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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 18-21, 23-24, 26-35 and 37-38 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature "the at least one marking includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern" in claims 18 and 34 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claims 18 and 34, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "the at least one marking includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern".
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 18-21, 23-24, 26-35 and 37-38 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 34 each recite "the at least one marking includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern". However, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient support for the feature. The original specification states "four markings 19 are arranged on the spiked lattice 4" and "[t]he markings 19 are shown as stars" (p. 19, ll. 1-10). The drawings show two star-shaped markings 19 in Fig. 3. A star shape is considered to have a regular pattern because it possesses high symmetry, with equal side lengths and equal angles. In addition, only two stars are shown in Fig. 3, and the location of the two stars do not form any pattern. Therefore, Therefore, claiming the limitation in the claims appears to be new matter.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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.
Claim 38 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the marking". Claim 38 depends from claim 18, and claim 18 has set forth at least one marking including a first marking and a second marking. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the at least one marking.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: opening elements in claim 18 and 34.
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.
Specifically, the limitation "opening elements" has been interpreted as "small teeth and/or needles" according to the original specification (p. 11, ll. 15-24).
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 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.
Claims 18-21, 23-24, 26-35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgner (DE 102019115616 A1) in view of Meile (US 6,029,317 A).
Regarding claim 18, Morgner discloses a textile machine (a textile machine; e.g., a bale opener; figs. 1-3; see English translation; paras. 0006, 0047) for processing and/or transporting fiber material (figs. 1-3; para. 0048), the textile machine comprising:
at least one processing unit (at least processing units 6a, 6b; fig. 1; paras. 0049-0050) configured to process and/or transport fiber material (fig. 1; paras. 0049-0050);
at least one sensor unit (at least sensor units 7a-7e; fig. 1; para. 0053) configured to detect soiling on and/or at the at least one processing unit and/or damage to the at least one processing unit (detect contaminants and/or damages in monitored areas; paras. 0015-0016, 0030, 0065);
at least one display unit (at least display units 17a. 17b; fig. 1; para. 0064) configured to display the soiling on and/or the damage to the at least one processing unit (display status messages of the monitoring areas; fig. 1; paras. 0064-0065),
wherein the at least one sensor unit includes a camera (3D cameras; para. 0055), and
wherein the at least one processing unit has at least one marking identifiable by the at least one sensor unit to allow for a determination of a location, position, and/or orientation of the at least one processing unit (for example, the processing unit 6b is an ascending needle belt, therefore having at least one marking; e.g., an inclined surface and at least one needle, identifiable by the 3D cameras 7a-7e to allow a determination of a location, position, and/or orientation of the inclined needle belt; fig. 1; paras. 0040, 0050, 0052-0055); and
wherein the textile machine further includes a control unit (control unit 12 combined with evaluation unit; fig. 1; para. 0059), via the at least one sensor unit and the at least one marking, determines a position of the at least one processing unit (paras. 0015-0016, 0018, 0059-0060, 0065) via the at least one sensor unit and the at least one marking, determines a position of at least one processing unit and, depending on the position of at least one processing unit, a position of contamination and/or damage on at least one processing unit (damage and/or contamination of the needle belt can be identified; paras. 0012, 0016).
Morgner does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processing unit comprises a spiked lattice having opening elements and the at least one marking includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern. However, Morgner does disclose wherein the at least one processing unit comprises an inclined needle belt, which is an opening unit (fig. 1; paras. 0007, 0040) and monitored by at least one 3D camera (fig. 1; paras. 0016, 0018). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a needle belt is generally a spiked lattice, which comprises aligned needles configured as opening elements. Further, Meile, in an analogous art, teaches a textile machine (a spinning preparation device; fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 48-59; claim 6) for processing and/or transporting fiber material (fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 48-59; claim 6) comprising at least one processing unit (fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 48-59; claim 6), the at least one processing unit comprises a spiked lattice (inclined elevator lattice 10; figs. 2, 4; col. 3, ll. 65-67; col. 6, ll. 52-61) having opening elements (a first portion of projecting steel pins 101, i.e., aligned needles; see annotated fig. 4; col. 6, ll. 52-61) and at least one marking (an inclined surface and a second portion of steel pins 101; see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 4) includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern (the inclined surface and the second portion of steel pins 101 forming an irregular pattern, as the former being an angled surface and the latter being a plurality of steel pins; see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the needle belt as disclosed by Morgner, with wherein the at least one processing unit comprises a spiked lattice having opening elements and the at least one marking and the at least one marking includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern as taught by Meile, in order to use a commonly-used spiked lattice as the needle belt to open fibers when transferring the fiber materials. By this combination, the control unit would, via the at least one sensor unit and the at least one marking, determine a position of the spiked lattice and, and depending on the position of the spiked lattice, a position of contamination and/or damage on the spiked lattice.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 from US 6,029,317 A
Regarding claim 19, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display a position of the soiling and/or the damage on and/or at the at least one processing unit (the status messages including a position of the soiling and/or the damage in the predetermined monitored areas; paras. 0055, 0057, 0030, 0065).
Regarding claim 20, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18. Morgner does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display an amount of the soiling and/or the damage on and/or at the at least one processing unit. However, Morgner does disclose wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display status messages of the monitoring areas including contamination and/or damages, and the status messages are generated based on evaluation results of spatial images of the monitored areas by comparing an actual state and a target state (paras. 0015-0016, 0030, 0064-0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the textile machine as disclosed by Morgner, with wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display important parameters, including an amount of the soiling and/or the damage on and/or at the at least one processing unit, in order to directly provide the quantity of soiling and/or damage to the attention of an operator thereby facilitating a timely human intervention in case of need. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 21, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18. Morgner does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display a type of the soiling and/or the damage on and/or at the at least one processing unit. However, Morgner does disclose wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display status messages of the monitoring areas including contamination and/or damages, and the status messages are generated based on evaluation results of spatial images in the monitored areas by comparing an actual state and a target state (paras. 0015-0016, 0030, 0064-0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the textile machine as disclosed by Morgner, with wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display important parameters, including a type of the soiling and/or the damage on and/or at the at least one processing unit, in order to directly provide the type of soiling and/or damage to the attention of an operator thereby facilitating a timely human intervention in case of need. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 23, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses wherein the camera is a 3D camera (para. 0055).
Regarding claim 24, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses the textile machine further comprising a control unit (control unit 12 combined with evaluation unit; fig. 1; para. 0059) configured to determine a position, an amount, and/or type of the soiling and/or the damage on and/or at the at least one processing unit (paras. 0015-0016, 0059-0060, 0065).
Regarding claim 26 Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses wherein the at least one display unit includes a projection unit configured to project at least one item of information regarding a position, an amount, and/or type of the soiling and/or the damage onto the at least one processing unit (a grid or a striped image can be projected onto the object, especially onto the fiber material, and a projection unit must exist for this sake; para. 0024).
Regarding claim 27, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 26. Morgner does not explicitly disclose wherein the projection unit is configured to project colors, symbols, numbers, and/or letters onto the at least one processing unit. However, Morgner does disclose wherein the projection unit is configured to project a grid or a striped image (para. 0024), the display unit is configured to display colors (para. 0042). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a commonly-used projection unit is configured to project images, symbols, numbers, and/or letters with colors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the textile machine as disclosed by Morgner, with wherein the projection unit is configured to project colors, symbols, numbers, and/or letters onto the at least one processing unit, in order to effectively demonstrate the status message to human operators with a good visual effect.
Regarding claim 28, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses wherein the at least one display unit includes a screen (a colored LED unit; para. 0042) configured to display a position, an amount, and/or type of the soiling and/or the damage (the status messages including a position of the soiling and/or the damage in the monitored areas; paras. 0055, 0057, 0030, 0065).
Regarding claim 29, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses wherein the at least one display unit includes at least one lighting element (a colored LED unit; para. 0042) configured to indicate a position, an amount, and/or type of the soiling and/or the damage (the status messages including at least a position of the soiling and/or the damage in the monitored areas; paras. 0055, 0057, 0030, 0065).
Regarding claim 30, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 29, and Morgner further discloses wherein the at least one lighting element is configured to output different colors to provide status messages (a colored LED unit; para. 0042).
Regarding claim 31, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18. Morgner does not explicitly disclose the textile machine further comprising a memory unit configured to store data gathered by the at least one sensor unit. However, Morgner does disclose wherein the evaluation unit 11 and the control unit 12 can be combined in one computer (para. 0059), and a computer comprises a memory unit. One of ordinary skill of the art would also recognize that the data from the at least one sensor unit should be stored in a memory for evaluation by the evaluation unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the textile machine as disclosed by Morgner, with wherein the memory unit of the computer is configured to store data gathered by the at least one sensor unit for evaluation by the evaluation unit, in order to provide a compact evaluation and control system in the textile machine.
Regarding claim 32, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses wherein the at least one processing unit forms part of at least one bale opener, at least one textile conveying machine, and/or at least one textile mixing machine (paras. 0006, 0047).
Regarding claim 33, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 32, and Morgner further discloses wherein the at least one processing unit is: a spiked lattice (processing unit 6b is a needle belt which is generally a spiked lattice; fig. 1; para. 0050), a return roller (stripping roller 9; fig. 1; para. 0051), a transfer roller (knock-off roller 10; fig. 1; para. 0051), and/or a first conveying unit of the at least one bale opener (first processing unit 6a is a first conveyor belt of the bale opener; fig. 1; paras. 0040, 0049); a mixer of the at least one textile mixing machine (para. 0040); and/or a second conveying unit of the at least one textile conveying machine (processing unit 6b is a needle belt; fig. 1; para. 0050).
Regarding claim 34, Morgner discloses, in the context of describing a textile machine, discloses a method for operating a textile machine (a textile machine; e.g., a bale opener; figs. 1-3; see English translation; paras. 0006, 0047), the method comprising:
processing and/or transporting fiber material using at least one processing unit of the textile machine (fig. 1; paras. 0048-0051);
detecting soiling on and/or at the at least one processing unit and/or damage to the at least one processing unit (detect contaminants and/or damages in monitored areas; paras. 0015-0016, 0030, 0065) using at least one sensor unit (at least sensor units 7a-7e; fig. 1; para. 0053) of the textile machine; and
displaying the soiling on and/or the damage to the at least one processing unit (display status messages of the monitoring areas; fig. 1; paras. 0064-0065) using at least one display unit (at least display units 17a. 17b; fig. 1; para. 0064) of the textile machine,
identifying non-critical states of the at least one processing unit (monitoring the predetermined areas continuously by the sensors and the evaluation system, including non-critical states and critical states; paras. 0026, 0028),
wherein the at least one sensor unit includes a camera (3D cameras; para. 0055), and
wherein the at least one processing unit has at least one marking identifiable by the at least one sensor unit to allow for a determination of a location, position, and/or orientation of the at least one processing unit (for example, the processing unit 6b is an ascending needle belt, therefore having at least one marking; e.g., an inclined surface and at least one needle, identifiable by the 3D cameras 7a-7e to allow a determination of a location, position, and/or orientation of the inclined needle belt; fig. 1; paras. 0040, 0050, 0052-0055); and
wherein the textile machine further includes a control unit (control unit 12 combined with evaluation unit; fig. 1; para. 0059), via the at least one sensor unit and the at least one marking, determines a position of the at least one processing unit (paras. 0015-0016, 0018, 0059-0060, 0065) via the at least one sensor unit and the at least one marking, determines a position of at least one processing unit and, depending on the position of at least one processing unit, a position of contamination and/or damage on at least one processing unit (damage and/or contamination of the needle belt can be identified; paras. 0012, 0016).
Morgner does not explicitly disclose the method comprising removing the non-critical states from the display provided by the at least one display unit. However, Morgner does disclose wherein the at least one display unit is configured to display status messages from the evaluation system (paras. 0042, 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the at least one display unit as disclosed by Morgner, with the at least one display unit continuously display the real-time status of the monitored areas, in order to provide real-time operating status to the operator for timely response. By this configuration, the method would comprise removing the non-critical states from the display provided by the at least one display unit.
Morgner does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processing unit comprises a spiked lattice having opening elements and the at least one marking includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern, and wherein the control unit, via the at least one sensor unit and the at least one marking, determines a position of the spiked lattice and, and depending on the position of the spiked lattice, a position of contamination and/or damage on the spiked lattice. However, Morgner does disclose wherein the at least one processing unit comprises an inclined needle belt, which is an opening unit (fig. 1; paras. 0007, 0040) and monitored by at least one 3D camera (fig. 1; paras. 0016, 0018). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a needle belt is generally a spiked lattice, which comprises aligned needles configured as opening elements. Further, Meile, in an analogous art, teaches a textile machine (a spinning preparation device; fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 48-59; claim 6) for processing and/or transporting fiber material (fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 48-59; claim 6) comprising at least one processing unit (fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 48-59; claim 6), the at least one processing unit comprises a spiked lattice (inclined elevator lattice 10; figs. 2, 4; col. 3, ll. 65-67; col. 6, ll. 52-61) having opening elements (a first portion of projecting steel pins 101, i.e., aligned needles; see annotated fig. 4; col. 6, ll. 52-61) and at least one marking (an inclined surface and a second portion of steel pins 101; see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 4) includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern (the inclined surface and the second portion of steel pins 101 forming an irregular pattern, as the former being an angled surface and the latter being a plurality of pins; see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the needle belt as disclosed by Morgner, with wherein the at least one processing unit comprises a spiked lattice having opening elements and the at least one marking includes a first marking and a second marking arranged in an irregular pattern as taught by Meile, in order to use a commonly-used spiked lattice to open fibers as the needle belt when transferring the fiber materials. By this combination, the control unit would, via the at least one sensor unit and the at least one marking, determine a position of the spiked lattice and, and depending on the position of the spiked lattice, a position of contamination and/or damage on the spiked lattice.
Regarding claim 35, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the method of claim 34, and Morgner further discloses wherein displaying the soiling on and/or the damage to the at least one processing unit comprises displaying a position, an amount, and/or a type of the soiling and/or the damage at and/or on the at least one processing unit (the status messages including at least a position of the soiling and/or the damage in the predetermined monitored areas; paras. 0055, 0057, 0030, 0065).
Regarding claim 37, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18, and Morgner further discloses wherein the first marking and the second marking are reference elements configured to provide a reference position on the spiked lattice for the camera (as the inclined surface and the second portion of steel pins 101 are portions of the spiked lattice; see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 4).
Regarding claim 38, Morgner and Meile, in combination, disclose the textile machine of claim 18. By combination of Morgner and Meile, the at least one display unit would be configured to display the positions of the soiling or the damage on and the at least one processing unit in relation to the marking, as well as a relative distance therebetween (as both the soiling/damage and the marking being monitored by at least one 3D camera and displayed on the at least one display unit; see fig. 1 of Morgner). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the control unit of the textile machine, with wherein the control unit is configured to establish a relationship between the position of the soiling or the damage and the at least one marking, and wherein the control unit is configured to determine a distance between the soiling or the damage and the marking and a direction from the marking to the soiling or the damage, in order to determine a real-time status of the spiked lattice with the help of the spatial recording on the spiked lattice, and the soiling/damage issue during a manufacturing process can be timely resolved (Morgner; 0014-0016). Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments about prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra. Applicant's other arguments are addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that the claimed limitation "opening elements" should not be interpreted being limited by 112(f), and the Office has not explained why the claim feature fails to recite sufficiently definite structure and why the claim feature recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office action has cited MPEP § 2181 and 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and also stated 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. As can be readily recognized, "element" is a generic placeholder and "opening" is a functional language, and "opening elements" equals to "elements for opening"; therefore, there is no need to further explain word by word. In addition, Applicant does not point out what the sufficient structure is in this limitation. Applicant's argument is not found persuasive and the 112(f) interpretation is maintained.
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732