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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Switzerland on 12/6/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CH001455/2022 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al., US20200340159 in view of Maleck et al., US11078604.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ueda et al. discloses a bobbin winder device (5, Fig. 2) of a sewing machine (1, Fig. 1), the bobbin winder device comprising: a motor (20, Fig. 2); a spindle (10, Fig. 3) mounted on a support (15, Fig. 3) and configured to rotate about a spindle axis and which is drivable by said motor (10 rotates about axis of 10 and is driven by motor 20, Fig. 3), for releasable attachment of a thread bobbin (9, Fig. 2) to be filled with sewing thread (22, Fig. 2); a motor controller (90, Fig. 4) connected to the motor via electrical conductors (See annotated Figure 2 of Ueda et al., below) and configured to control or regulate a rotational speed of the motor (Paragraph [0035], lines11-13); a brake pad (33, Fig. 2) with a friction surface (32, Fig. 2) held on the support so as to be movable (32 is movable Fig. 5A-C), wherein a distance between the friction surface and the spindle axis is variable (distance between 10 and 32 is variable Fig. 5A-C), such that the friction surface is positionable next to the spindle in a reference position (position of 32 in Figure 5A) with a predeterminable reference distance from the spindle axis corresponding to a maximum winding radius of the sewing thread to be wound (Figure 5B, C) and is displaceable radially outwards from the reference position counter to a force of a restoring element with respect to the spindle axis (32 is displaceable radially outwards from reference position in Fig. 5A counter to spring 16, Fig. 3).
Ueda et al. does not disclose and the motor controller comprises a sensor configured to detect at least one measured variable which is dependent on a load of the motor, in a driving circuit of the motor and a stored comparison value for said measured variable.
Maleck et al. teaches a motor controller for a bobbin winding device, wherein the motor controller comprises a sensor configured to detect at least one measured variable (Column 2, lines 29-33), which is dependent on a load of the motor, in a driving circuit of the motor (Column 2, lines 29-33) and a stored comparison value for said measured variable (Column 2, lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ueda et al. to add the sensor and stored comparison value of Maleck et al. because "this allows for a simple yet highly efficient control of the stepper motor" (Column 2, lines 21-22; Maleck et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
964
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Ueda et al.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ueda et al. discloses wherein the brake pad (33, Fig. 2) comprises a pivot arm (30, Fig. 2) mounted on the support (15, Fig. 2) next to the motor (20, Fig. 2)to pivot about a pivot axis (11, Fig. 2), and the friction surface (32, Fig. 2) is spaced apart from the pivot axis (11, Fig. 2) on a head protruding on a side of the pivot arm (33, 32, Fig. 2 protrudes from 30, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ueda et al. discloses further comprising a first stop (37, Fig. 2) arranged on the brake pad (30, Fig. 2) and a second stop (42, Fig. 2) arranged on the support (stop 42 is arranged on support 15, Fig. 2), said first and second stops together limit a freedom of movement of the brake pad in a direction of the spindle axis to define the reference position of the brake pad and the reference distance between the friction surface and the spindle axis (first stop 37 and second stop 42 limit a freedom of movement of the brake pad 30, 32 in a direction of axis 10 to define the reference position Fig. 5A, and the reference distance Fig. 5B, C).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ueda et al. discloses wherein at least one of the first or second stops is moveable in order to adjust the reference position of the brake pad and the reference distance between the friction surface and the spindle axis (42 is moveable via 60, Figs. 5A-C and Figs. 6A-C).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ueda et al. discloses wherein the brake pad is convex in a region of the friction surface (32 is convex, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ueda et al. discloses wherein the motor controller (90, Fig. 4) comprises in at least one of the conductors an electronic switch (50, 52, Figs. 2 and 4) for interrupting and closing the driving circuit (Paragraph [0039], lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ueda et al. discloses a motor controller. However Ueda et al. does not disclose wherein the sensor of the motor controller comprises at least one voltage sensor for measuring a voltage between the conductors in the driving circuit of the motor.
Maleck et al. teaches a motor controller for a bobbin winding device wherein the sensor of the motor controller comprises at least one voltage sensor for measuring a voltage between the conductors in the driving circuit of the motor (Column 2, lines 29-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ueda et al. to add the voltage sensor of Maleck et al. because "this allows for a simple yet highly efficient control of the stepper motor" (Column 2, lines 21-22; Maleck et al.).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ueda et al. discloses the bobbin winder device and the motor controller is configured to periodically carry out the following steps: a) interrupting of the driving circuit (Paragraph [0039], lines 14-15) and c) closing of the driving circuit (Paragraph [0035], lines 11-13).
However Ueda et al., fails to disclose wherein the voltage sensor is arranged between the conductors such that the voltage sensor is connected to the motor even when the driving circuit is interrupted, and the motor controller comprises control specifications for periodically detecting a reverse voltage of the motor, and the motor controller is configured to periodically carry out the following step: b) measuring the reverse voltage using the voltage sensor after a delay time.
Maleck et al. teaches a motor controller for a winding machine wherein the voltage sensor is arranged between the conductors such that the voltage sensor is connected to the motor even when the driving circuit is interrupted (Column 2, lines 35-37), and the motor controller comprises control specifications for periodically detecting a reverse voltage of the motor (Column 2, lines 37-43), and the motor controller is configured to periodically carry out the following step: b) measuring the reverse voltage using the voltage sensor after a delay time (Column 2, lines 37-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ueda et al. to have the voltage sensor connected as taught by Maleck et al. because "this allows for a simple yet highly efficient control of the stepper motor" (Column 2, lines 21-22; Maleck et al.). One would have been motivated to make this modification because the motor’s “end position can be reached more accurately and precisely by successively reducing the rotation speed" (Column 2, lines 65-66; Maleck et al.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ueda et al. discloses wherein the motor controller (90, Fig. 4) comprises the control specifications stored in the motor controller for comparing the detected value with an associated stored comparison value (Paragraph [0035]), and the control specifications stored in the motor controller for interrupting the driving circuit if the value falls below or exceeds the associated comparison value (Paragraph [0035], lines 15-19). However, Ueda et al. does not disclose wherein the detected value is a reverse voltage of the motor.
Maleck et al. teaches a motor controller for a winding machine wherein the detected value is a reverse voltage of the motor (Column 2, lines 39-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ueda et al. to have the detected value be the reverse voltage of the motor as taught by Maleck et al. because "this allows for a simple yet highly efficient control of the stepper motor" (Column 2, lines 21-22; Maleck et al.). One would have been motivated to make this modification because the motor’s “end position can be reached more accurately and precisely by successively reducing the rotation speed" (Column 2, lines 65-66; Maleck et al.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ueda et al. discloses a motor controller. However, Ueda et al. does not disclose wherein the motor controller comprises the control specifications for detecting the reverse voltage of the motor in case of a manual rotation of the spindle.
Maleck et al. teaches a motor controller for a winding machine wherein the motor controller comprises the control specifications for detecting the reverse voltage of the motor (Column 2, lines 37-43) in case of a manual rotation of the spindle (Column 2, lines 29-37; detecting of reverse voltage is integrated into motor, thus manual rotation of the spindle would generate voltage that would be detected). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ueda et al. to detect the reverse voltage of the motor as taught by Maleck et al. because "this allows for a simple yet highly efficient control of the stepper motor" (Column 2, lines 21-22; Maleck et al.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ueda et al. discloses a method for controlling or regulating the speed of the motor of the bobbin winder device (Paragraph [0035]) as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: winding the sewing thread onto the thread bobbin (Paragraph [0037], lines 1-2), which is attached to the spindle (9 is on spindle 10, Fig. 2), the motor controller monitoring a measured variable, which is dependent on the load on the motor and which is detected by the sensor in the driving circuit of the motor (Paragraph [0035], lines 1-14), and causing the motor to shut down as soon as the value of the detected measured variable falls below the associated stored comparison value (Paragraph [0035], lines 15-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Maleck et al. (US11078604) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Maleck et al. satisfies both of the above requirements. Maleck et al. is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, “textile machinery” or winding of bobbins/spools and pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, namely control of a motor. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument on page 8 of Remarks filed 1/13/2026, that a person of ordinary skill would not be prompted to add a brake pad to the sensor lever of Ueda, it is noted that Ueda already discloses a brake pad (30, Fig. 2). Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Applicant alleges on page 9 of Remarks filed 1/13/2026 that Maleck et al. does not disclose a stored comparison value for a measured value, however it is noted that Maleck et al. does in fact teach this limitation in Column 2, lines 5-8: “an end position is then detected via a change of the load variable, in particular an increase of the load angle”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to measure a change in the load variable, a comparison value must be stored for a measured value, therefore Maleck et al. teaches the claimed feature. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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., rate of change of a measured value) 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).
In response to applicant's arguments, on pages 6-9 of Remarks, filed 1/13/2026, against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ueda et al. to add the motor controller having a sensor and stored comparison value of Maleck et al. because "this allows for a simple yet highly efficient control of the stepper motor" (Column 2, lines 21-22; Maleck et al.).
In response to applicant's arguments, on page 10 of Remarks filed 1/13/2026, against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 8 it is noted that Ueda et al. discloses the bobbin winder device and the motor controller is configured to periodically carry out the following steps: a) interrupting of the driving circuit (Paragraph [0039], lines 14-15) and c) closing of the driving circuit (Paragraph [0035], lines 11-13). Maleck et al. teaches a motor controller for a winding machine wherein the voltage sensor is arranged between the conductors such that the voltage sensor is connected to the motor even when the driving circuit is interrupted (Column 2, lines 35-37), and the motor controller comprises control specifications for periodically detecting a reverse voltage of the motor (Column 2, lines 37-43), and the motor controller is configured to periodically carry out the following step: b) measuring the reverse voltage using the voltage sensor after a delay time (Column 2, lines 37-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ueda et al. to have the voltage sensor connected as taught by Maleck et al. because "this allows for a simple yet highly efficient control of the stepper motor" (Column 2, lines 21-22; Maleck et al.). One would have been motivated to make this modification because the motor’s “end position can be reached more accurately and precisely by successively reducing the rotation speed" (Column 2, lines 65-66; Maleck et al.). Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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 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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights