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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “connecting element” (claim 9-10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "such that axial positioning is provided" in lines 9 and 18-19. This limitation is unclear since it does not specify which elements positioning is being referred to.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Frey (DE 102013020470 A1, machine translation relied on, from IDS).
Re Claim 1, Frey discloses a thread clamping device 1 for a spindle of a spinning or twisting machine for releasably fixing a thread in a clamping gap, comprising: a first clamping unit 3, having an inner sleeve 17, which can be arranged coaxial with the spindle, and having a thread cutter 9, which can be fixed on the inner sleeve in an axial direction, the first clamping unit can be fixed on an upper part of the spindle such that axial positioning is provided; and a second clamping unit 5, having a clamping element 20, which can be moved axially, relative to the first clamping unit, between a clamping position (Fig. 1A), in which the clamping gap between the thread cutter and the clamping element is closed, and an open position (Fig. 1B), in which the clamping gap is open; wherein the thread cutter is designed to be fixed on the spindle upper part such that axial positioning is provided and is designed to be connected to the spindle upper part for conjoint rotation; and wherein the thread cutter and the inner sleeve can be connected to each other for conjoint rotation (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63).
Re Claim 2, Frey discloses the thread cutter can be pressed onto the spindle upper part (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 56, 62).
Re Claim 3, Frey discloses the thread cutter can be frictionally, integrally and/or positively connected to the inner sleeve for conjoint rotation (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63).
Re Claim 5, Frey discloses the thread cutter has engagement elements, which can be brought into engagement with a contact portion on the inner sleeve (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63).
Re Claim 6, Frey discloses the engagement elements can be pressed into the contact portion in order to clamp the inner sleeve on the spindle upper part, the contact portion being made of a deformable material (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; any material is deformable if enough force is used).
Re Claim 7, Frey discloses the contact portion has coupling elements, which can be brought into operative connection with the engagement elements (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey.
Re Claim 4, Frey does not explicitly disclose the thread cutter is formed from a metal-containing material by a sintering process. Frey discloses that the thread cutter 9 is a knife (para. 56) which implies that it is made of metal. However, to be explicitly clear it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a metal-containing material for the thread cutter in order to ensure it is strong and able to cut as desired and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, the claimed phase " formed by a sintering process " is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited.
Re Claim 9-10, Frey does not disclose further including a connecting element which is arranged in a region between the contact portion and the thread cutter and is frictionally and/or positively connected to the contact portion and to the thread cutter for conjoint rotation, the connecting element comprises an adhesion ring or toothed ring. However, Examiner takes official notice that adhesive in a ring shape could be applied between the thread cutter and contact portion in order to ensure that they are fixed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is/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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799