DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1, 7, and 10 are amended.
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on August 7, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 7, and 10 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-11 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer has overcome the double patenting rejection.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the drawing objections
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract has overcome the specification objection.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome most of the 35 USC §112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has not overcome the 35 USC §103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure that the “textile machine . . .is configured such that an operator may select production figures to be controlled on the basis of limit values and to indicate via the display a result of the check of the at least one selected production figure to be checked.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selecting production figured to be controlled) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Varadarajan is utilized for this feature.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant remarks that one would not modify Bungter with Varadarajan but does not explain this stance.
Applicant alleges Varadarajan does not teach that there is a service unit capable of being moved along the workstations, however no such feature is claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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.
Claims 7-11 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “a result” in line 9, however the claim already recites “a result” in line 4. It is therefore unclear if the latter “result” is the same as, or different than the result recited in line 4.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bungter (US 20160168764) in view of Varadarajan (EP3293295).
Regarding claim 1, Bungter describes a textile machine (see Fig. 4) having a plurality of workstations (workstation 53a, 53b), the textile machine comprising: a textile machine control unit (control device 67), which is designed to capture different production figures of the individual workstations and to check whether the production figures exceed specified limit values (affects display of LED light bar 69 and therefore would require information that pertains to the light bar); a device, located on the textile machine control unit (workstation control devices are set up for the entry of the control data, para. 0037); and an indicator (LED light bar 69) which is connected to the textile machine control unit (67) for an optical output of a result of the check of the at least one selected production figure to be checked for exceeding an assigned predetermined limit value (controls 69 which displays faults), characterised in that the indicator (69) has a plurality of signal units (the lights of the LED bar), which are arranged on the textile machine control unit and/or the respective workstations (on the workstations), are associated with the individual workstations (53a, 53b) and are designed in such a way that the result of the check of the at least one selected production figure to be checked for exceeding an allocated, specified limit value is indicated by different light signals (specific operating states are assigned specific colors or affects, para. 0034 including flashing, para. 0018).
Although Bungter describes that the machine includes thread processing and monitoring devices (para. 0048) Bungter does not explicitly describe inputting the limit values and selecting at least one production figure to be checked from the set of production figures to be checked.
In related art, Varadarajan describes a similar device for evaluating quality of a thread that includes inputting the limit values and selecting at least one production figure to be checked from the set of production figures to be checked (commands input for control parameters, set points, para. 0106, particular parameter displayed, particular information provided, para. 0107).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the device of Bungter to include the display device of Varadarajan in order to provide a measurement system that allow for more precisely and efficiently controlling the production of a strand like textile material (para. 0018).
Regarding claim 2, the device of Bungter as modified includes that the textile machine has a plurality of spinning positions (there are two ring spinners).
Regarding claim 3, the device of Bungter as modified includes that the signal units are designed to indicate the result of the check by light signals of different brightness and/or colour (specific operating states are assigned specific colors or affects, para. 0034 including flashing, para. 0018).
Regarding claim 4, the device of Bungter as modified includes that the signal units are designed to indicate the result of the check by continuous light and flashing light (specific operating states are assigned specific colors or affects, para. 0034 including flashing, para. 0018).
Regarding claim 5, the device of Bungter as modified includes that the signal units are arranged on the workstations in such a way and the light signals are produced at the signal units (lights of 69) in such a way that the signal units are used for (what follows is an intended use recitation) automatic identification (automatically identified by workers due to the arrangement of the lights, para. 0028) and/or (what follows is optional) alignment of a service unit relative to the workstations, the service unit comprising an optical sensing device.
Regarding claim 6, the device of Bungter as modified includes that the signal units have an LED indicator (are recited as LEDs, para. 0016).
Regarding claim 7, Bungter describes a method for monitoring a textile machine having one workstation or a plurality of workstations in which method different production figures (different in that they change during the course of usage) of the individual workstations are captured, at least one selectable production figure is checked and subsequently a result of the check is optically indicated (LED light bar 69, thread break flashing red, para. 0018), characterised in that a plurality of signal units (lights of the LED bar) are associated with the individual workstations and are arranged on a textile machine control unit and/or the one workstation or the plurality of workstations (on the workstations 53a, 53b and are associated with them) and at which a result of the check of the at least one selected production figure to be checked is indicated by different light signals (specific operating states are assigned specific colors or affects, para. 0034 including flashing, para. 0018).
Although Bungter describes that the machine includes thread processing and monitoring devices (para. 0048) the method of Bungter does not explicitly describe that the check and display is for exceeding an allocated, specified limit value.
In related art, Varadarajan describes a similar device for evaluating quality of a thread that includes inputting the limit values and selecting at least one production figure to be checked from the set of production figures to be checked (commands input for control parameters, set points, para. 0106, particular parameter displayed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the device of Bungter to include the display device of Varadarajan in order to provide a measurement system that allow for more precisely and efficiently controlling the production of a strand like textile material (para. 0018).
Regarding claim 8, the method of Bungter as modified includes that the result of the check is indicated by light signals of different brightness and/or colour (specific operating states are assigned specific colors or affects, para. 0034 including flashing, para. 0018).
Regarding claim 9, the method of Bungter as modified includes that workstations having identical product groups are indicated by the light signals (first two LEDs are for batch allocation, para. 0018).
Regarding claim 11, the method of Bungter as modified includes that the textile machine has a plurality of spinning positions (there are two ring spinners).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bungter (US 20160168764) in view of Varadarajan (EP3293295) and Felix (US 6062074).
Regarding claim 10, the method of Bungter as modified includes the limitations of claim 10 but does not explicitly describe that the production figures to be checked are determined from a mean value of a plurality of production figures determined at selectable intervals over a selectable time period, the mean value being an arithmetic, geometric or harmonic mean value or a mean value combined from at least two of the arithmetic, geometric or harmonic mean value.
In related art, Felix describes a similar device in which defects are determined over various time intervals in order to determine the quality of the yarn. In this manner if a single deviation occurs the spinning machine is not considered to have an issue, but if great numbers occur the user can be confident which of the spinning machines has an issue that needs to be rectified (col. 4, ll. 7-17, and col. 4, ll. 47-52). It is selectable because they are undertaken at various intervals T1, T2, T3, which were selected at some point (col. 3, 35-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the method of Bungter to include this averaging step so that an error signal would only be sent out for appropriate defects. That is, by utilizing an average random fluctuations would not set off a signal.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732