while the plurality of second projection sets is in the second work zone [0008-0009, 0037].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US20230109805A1), in view of Ernstberger (DE102012206404A1), as set forth in the rejection of claim 9, and further in view of Bell (US20130340283A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein removing the thread layers from the third plurality of projection sets comprises cutting the thread layers away from portions of thread wrapped around individual projections of each of the third plurality of projection sets.
With respect to claim 10, Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, teaches the thread layers forming the workpiece can be removed from the third plurality of projection sets after the workpiece has been completed.
Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, is silent on the cutting the thread layers away from each of the individual projections of each of the remaining plurality of projection sets after the workpiece thread winding is completed.
However, the prior art of Bell teaches strands can be cut along a line (Fig. 5F, item 102) near their endpoints in order to remove the workpiece (Fig. 5F, items 70, 71) from their endpoints (Fig. 5F, items 91, 92) after thread winding is completed [0048-0049].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known technique of cutting away the threads of a completed workpiece from its attached individual projection endpoints, taught by Bell, to the ready-for-improvement manufacturing method of Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, to provide a known means for removing the workpiece from the frame/conveyor for further processing. This process modification would require the addition of a cutting unit into the process of Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, to cut the threads of the workpiece near the endpoints.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 26, no prior art was found to modify Nordstrom, in view of Ernstberger, to teach the conveyor comprises a rotatable plate comprising a surface, and wherein mounting the plurality of support plates on the conveyor comprises mounting the plurality of support plates on the surface of the rotatable plate.
It would not have been prima facie obvious to add a rotatable means to a plate that is snap-fastened to a conveyor (Fig. 3, item 200; [0042]) in the process of Nordstrom, when an articulating robot arm (Fig. 4, item 302) taught by Nordstrom, which may have six degrees of freedom of motion, is taught to perform all necessary winding and stitching (bonding) operations [0044].
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 GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748