Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/535,971

DRAFTING SYSTEM AND DRAFTING SYSTEM UNIT FOR A SPINNING MACHINE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Priority
May 24, 2018 — DE 10 2018 112 422.8 +1 more
Examiner
MARIN, DAKOTA
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Saurer Spinning Solution GmbH & Co. Kg
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
127 granted / 242 resolved
-17.5% vs TC avg
Strong +60% interview lift
Without
With
+60.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
266
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 242 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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. DETAILED ACTION This is in response to the claims filed March 20, 2026, in which claims 1-16 were presented for examination, are 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 20, 2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants 1st Argument: Firstly, Applicant contends that Gerhard lacks a "retaining rod" that is rotated by a repositioning device. The examiner incorrectly equates the bearing (Lagering) 20a in Gerhard with the claimed "retaining rod." This is functionally and structurally incorrect. Applicant's claimed "retaining rod" is an active, torque-transmitting shaft that is rotated by the repositioning device to pivot the weighting arm. In stark contrast, element 20a in Gerhard is a passive, stationary pivot axle. Gerhard's own disclosure confirms that a pivot lever (16) pivots around the bearings 20a/20b. The bearing itself is not rotated by a repositioning device to transmit motion. A component that is pivoted about is, by definition, not a component that is itself mounted for rotation to transmit torque. Examiners Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure of Gerhard, as a whole, demonstrates that the bearing assembly, including element 20a, functions as the claimed retaining rod. Specifically, the bearing 20a is fixed within the weighting arm assembly, combination of elements 11a and 18a, and defines the rotational axis about which the weighting arm pivots. As explained in at least paragraphs 0017, 0018, and 0021, the repositioning device, combination of elements 16, 17, and 19, actively actuates the weighting arm, causing rotation of the weighting arm about the bearing axis defined by 20a. Applicant’s distinction between an “active torque-transmitting shaft” and a “passive bearing” is unpersuasive, as the claims do not require the retaining rod itself to be independently driven or rotated relative to the weighting arm. Rather, the claims require that the retaining rod be arranged such that rotation of the weighting arm occurs in response to the repositioning device, which Gerhard is shown accomplishing, as claimed. Applicants 2nd Argument: Second, the clarifying amendment to claims 1 and 9 highlight a key structural difference. Gerhard's Figure 2 shows two separate drafting units with separate actuating elements (18a, 18b) and separate bearings (20a, 20b). It is the position of Applicant that Gerhard does not teach a single common rod that connects multiple weighting arms for conjoint rotation in the manner as claimed. Examiners Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument improperly reads a limitation into the claims that is not recited. Claims 1 and 9 expressly require that “at least one weighting arm” is connected to a single common retaining rod. The phrase “at least one” encompasses embodiments in which a single weighting arm is connected to a retaining rod and does not require that multiple weighting arms be connected to the same rod. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 6-8, and 12-16 are 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, and if Applicant overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection and Double Patenting rejection presented. Examiner notes the claims are similar in scope to claims indicated as allowable in the parent application of this case, 16/419,302 (US Patent 11,879,186), in Non-Final Rejection dated July 8, 2021. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerhard (DE3209210A1). Regarding claim 1, Gerhard discloses a drafting system unit (invention as shown in Fig. 1) for a spinning machine (Par. 0003), comprising at least one weighting arm (combination of 11a and 18a), which is pivotable between an operating position (Fig. 1) and an open position by a repositioning device (combination 16, 17, and 19, Par. 0016, 0017, and Par. 0021, examiner notes the “open position” is when element 11a is lifted upward), characterized in that: the at least one weighting arm (combination of 11a and 18a) is connected to a single common retaining rod (20a) for conjoint rotation (Par. 0018, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize outer casing of bearing 20a would rotate with 11a and 18a), which retaining rod (20a) is mounted on a retaining rod holder (15a) for rotation about the longitudinal axis of the retaining rod (20a) by the repositioning device (combination 16, 17, and 19, Par. 0016, lines: 151-154, Par. 0017 and Par. 0018). Regarding claim 2, Gerhard discloses the repositioning device (combination 16, 17, and 19) has a knee lever assembly (combination of 16 and 19, Fig. 1), which is operatively connected to the retaining rod (20a, examiner notes element 16 is connected to element 20a through element 18a, Par. 0017, 0018) and which is repositionable between a closing position (as shown in Fig. 1) associated with the operating position and an opening position associated with the open position (Par. 0016 and Par. 0021). Regarding claim 3, Gerhard discloses that in the closing position the knee lever assembly (combination of 16 and 19, Fig. 1) is arranged in a position beyond dead center of the at least one weighting arm (examiner notes limitation is as shown in Fig. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 5, Gerhard discloses that in the closing position the knee lever assembly (combination of 16 and 19, Fig. 1) is arranged in a position beyond dead center of the at least one weighting arm (examiner notes limitation is as shown in Fig. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 9, Gerhard discloses a drafting system (invention as shown in Fig. 1) for a spinning machine (Par. 0003), comprising a drafting system unit, which has at least one weighting arm (combination of 11a and 18a), which is pivotable between an operating position (Fig. 1) and an open position by a repositioning device (combination 16, 17, and 19, Par. 0016, 0017, and Par. 0021, examiner notes the “open position” is when element 11a is lifted upward),characterized in that: the at least one weighting arm (combination of 11a and 18a) is connected to a single common retaining rod (20a) for conjoint rotation (Par. 0018, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize outer casing of bearing 20a would rotate with 11a and 18a), which retaining rod (20a) is mounted on a retaining rod holder (15a) for rotation about the longitudinal axis of the retaining rod (20a) by the repositioning device (combination 16, 17, and 19, Par. 0016, lines: 151-154, Par. 0017 and Par. 0018). Regarding claim 10, Gerhard discloses the repositioning device (combination 16, 17, and 19) has a knee lever assembly (combination of 16 and 19, Fig. 1), which is operatively connected to the retaining rod (20a, examiner notes element 16 is connected to element 20a through element 18a, Par. 0017, 0018) and which is repositionable between a closing position (as shown in Fig. 1) associated with the operating position and an opening position associated with the open position (Par. 0016 and Par. 0021). Regarding claim 11, Gerhard discloses that in the closing position the knee lever assembly (combination of 16 and 19, Fig. 1) is arranged in a position beyond dead center of the at least one weighting arm (examiner notes limitation is as shown in Fig. 1 and 2). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM. 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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached on (571) 272-3425. 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. /DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732 /ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Feb 20, 2025
Response Filed
May 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599813
SWIM CAP
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595600
METHOD OF KNITTING WARP KNITTED FABRIC AND WARP KNITTING MACHINE
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594484
MIXED MARTIAL ARTS EQUIPMENT
2y 0m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590389
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING KNIT ARTICLES INCORPORATING REFLECTIVE YARN AND KNIT ARTICLES
6y 9m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12544602
FIREFIGHTER PROTECTIVE HOOD AND GLOVES WITH REGENERATED CELLULOSE FIBER
8y 0m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+60.2%)
2y 10m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 242 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month