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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 recites the limitation “interacting engagement means providing for fixed rotation of the thread cutter and the inner sleeve as a unit”. This limitation does not appear in the specification and thus the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. “interacting engagement means” does not appear at all and is considered to be new matter. Additionally, the specification does not mention “fixed rotation of the thread cutter and the inner sleeve as a unit“, and specifically emphasizes that the components are fixed to the spindle so the entirety of the spindle and components are fixed together. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation and it is noted that if this were to be added to the specification, it would also be considered new matter. Additionally, claim 13 recite that the interacting engagement means are portions of two separate components and thus the scope of the limitation is unclear since this is also not discussed in the specification in this manner and is considered to be new matter.
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 12-14 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 12 recites the limitation “interacting engagement means providing for fixed rotation of the thread cutter and the inner sleeve as a unit”. As discussed under 112a above, this limitation does not appear in the specification and thus the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. The scope is thus unclear. Additionally, claim 13 recite that the interacting engagement means are portions of two separate components and thus the scope of the limitation is unclear since this is also not discussed in the specification in this manner and is considered to be new matter. The scope is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-13 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 of the first clamping unit 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 of the thread cutter 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; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”; see also Fig. 1A-1C and 1D for clear contact between these components).
Re Claim 2, Frey discloses the thread cutter can be pressed onto the spindle upper part (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 56, 62) (engagement elements being the left and right sides of element 9, see Fig. 1D; Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”; see also Fig. 1C and 1D for clear contact between these components).
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) (engagement elements being the left and right sides of element 9, see Fig. 1D; Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”; see also Fig. 1A-1C and 1D for clear contact between these components).
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) (engagement elements being the left and right sides of element 9, see Fig. 1D; Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”; see also Fig. 1A-1C and 1D for clear contact between these components).
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 (coupling elements being left and right sides of the element 17; Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”; see also Fig. 1A-1C and 1D for clear contact between these components).
Re Claim 11, Frey discloses the thread cutter 9 has engagement elements which can be brought into engagement with contact portions on the inner sleeve to provide for the conjoint rotation of the thread cutter and the inner sleeve (engagement elements being the left and right sides of element 9, see Fig. 1D; Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”; see also Fig. 1C and 1D for clear contact between these components).
Re Claim 12, as best understood, 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 of the first clamping unit is provided; anda second clamping unit 5 having a clamping element 20 which can be moved axially relative to the first clamping unit between a clamping position in which the clamping gap between the thread cutter and the clamping element is closed, and an open position 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 of the thread cutter is provided and is designed to be connected to the spindle upper part for conjoint rotation; andwherein the thread cutter and the inner sleeve include interacting engagement means providing for fixed rotation of the thread cutter and the inner sleeve as a unit (Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”).
Re Claim 13, as best understood, Frey discloses the interacting engagement means comprise engagement elements of the thread cutter and a contact portion of the inner sleeve (engagement elements being the left and right sides of element 9, see Fig. 1D; Fig. 1A-1F; para. 55-63; para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.”; para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages that “Claim 1 is drawn to a thread clamping device that includes, among other things, a thread cutter and an inner sleeve, wherein "the thread cutter and the inner sleeve can be connected to each other for conjoint rotation." Applicant submits that Frey does not disclose the above-noted features of Claim 1 along with the remaining elements of Claim 1.” and “No connection that forces conjoint rotation is made between the end part 9 and the lower thread sleeve 17 of Frey.” -In response, note that conjoint rotation is defined as the elements rotating together on the same axis. Note that Fig. 1E is essentially the same setup of components as Fig.1 of the instant invention. Further note para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.” and para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.” Additionally, Fig. 1D shows the components connected to each other. This clearly allows conjoint rotation of these elements. In fact, it’s not even clear how conjoint rotation could even be prevented since the components are literally all coaxially connected. Also, Examiner notes that the claim limitation merely requires that the thread cutter and inner sleeve can be connected, it doesn’t even require that they are actually connected but that they merely can be, so the reference clearly reads on the claims. The rejection is upheld. Further, Applicant’s argument that “no connection forces conjoint rotation is made between the end part and the lower thread sleeve” is unclear as this is not recited in the claims. 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., connection that forces conjoint rotation is made between the end part and the lower thread sleeve) 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).
Applicant further argues the following: “Furthermore, in regard to Claim 3, Frey does not disclose that "the thread cutter can be frictionally, integrally and/or positively connected to the inner sleeve for conjoint rotation." Since Frey does not disclose any connection that forces conjoint rotation between the end part 9 and the lower thread sleeve 17, Frey does not disclose that the thread cutter can be frictionally, integrally and/or positively connected to the inner sleeve for conjoint rotation. Accordingly, Claim 3 is in condition for allowance for this further reason. Moreover, in regard to Claim 5, Frey does not disclose that "the thread cutter has engagement elements which can be brought into engagement with a contact portion on the inner sleeve." As outlined above, Frey does not disclose any connection that forces conjoint rotation between the end part 9 and the lower thread sleeve 17. Moreover, Frey does not disclose an engagement element, much less multiple engagement elements, which can be brought into engagement with a contact portion on the inner sleeve. Likewise, in regard to Claim 7, Frey does not disclose that the contact portion has a coupling element, much less multiple coupling elements, which can be brought into operative connection with the engagement elements. Accordingly, Claims 5 and 7 are in condition for allowance for these further reasons.” -In response, similar to claim 1, Examiner contends that Frey does indeed anticipate the claims. Note that Fig. 1E is essentially the same setup of components as Fig.1 of the instant invention. Further note para. 62 states that the fixed clamping element 3 is placed on the spindle 2 in the area of the drive whorl 18 and is fixed to the spindle by means of the pressed-on end part 9.” and para. 73 which states that “the fixed clamping element 3 always rests axially tightly against the shoulders of the spindle 2 or against the pressed-on end part 9.” Additionally, Fig. 1D shows the components connected to each other. Note that the claims in question recite engagement elements and coupling elements which implies no specific structure and thus Examiner is interpreting the left and right sides of the element 9 of Frey as being engagement elements the left and right sides of the element 17 of Frey as being coupling elements and Frey specifically describes that the inner sleeve element 3/17 is fixed to the spindle by the element 9 in para. 62 and this inherently requires contact of the element 9 with the inner sleeve 3 (see also Fig. 1A-1C and 1D for clear contact between these components). The rejection is upheld.
Examiner suggests claiming the actual structure of the instant invention (i.e. engagement elements being toothing) which would overcome the current rejections.
As it stands the arguments of all of the claims are not persuasive and arguments for new claims 11-14 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments/newly presented claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights