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 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.
Claim 17 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 17 recites “the features of claim 15” in line 5. It is unclear “which features” the Applicant wants to mention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, 16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrison (US 5749215).
Regarding claim 1, Harrison teaches a friction disc (fig. 1,disc 10) for a false twisting device (column 1, lines 66-67), having a hub (fig. 5, a hub formed by elements 34 and 36) comprising a mounting opening (fig. 5) for mounting a shaft (column 3, lines 19-21, a rotor shaft) of the false twisting device, and with a race (fig. 5, ring 23) that circumferentially surrounds the hub when the friction disc is used as intended, wherein the race comprises a base body (fig. 5, the upper portion of ring 23) having a uniform cross section about an axis of rotation of the friction disc (fig. 5 shows a cross section of the ring 23) and the hub comprises a mounting contour (fig. 5, contact surface between elements 34 and 36) adapted to correspond to the base body of the race (fig. 5), and wherein the race and the hub are detachably connected to one another (column 2, lines 34-37), characterized in that the race has at least one locking section (fig. 5, bottom portion of the ring 23) that increases the cross-section of the base body (fig. 5) and that is delimited along a direction of rotation of the friction disc (fig. 5), and in that the hub comprises at least one correspondingly adapted recess (fig. 5, the bottom portion of the ring 23 is received between elements 34 and 36), wherein the at least one locking section of the race and the at least one corresponding adapted recess of the hub form an interlocking anti-rotation lock in the connected state of the friction disc (column 3, lines 65-67, column 4, line 1, the ring 23 is secured by members 34 and 36), and the at least one locking section projects from the base body of the race along an axial direction (fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
369
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Harrison teaches the race is formed integrally with the base body and the at least one locking section (fig. 5, the ring 23 is one integrally formed unit).
Regarding claim 4, Harrison teaches the race is formed mirror-symmetrically, (annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
316
807
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Harrison teaches the hub comprises at least two carriers (fig. 5, elements 34 and 36), wherein the at least two carriers abut each other (fig. 5) when the friction disc is used as intended and are detachably connected to the race.
Regarding claim 8, Harrison teaches one of the at least two carriers comprises a mounting ring with the mounting opening, the mounting ring extending completely over a width of the hub in axial direction (annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
389
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Harrison teaches the hub comprises a connection means (fig. 5, connection between the elements 34 and 36) for connecting the at least two carriers, wherein the carriers are non-displaceably connected to one another by means of the connection means (fig. 5), and wherein the carriers can be separated from one another by detaching the connection means (column 3, lines 51-57).
Regarding claim 10, Harrison teaches the connection means comprises at least one first carrier (fig. 5, element 34), at least one clip, and a clip opening corresponding to the at least one clip on at least one second carrier (fig. 5, element 36) (annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
408
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Harrison teaches the at least one clip and/or the clip opening comprises a latching lug for latching and/or securing the clip connection (annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
405
714
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Harrison teaches the connection means is adapted as an axial clip connection (fig. 5), wherein the at least one clip is inserted into the clip opening until the latching lug engages along the axial direction (annotated fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 13, Harrison teaches at least one centering pin is arranged on a first carrier and in that a centering opening corresponding to the at least one centering pin is arranged on a second carrier for centering and/or guiding the at least two carriers along the axial direction (annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
371
647
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Harrison teaches a race (fig. 5, ring 23) for a friction disc, according to claim 1, wherein the race comprises a base body (fig. 5, the upper portion of ring 23) having a constant cross-section about an axis of rotation of the friction disc (figs. 1 and 5), characterized in that the race comprises at least one locking means (fig. 5, bottom portion of the ring 23) that increases the cross-section of the base body and is delimited along a direction of rotation of the friction disc (figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 18, Harrison teaches a method comprising using a race according to claim 16 for a friction disc (column 1, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 20, Harrison teaches a method comprising using of a friction disc according to claim 1 in a false twisting device for processing textile threads (column 1, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 21, Harrison teaches a method for changing a race of a friction disc, comprising the following steps:
providing the friction disc (column 1, lines 65-67, a rotator assembly is used in a false-twisting apparatus) according to claim 1, comprising the race (fig. 5);
separating the hub and the race from one another (column 2, lines 1-4, a middle section for contacting yarn can be easily removed and replaced when worn out);
providing a new race;
replacing the race with the new race;
inserting the new race with at least one locking section (fig. 5, the ring 23 has a bottom portion secured between elements 34 and 36) into the at least one recess of the hub.
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 5749215), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE4011632 (hereinafter DE’632).
Regarding claim 5, Harrison does not clearly teach the race comprises at least two, locking sections, wherein two locking sections are separated from each other by a respective gap section.
However, in the same field of endeavor, DE’632 teaches the race (fig. 3, ring 20) comprises at least two locking sections, wherein two locking sections (fig. 3, projections 30) are separated from each other by a respective gap section (fig. 3, recesses between projections 30).
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 shape of the race of Harrison with projections separated by a gap section as taught by DE’632 so that good damping behavior is achieved despite the low overall thickness of the ring and improved heat dissipation is achieved (DE’632, machine translation, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Harrison-DE’632 does not teach the at least two locking sections and the gap section are evenly distributed along the direction of rotation and/or in that at least one of the locking sections transitions abruptly into the gap section.
However, DE’632 teaches the at least two locking sections and the gap section are evenly distributed along the direction of rotation and/or in that at least one of the locking sections transitions abruptly into the gap section (fig. 3, machine translation, para. [0018]).
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 shape of the race of Harrison-DE’632 with locking sections and gap sections evenly distributed over the direction of rotation as taught by DE’632 so that good damping behavior is achieved despite the low overall thickness of the ring and improved heat dissipation is achieved (DE’632, machine translation, para. [0005]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 5749215), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Long (US 2610514).
Regarding claim 14, Harrison does not teach the connection means is adapted as a bayonet connection, wherein the at least two carriers are rotated in contact with one another along the direction of rotation relative to one another until the latching lug engages.
However, in the same field of textile, Long teaches the connection means is adapted as a bayonet connection (fig. 1, column 3,lines 15-20, connections between lips 10 and slots 9 form bayonet joint), wherein the at least two carriers are rotated in contact with one another along the direction of rotation relative to one another until the latching lug (fig. 1, lips 10) engages.
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 connection between carriers of Harrison with bayonet joints instead of snap fit as taught by Long for the benefit of providing quick, secure and reliable connections between the base member and the retainer of the rotator assembly.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 5749215), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schuster (US 3901011) and Long (US 2610514).
Regarding claim 15, Harrison does not teach the at least one locking section of the race projects from base body of the race exclusively on one side along the axial direction on the hub.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schuster teaches the at least one locking section of the race projects from base body of the race exclusively on one side along the axial direction on the hub (fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harrison with the teaching that he at least one locking section of the race projects from base body of the race exclusively on one side along the axial direction on the hub as taught by Schuster for the benefit of providing the friction disc with asymmetrical distribution in the contact surface of the regions of different coefficient of friction (Schuster, column 6, lines 25-26).
The modified structure Harrison-Schuster does not teach the connection means adapted as a bayonet connection.
However, in the same field of textile, Long teaches the connection means is adapted as a bayonet connection (fig. 1, column 3,lines 15-20, connections between lips 10 and slots 9 form bayonet joint).
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 connection between carriers of the modified structure Harrison-Schuster with bayonet joints instead of snap fit as taught by Long for the benefit of providing quick, secure and reliable connections between the base member and the retainer of the rotator assembly.
Regarding claim 17, the modified structure Harrison-Schuster-Long teaches a race (Harrison, fig. 5, ring 23) for a friction disc, wherein the race comprises a base body (Harrison, fig. 5, the upper portion of ring 23) having a constant cross-section about an axis of rotation of the friction disc (Harrison, figs. 1 and 5), characterized in that the race comprises at least one locking means (Harrison, fig. 5, bottom portion of the ring 23) that increases the cross-section of the base body and is delimited along a direction of rotation of the friction disc (Harrison, figs. 1 and 5).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 5749215), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baus (US 2020/0362482).
Regarding claim 19, Harrison teaches a false twisting device with at least one rotatably mounted shaft and comprising at least two friction discs along said shaft (column 3, lines 18-21), characterized in that at least one of the friction discs is adapted according to claim 1 (fig. 1, column 1, lines 65-67).
Harrison does not clearly teach a bearing block and at least two friction discs arranged at a distance from said shaft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baus teaches a false twisting device comprising a bearing block (fig. 1, element 2) and at least two friction discs arranged at a distance from said shaft (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harrison with a bearing block and at least two friction discs arranged at a distance from the shaft as taught by Baus for the benefit of providing a base for a plurality of rotatably mounted shafts on the base as it is well known in the false twist device (Baus, para. [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 10/06/2025, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Harrison fails to teach the race comprises at least one locking section which increases the cross-section of the base body (remarks, page 8, first arguments).
In response, as it is shown in Harrison’s annotated fig. 5 above, the base body is the upper portion of the ring 23, the annotated extension on the ring 23 is the at least one locking section which increases the cross-section of the base body as the at least one locking section extends from the base body.
The Applicant argues that Harrison fails to teach the at least one locking section projects from the base body of the race along an axial direction (remarks, page 8, second arguments).
In response, as it is shown in Harrison’s annotated fig. 5 above, the at least one locking section extends from the base body and the at least one locking section is along the axial direction, then Harrison teaches the limitation. The annotated fig. 5 (and the annotated axis) the Applicant argued in the remarks is used for explanation how Harrison teaches the race is formed mirror-symmetrically with respect to claim 4.
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 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