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 .
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 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
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendments filed on June 11, 2024, which claims
1-14 are pending, of which claims 1-14 were amended, are being examined under
the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “can be (line: 5)” renders the scope of the claim unclear. The phrase “can be” introduces uncertainty as to whether the limitation is optional or mandatory. It is unclear whether pneumatic pressure is required to be applied to the splicing prism or merely the splicing prism has to be capable of having pneumatic pressure applied to it.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein the thread splicing device, apart from a splicing prism” in lines: 2-3 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is claiming a new “splicing prism” or referring to the “splicing prism” disclosed in claim 1. Examiner assumes Applicant is referring to the “splicing prism” disclosed in claim 1
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the at least one interference element, has additional devices equipped with the thread-locking means, an attachment plate equipped with the thread-locking means or a thread brake element” in lines: 4-8 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “attachment plate” is part of the “additional device” or separate from the “additional device”. Examiner assumes the “attachment plate” is the “additional device”.
Claims 2-13 are rejected indirectly/directly from a rejected claim
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Premi (US PG Pub. 2004/0020182).
Regarding claim 1, Premi discloses a thread-splicing device (10) for a workstation of a textile machine (see Fig. 1) that produces cross-wound bobbins, the thread-splicing device (10) comprising:
a splicing prism (11) with a splicing channel (25) to which pneumatic pressure can be applied (Par. 0029-0030);
thread-guiding plates (Par. 0043, “slanting plates”) arranged on both sides of the splicing channel (25, Fig. 6) and which is equipped with thread-locking means (30 and 31); and
at least one interference element (32 and 33) positioned on both sides of the splicing prism (11) in a region between the thread-guiding plates (Par. 0043, “slanting plates”) and the thread-locking means (30 and 31, as shown in Fig. 1) in such a way that thread ends to be spliced contact the at least one interference element (32 and 33) during splicing process (Par. 0035, 0057).
Regarding claim 2, Premi discloses wherein the at least one interference element (32 and 33) is always arranged on a larger of the thread-guiding plates (Par. 0043, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 32 is arranged one “a larger of the thread-guiding plates” due to its connection with the plates).
Regarding claim 3, Premi discloses wherein the at least one interference element (32 and 33) is designed and arranged such that a thread contact surface of the at least one interference element runs at a right angle to a side wall of the splicing prism (11, as shown in Fig. 1 where elements 32 and 33 are “designed and arranged” at a right angle to the inner side wall of element 11).
Regarding claim 4, Premi discloses the at least one interference element (32 and 33) has a wall element (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that is equipped with a thread contact surface (as shown in annotated Fig 1 below, where the thread is shown contacting the surface) and is arranged at an angle α with respect to a side wall of the splicing prism (see annotated Fig. 1 below, examiner notes the angle α is shown to be 0 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 5, Premi discloses the at least one interference element (32 and 33) has multiple wall elements each equipped with a thread contact surface (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Premi discloses the thread contact surface of the at least one interference element (see annotated Fig. 1 above) runs straight in a region of contact of the thread ends (examiner notes the region is shown where threads are against elements 32 and 33).
Regarding claim 13, Premi discloses the thread contact surface of the at least one interference element has a bulge in a region of contact of the thread ends (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Premi discloses the thread splicing device (10), apart from a splicing prism (11) equipped with the at least one interference element (32 and 33, examiner notes element 11 is connected to element 32 and 33 through their connection to the entire device, 10), has additional devices (20 and 21) equipped with the thread-locking means (30 and 31, examiner notes elements 20 and 21 are connected to elements 30 and 31 through their connection to the entire device, 10), an attachment plate (20 and 21, Par. 0053) equipped with the thread-locking means (30 and 31).
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premi in view of Zahn (US Patent 4,077,752).
Regarding claim 6, Premi discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Premi does not explicitly disclose the at least one interference element is made of an abrasion-resistant material.
However, Zahn teaches yet another device that feeds threads through it, wherein Zahn teaches at least one interference element (46 and 46’, Fig. 7 and 8) is made of an abrasion-resistant material (Col. 6, lines: 35-38, ceramic or metal).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an abrasion-resistant material as taught by Zahn as the material for the at least one interference element of Premi. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because abrasion-resistant material was a well-known material for devices with threads feeding through them, as taught by Zahn, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the threads produced.
Regarding claim 7, Premi in view of Zahn disclose the at least one interference element (11 of Premi) is made of a ceramic material (Examiner notes due to the combination presented in claim 6, the material of the interference element, 11 of Premi, was modified to be an “abrasion-resistant material” that is known to be ceramic, as taught in Col. 6, lines: 35-38 of Zahn).
Regarding claim 8, Premi in view of Zahn disclose the at least one interference element (11 of Premi) is made of a high-strength metallic material (Examiner notes due to the combination presented in claim 6, the material of the interference element, 11 of Premi, was modified to be an “abrasion-resistant material” that is known to be metal, as taught in Col. 6, lines: 35-38 of Zahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize all metal is “high strength”, to a degree).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premi in view of Fusco et al. ” Fusco” (US Patent 3,668,852).
Regarding claim 9, Premi discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Premi does not explicitly disclose the at least one interference element is replaceably fastened to the splicing prism.
However, Fusco teaches yet another splicing apparatus, wherein Fusco teaches the at least one interference element (384, Fig. 17-18) is replaceably fastened to the splicing prism (376, Col. 7, line: 74-Col. 8, line: 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one interference element as disclosed by Premi, by being replaceably fastened to the splicing prism as taught by Fusco, in order to allow the interference element to be replaced when worn out.
Regarding claim 10, Premi in view of Fusco disclose the at least one interference element (32 and 33 of Premi) is fastened to the splicing prism (11) by a screw connection (Col. 7, line: 74-Col. 8, line: 7 of Fusco).
Regarding claim 11, Premi in view of Fusco disclose the at least one interference element (32 and 33 of Premi) is fastened to the splicing prism (11) by an adhesive connection (Col. 7, line: 74-Col. 8, line: 7 of Fusco, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “screw” acts an adhesive connection to adhesively secure objects together).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732