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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odawara, US4796422.
Regarding independent claim 1, Odawara discloses a fiber catching device ("an apparatus for treating tail yarns" Abstract, line 1) comprising: a base (5,7, 8, 10, Fig. 3) having an inboard portion (5, 6, 7, 8, Fig. 3) and an outboard portion (10, 10', Fig. 3); an external wall (4, 5, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the inboard portion of the base (5 extends upwardly from 7, 8, Fig. 3); an outboard hook (10, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the outboard portion of the base and extending to a height above the external wall (10 extends from 10' upwards and further than external wall 5, Fig. 3); and at least one receiver disposed between the external wall and the outboard hook (11, Fig. 3 between 4, 5, and 10, Fig. 3) further comprising: (b) an inboard hook extending upwardly from the inboard portion of the base (hook 4 extends upwardly from inboard base 5, Fig. 3); and a ridge (6, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the base between the inboard hook and the outboard hook (6 extends upward from base 5, Fig. 3 between hooks 4 and 10), wherein the at least one receiver comprises: an inboard groove disposed between the inboard hook and the ridge (11, between 4 and ridge 6, Fig. 3); and an outboard groove disposed between the outboard hook and the ridge (7, 10', between 6 and 10, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the plurality of gaps (S, P, Fig. 3) further comprise circumferential gaps arranged circumferentially along the external wall (S, P are arranged circumferentially around 5, Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 5, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the external wall (5, Fig. 3) is angled towards the outboard hook (4, 5 is angled towards outboard hook 10, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the at least one receiver is a groove (11 is a groove, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and an inboard hook extending upwardly from the inboard portion of the base (hook 4 extends upwardly from inboard base 5, Fig. 3); and a ridge (6, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the base between the inboard hook and the outboard hook (6 extends upward from base 5, Fig. 3 between hooks 4 and 10), wherein the at least one receiver comprises: an inboard groove disposed between the inboard hook and the ridge (11, between 4 and ridge 6, Fig. 3); and an outboard groove disposed between the outboard hook and the ridge (7, 10', between 6 and 10, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the inboard portion of the base defines an inclined edge (4, 5 is inclined edge, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the base further comprises opposed circumferential extensions (base 5, 7, 8, 10 extends circumferentially, Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 12, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and an internal recess extending radially below the base (2, and area central to 5, Fig. 3, 4) and configured to receive an outboard edge of a tube (1, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a ring extending between circumferential end portions of the base (base 5, 7, 8, 10 extends circumferentially in a ring, Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 14, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 13, and wherein the base and the ring are a single unitized piece (base 5, 7, 8, 10 extends circumferentially in a unitized ring, Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 15, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a tube (1, Fig. 3); wherein the fiber catching device is configured to direct a continuous fiber into the at least one receiver of the fiber catching device (configured to direct fiber 12 into 11, Fig. 7) and around an exterior surface of the tube during a fiber winding operation (Fig. 8).
Regarding independent claim 16, Odawara discloses a fiber catching device ("an apparatus for treating tail yarns" Abstract, line 1) comprising: a base (5,7, 8, 10, Fig. 3) having an inboard portion (5, 6, 7, 8, Fig. 3) and an outboard portion (10, 10', Fig. 3);an external wall (4, 5, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the inboard portion of the base (5 extends upwardly from 7, 8, Fig. 3); an outboard hook (10, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the outboard portion of the base and extending to a height above the external wall (10 extends from 10' upwards and further than external wall 5, Fig. 3); and at least one receiver disposed between the external wall and the outboard hook (11, Fig. 3 between 4, 5, and 10, Fig. 3); a plurality of protrusions (4, Fig. 3, 4) disposed on the external wall (5, Fig. 3) and defining a plurality of gaps there between (S, P, Fig. 3, 4); an inboard hook extending upwardly from the inboard portion of the base (hook 4 extends upwardly from inboard base 5, Fig. 3); an internal recess extending radially below the base (2, and area central to 5, Fig. 3, 4) and configured to receive an outboard edge of a tube (1, Fig. 3) and a ridge (6, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the base between the inboard hook and the outboard hook (6 extends upward from base 5, Fig. 3 between hooks 4 and 10), wherein the at least one receiver comprises: an inboard groove disposed between the inboard hook and the ridge (11, between 4 and ridge 6, Fig. 3); and an outboard groove disposed between the outboard hook and the ridge (7, 10', between 6 and 10, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 16, and wherein the at least one receiver is a groove (11 is a groove, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Odawara discloses the limitations of claim 16, and wherein the base further comprises opposed circumferential extensions (base 5, 7, 8, 10 extends circumferentially, Fig. 3, 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odawara, US4796422 in view of Couchey, US20040000607.
Regarding claim 11, Odawara discloses a fiber catching device substantially as claimed as described above in claim 10 and opposed circumferential extensions. Odawara does not disclose wherein each of the opposed circumferential extensions comprises at least one aperture configured to receive a mechanical fastener. However, Couchey teaches wherein each of the opposed circumferential extensions comprises at least one aperture configured to receive a mechanical fastener (ring 44 is opposed circumferential extensions having apertures 67 configured to receive a mechanical fastener 65, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circumferential extensions of Odawara to have the apertures configured to receive a mechanical fastener as taught by Couchey "so that the end ring can be secured and aligned with the body of the tube" (Paragraph [0009], lines 7-8; Couchey). One would have been motivated to make this modification for ease of assembly (Paragraph [008], line 2; Couchey).
Regarding claim 20, Odawara discloses a fiber catching device substantially as claimed as described above in claim 19 and opposed circumferential extensions. Odawara does not disclose wherein each of the opposed circumferential extensions comprises at least one aperture configured to receive a mechanical fastener. However, Couchey teaches wherein each of the opposed circumferential extensions comprises at least one aperture configured to receive a mechanical fastener (ring 44 is opposed circumferential extensions having apertures 67 configured to receive a mechanical fastener 65, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circumferential extensions of Odawara to have the apertures configured to receive a mechanical fastener as taught by Couchey "so that the end ring can be secured and aligned with the body of the tube" (Paragraph [0009], lines 7-8; Couchey). One would have been motivated to make this modification for ease of assembly (Paragraph [008], line 2; Couchey).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, applicant’s arguments with respect to the radial gaps arranged progressively closer to a top of the external wall, on page 5 of Remarks, filed 6/03/2026 are persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/03/2026, on page 5, with respect to the radial gaps of Odawara not being arranged progressively closer to the top of the external wall are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 5-6 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “direct the fiber”) 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).
In response to applicant's argument on page 6 of Remarks filed 6/03/2026 that element 11 of Odawara is not the “receiver” as claimed, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, element 11 of Odawara is a receiver because Odawara states that element 11 is a “tail yarn gripping means” which means it receives the yarn, and is thus a receiver as claimed and consistent with Applicant’s specification paragraph [0037]. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments on pages 6-7 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “to direct and capture the fiber within the fiber catching device”) 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). Further, in response to applicant's argument that Odawara does not disclose the inboard and outboard hooks are arranged to direct and capture the fiber within the fiber catching device, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with applicant’s assertion that Odawara fails to disclose an outboard hook extending upwardly from the outboard portion of the base and extending to a height above the external wall. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights