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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/11/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 12b (Paragraph [0073]). 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. 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 Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there is a typographical error and “an outside thereof as to generate” in lines 5-6, should read “an outside thereof so as to generate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control device” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the limitations “a thread guide housing for the thread traversing device” are already found in claim 1, lines 1-5: “A thread traversing device… comprising: a thread guide housing” and therefore fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which claims 10 and 11 depend.
Claims 12-14 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Decken, Foreign Patent Document, DE102018128815.
Regarding independent claim 1, Decken discloses a thread traversing device (8, 19, 14, Fig. 1) for a winding device of a textile machine producing a cross-wound bobbin (Paragraph [0030], line 1 - Paragraph [0031], line 2), the thread traversing device comprising: a thread guide housing having a thread guide (3, 8, 14, Fig.1); a traversing device designed and arranged to reversibly traverse along a direction of an axis of the cross-wound bobbin to be produced (Paragraph [0013], lines 6-8); and at least one vacuum system comprising at least one fluid guide (3, Fig. 1); wherein the thread guide housing (8, Fig. 1) is designed and wherein the traversing device (19, Fig. 1) is associated with the thread guide housing (8, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0020], lines 7-8) so as to, at a work station of the textile machine, reversibly traverse the thread guide along a direction of an axis of rotation of the cross-wound bobbin to be produced (Paragraph [0013], lines 6-8); and wherein the thread guide housing can be brought into fluidic communication with the at least one fluid guide in order to apply a vacuum to the thread guide housing (Paragraph [0014], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the at least one vacuum system has a suction nozzle (9, Fig. 1) designed and arranged in such a way as to find a thread end on the cross-wound bobbin (Paragraph [0021], lines 1-4); and wherein the suction nozzle is connected to the at least one fluid guide to form a fluidic communication with the suction nozzle (9 is connected to 8, Fig. 1); and wherein the thread guide housing in a state can be brought into fluidic communication with the at least one fluid guide in a reversible manner (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 2, and further including an air duct (10, Fig. 1), Fig. 1), wherein the air duct is designed and arranged to bring the suction nozzle (9, Fig. 1) and the thread guide housing (8, 14, Fig. 1) into fluidic communication with the at least one vacuum system (via valve 12, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the at least one fluid guide (8, Fig. 1) is designed as a vacuum duct which has at least one of a throttle point (Paragraph [0034]; 12, Fig. 1), and a thread clamping device (17, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 3, and a closure device designed and arranged to close a thread entry region into the air duct (12, 9, 9a, 9b, does not allow thread to enter duct 10, but rather directs thread to 17, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 5, and a thread-catching device (17, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0025], lines 4-9) arranged on the closure device to catch a thread region of a thread (17 arranged on 12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0025], lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 7, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 5, and wherein the closure device (12, 9, 9a, 9b, Fig. 1) is designed and arranged to close the thread entry region in the air duct (10, Fig. 1) in the non-production state (vacuum directs thread to17 which captures the thread and keeps the thread from entering duct 10, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0034]); wherein the at least one fluid guide (8, Fig. 1) is designed and arranged to connect the at least one vacuum system (3, Fig. 1) to the air duct in the non-production state in order to establish a fluidic communication with the suction nozzle (Paragraph [0021], lines 5-8) ; and wherein the thread guide housing (14, Fig. 1) is formed and arranged to be connected to the at least one fluid guide (8, Fig. 1) in the non-production state to generate a fluid flow through the suction nozzle and simultaneously out of the thread guide housing (Paragraph [0021], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 8, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and the thread guide housing (8, 14, Fig. 1) has a reversibly closable opening (12, 9, 9a, 9b, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the at least one vacuum system is designed in such a way that, via the at least one fluid guide (10, Fig. 1), the vacuum is applied to the thread guide housing (8, 14, Fig. 1) from an outside thereof, as to generate a fluid flow along the thread guide (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a thread guide housing (14, Fig. 1) for the thread traversing device (14, 19, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a textile machine comprising the thread traversing device (Paragraph [0030], line 3; 1, 14, 19, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 10, and a method for cleaning the thread guide housing (Paragraph [0007], lines 5-7), wherein the method comprises the steps: producing a fluidic communication between the at least one vacuum system (10, Fig. 1) and the thread guide housing (8, Fig. 1) and applying the vacuum at the thread guide housing (8, 14, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 12, and wherein the at least one vacuum system comprises a plurality of vacuum systems, and wherein one of the plurality of vacuum systems (Paragraph [0033], lines 1-3) is activated depending on a preceding or subsequent working state, in order to apply vacuum (Paragraph [0022] - [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Decken discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 12, and a control device designed and configured to carry out the method (Paragraph [0021] - [0022]).
Double Patenting
Claim 1, and 10-14 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 10-13, and 16 of Application No. 18/622901. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, and 10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-13, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/622901 (reference application; hereinafter “application ‘901”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims amount to minor re-wording of claim limitations and the claims of application 18/622901 are narrower in scope than the instant application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of ‘901 discloses a thread traversing device for a winding device of a textile machine producing a cross-wound bobbin, the thread traversing device comprising: a thread guide housing having a thread guide; a traversing device designed and arranged to reversibly traverse along a direction of an axis of the cross-wound bobbin to be produced (“a thread traversing device for a winding device of a textile machine producing a cross-wound bobbin, the thread traversing device comprising: a thread guide housing having a thread guide; a traversing device designed and arranged to reversibly traverse along a direction of an axis of the cross-wound bobbin to be produced” Claim 1, lines 1-10); and at least one [fluid pressure] system comprising at least one fluid guide (“at least one overpressure system having at least one fluid guide” Claim 1, lines11-2); wherein the thread guide housing is designed and wherein the traversing device is associated with the thread guide housing so as to, at a work station of the textile machine, reversibly traverse the thread guide along a direction of an axis of rotation of the cross-wound bobbin to be produced (“wherein the thread guide housing is designed, and wherein the traversing device is associated with the thread guide housing, in such a way that the thread guide reversibly traverses in a work station of a textile machine along a direction of an axis of rotation of the cross-wound bobbin to be produced” Claim 1, lines 13-18); and wherein the thread guide housing can be brought into fluidic communication with the at least one fluid guide in order to apply a [fluid pressure] to the thread guide housing (wherein the thread guide housing can be brought into fluidic communication with the at least one fluid guide in order to apply overpressure to the thread guide housing” Claim 1, lines 19-22).
Application ‘901 does not disclose the fluid pressure system is a vacuum system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try replacing the overpressure system disclosed in application ‘901 with a vacuum because it is one of a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (overpressure system, or under pressure system – vacuum – as fluid pressure systems). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace an overpressure system with a vacuum, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, claim 10 of application ‘901 discloses a thread guide housing for the thread traversing device according to claim 1 (“the thread guide housing for the thread traversing device according to claim 1”; Claim 10).
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 11 of application ‘901 discloses a textile machine comprising the thread traversing device according to claim 1 and/or comprising a thread guide housing for the thread traversing device (“a textile machine having the thread traversing device according to claim 1 and/or having a thread guide housing for the thread traversing device”; Claim 11).
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, claim 12 of application ‘901 discloses a method for cleaning the thread guide housing according to claim 10, wherein the method comprises the steps: producing a fluidic communication between the at least one [fluid pressure] system and the thread guide housing and applying the [fluid pressure] at the thread guide housing (“A method for cleaning the thread guide housing according to claim 10, the method comprising: establishing fluidic communication between at least one overpressure system and the thread guide housing; applying overpressure to the thread guide housing”; Claim 12, lines 1-7).
Application ‘901 does not disclose the fluid pressure is a vacuum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try replacing the overpressure system disclosed in application ‘901 with a vacuum because it is one of a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (overpressure system, or under pressure system – vacuum – as fluid pressure systems). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace an overpressure system with a vacuum, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant application, claim 13 of application ‘901 discloses wherein one of the plurality of [fluid pressure] systems is activated depending on a preceding or subsequent working state, in order to apply [fluid pressure] (“wherein cleaning cycles are predefined relative to a pending thread connection after an intervention, wherein the intervention is selected from a cleaning intervention, a thread breakage, and/or a bobbin change” Claim 13, lines 1-6).
Application ‘901 does not disclose the fluid pressure system is a vacuum system and wherein the at least one vacuum system comprises a plurality of vacuum systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try replacing the overpressure system disclosed in application ‘901 with a vacuum because it is one of a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (overpressure system, or under pressure system – vacuum – as fluid pressure systems). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace an overpressure system with a vacuum, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one vacuum system comprise a plurality of vacuum systems, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure adequate fluid pressure on the thread during cycle operation, accommodating a variety of threads, and ensuring fast and efficient cleaning of the thread guide.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, claim 16 of the application ‘901 discloses a control device designed and configured to carry out the method according to claim 12 (“a control device designed and configured to carry out the method according to claim 12”, Claim 16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights