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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1, Ln. 5-6, “a main body further designed in a plate-like manner” is vague and indefinite. What constitutes a “plate-like manner”? Thinness, circular shape, flatness, etc.?
The following claims use vague and indefinite claim language which relates components to each other using “is assigned” or “can be assigned”: Claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 10. Does “assignment” refer to component placement? Is it required that surfaces touch or will the components being near to each other or being associated with each other satisfy the claimed scope? For examination purposes, Examiner assumes “is assigned to” is defined as “is disposed on.”
Claims 3, 5-7, 9, and 11-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanigawa (EP 2570376 A2).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 6 from Tanigawa
Regarding Claim 1, Tanigawa, Figures 1-7 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a sleeve plate 63’ designed to support and center a bobbin sleeve 22 comprising:
a centering projection 70; and
a main body 63 further designed in a plate-like manner; with a surface side 63a;
wherein the centering projection 70 is designed to be received by an opening in an end face of the bobbin sleeve 22, wherein the centering projection 70 is arranged in a rotationally centered manner on the surface side 63a of the main body 63 and protrudes from the surface side 63a and is designed to center the bobbin sleeve 22 when the bobbin sleeve 22 is in a received state, and wherein the centering projection 70 has a lateral surface 70a;
wherein a functional device 80 can be assigned or is assigned to the centering projection 70.
Regarding Claim 2, Tanigawa is advanced above.
Tanigawa further teaches wherein the functional device 80 is designed as at least one wear device (contact member; See Tanigawa, Col. 10, Ln. 19-29) which can be assigned or is assigned to the lateral surface 70a at a base of the centering projection 70 (See Tanigawa, Fig. 5-7).
Regarding Claim 12, Tanigawa is advanced above.
Tanigawa further teaches wherein a wear device (contact member; See Tanigawa, Col. 10, Ln. 19-29) and the sleeve plate 63’ are formed from different materials (See Tanigawa, Col. 9, Ln. 7, Ln. 28-29).
Regarding Claim 15, Tanigawa is advanced above.
Tanigawa further teaches a functional device 80 comprising a wear device (contact member; See Tanigawa, Col. 10, Ln. 19-29) arranged on the sleeve plate 63’ (See Tanigawa, Fig. 4; See Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 16, Tanigawa is advanced above.
Tanigawa further teaches a textile machine 1 comprising a bobbin frame 23 comprising the sleeve plate 63’ (See Tanigawa, Fig. 1-2; See Figure 1 above).
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.
Claims 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (EP 2570376 A2), as applied to claims 1-2, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Oberstrass (US 6,145,775).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanigawa is advanced above.
Tanigawa further teaches wherein the lateral surface 70a of the centering projection 70 is designed and arranged in such a way as to face an inner side of the bobbin sleeve 22 in the received state of the bobbin sleeve 22.
Tanigawa teaches all the elements of the sleeve plate except for a frustoconical lateral surface and a thread guide.
PNG
media_image2.png
389
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 3 from Oberstrass
However, Oberstrass, Figures 1-6 and annotated Figure 2 above, teaches wherein the lateral surface 8a of the centering projection 8 is a frustoconical lateral surface, and wherein the frustoconical lateral surface is designed and arranged in such a way as to face an inner side of the bobbin sleeve 13 in the received state of the bobbin sleeve 13 (See Oberstrass, Col. 4, Ln. 21-22), wherein a thread guide 14 is arranged and formed in a region of the lateral surface in such a way as to guide a thread 1 during a run-up rotation of the bobbin sleeve 13 (See Oberstrass, Col. 3, Ln. 50-58) and to clamp the thread 1 between the end face 17 of the bobbin sleeve 13 and the main body 2 when the bobbin sleeve 13 is in the received state (See Oberstrass, Col. 6, Ln. 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with a frustoconical lateral surface and a thread guide, as taught by Oberstrass, for the purpose of decreasing disruptions to the bobbin winding process (i.e. “during a package doff, the yarn clamped between the tube edge and the centering extension of the clamping plate is directly released when the tube is separated from the clamping plate, thereby preventing any disruptions as the package rolls off, since the yarn is unable to remain caught on the clamping plate”) (See Oberstrass, Col. 2, Ln. 43-51).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanigawa in view of Oberstrass are advanced above.
Oberstrass further teaches wherein the thread guide 14 is a groove (See Oberstrass, Col. 6, Ln. 36-40) which is designed and arranged in such a way as to receive and guide the thread 1 in a region of the groove and which can be assigned to the lateral surface 8a in such a way as to revolve around the lateral surface 8a (See Oberstrass, Col. 6, Ln. 36-37) in order to guide the thread 1 during run-up rotation of the bobbin sleeve 13 (See Oberstrass, Col. 3, Ln. 50-58) and to clamp the thread 1 between the end face of the bobbin sleeve 13 and the main body 2 when the bobbin sleeve 13 is in the received state (See Oberstrass, Col. 6, Ln. 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with a groove, as taught by Oberstrass, for the purpose of decreasing disruptions to the bobbin winding process (i.e. “during a package doff, the yarn clamped between the tube edge and the centering extension of the clamping plate is directly released when the tube is separated from the clamping plate, thereby preventing any disruptions as the package rolls off, since the yarn is unable to remain caught on the clamping plate”) (See Oberstrass, Col. 2, Ln. 43-51).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanigawa in view of Oberstrass are advanced above.
Oberstrass further teaches wherein the groove running around the lateral surface 8a is formed at a transition 82 of the lateral surface 8a to the surface side 2a of the main body 2 (See Figure 2 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with a groove formed at a transition between the lateral surface and the surface side of the main body, as taught by Oberstrass, for the purpose of decreasing disruptions to the bobbin winding process (i.e. “during a package doff, the yarn clamped between the tube edge and the centering extension of the clamping plate is directly released when the tube is separated from the clamping plate, thereby preventing any disruptions as the package rolls off, since the yarn is unable to remain caught on the clamping plate”) (See Oberstrass, Col. 2, Ln. 43-51).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanigawa in view of Oberstrass are advanced above.
Tanigawa further teaches wherein a collar 80a is formed on a base surface of a wear device 80 and is designed in such a way as to assign, when the wear device 80 is in a mounted state, a lateral surface of the collar 80a, to the lateral surface 70a of the centering projection 70, wherein a region of the collar 80a which can be arranged on a base side of the centering projection 70 has an outer diameter which corresponds to an inner diameter of the end face of the bobbin sleeve 22 in order to center the bobbin sleeve 22 in an applied state (See Tanigawa, Col. 9, Ln. 33-37).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (EP 2570376 A2), as applied to claims 1-2, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Murata (JP S51157648 U).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanigawa is advanced above.
Tanigawa teaches all the elements of the sleeve plate except for the wear device being a wear ring.
PNG
media_image3.png
179
251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 3 from Murata
However, Murata, Figures 2-3 and annotated Figure 3 above, teaches wherein the surface side 12a of the main body 12 has a wear device 16 having a wear region designed as a wear ring (elastic member ring; See Murata, Detailed description of the device, Ln. 33) which is designed to be arranged on a base of the lateral surface 12b, with an end-face edge 17 of the bobbin sleeve 17’ to be received, in a contact region 16a, wherein the wear device 16 runs around the sleeve plate in such a way that the contact region 16a remains located in the wear region of the wear device 16 in a run-up rotational state of the bobbin sleeve 17’ (See Murata, Detailed description of the device, Ln. 34-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with a wear ring, as taught by Murata, for the purpose of reducing likelihood of yarn breakage (See Murata, Detailed description of the device, Ln. 39-44).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanigawa in view of Murata are advanced above.
Tanigawa further teaches the wear device is designed exchangeable (See Tanigawa, Col. 2, Ln. 21-30).
Murata further teaches wherein the wear device 16 is embedded in a depression 12c of the surface side of the main body 12 corresponding to a shape of the wear device 16 (See Figure 3 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with the wear device embedded in a depression, as taught by Murata, for the purpose of reducing likelihood of yarn breakage (See Murata, Detailed description of the device, Ln. 39-44).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (EP 2570376 A2) in view of Oberstrass (US 6,145,775), as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Greive (US 4,561,600).
Regarding Claim 9, Tanigawa in view of Oberstrass are advanced above.
Tanigawa in view of Oberstrass teach all the elements of the sleeve plate except for the wear device having the thread guide.
However, Greive, Figures 1-2 and 6-7, teaches wherein the wear device 9a has the thread guide 14 which is designed and arranged so as to receive and guide the thread in an assembled state in order to guide the thread during run-up rotation of the bobbin sleeve 5 and to clamp the thread between the end face of the bobbin sleeve 5 and the main body 9b when the bobbin sleeve 5 is in the received state (See Greive, Col. 5, Ln. 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with the thread guide as a part of the wear device, as taught by Greive, for the purpose of allowing “the thread to be substantially automatically and securely engaged, irrespective of the bobbin winding diameter” (See Greive, Col. 1, Ln. 68 - Col. 2, Ln. 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (EP 2570376 A2), as applied to claims 1-2, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Okada (JP H0624645 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Tanigawa is advanced above.
Tanigawa teaches all the elements of the sleeve plate except for the wear device and sleeve plate being formed by multi-component injection molding.
However, Okada, Figures 1-4, teaches wherein the wear device 25 and the sleeve plate 17 are formed by multi-component injection molding (“the elastic member 25 may be embedded when the flange 17 is integrally molded with a resin in advance”; See Okada, Para. 0017, Ln. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with a wear device and sleeve plate made by multi-component injection molding, as taught by Okada, for the purpose of increasing simplicity of manufacture and reliability of construction (i.e. wear device comes preassembled on sleeve plate and the wear device has a higher likelihood of staying properly embedded in the sleeve plate) (See Okada, Para. 0017, Ln. 1-2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (EP 2570376 A2) in view of Murata (JP S51157648 U), as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Garcia (US 6,290,167).
Regarding Claim 14, Tanigawa in view of Murata are advanced above.
Tanigawa in view of Murata teach all the elements of the sleeve plate except for wherein the wear device comprises a metallic material and/or comprises a metallic material which is sheathed by another material.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 2 from Garcia
However, Garcia, Figures 1-7 and annotated Figure 4 above, teaches wherein the wear device 22’ comprises a metallic material (See Garcia, Col. 5, Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanigawa with a metallic material, as taught by Garcia, for the purpose of securing the bobbin sleeve to the sleeve plate (See Garcia, Col. 5, Ln. 12-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 would be allowable for disclosing wherein the thread guide can be assigned to the frustoconical lateral surface of the centering projection in such a way that the base surface of the centering projection, together with the thread guide arranged on the base surface, has an outside diameter which corresponds to an inside diameter of the end face of the bobbin sleeve.
Although Greive teaches wherein the thread guide 14 of the wear device 9a can be assigned to the lateral surface of the centering projection 21 (See Greive, Fig. 6-7), neither Greive nor any other prior art of record shows the base surface of the centering projection, together with the thread guide arranged on the base surface, having an outside diameter which corresponds to an inside diameter of the end face of the bobbin sleeve. The prior art is limited to configurations in which a thread guide located on the base of a centering projection has an outer diameter which does not correspond to the inner diameter of the bobbin sleeve and it would not have allowed for anticipation of nor an obvious modification resulting in a device with all the limitations of claim 10. Therefore, this combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claim 11 would be allowable due to its dependency on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm ET.
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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619