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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 6 and 8 recited specific claim numbers, which is improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 12-15 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.
In regards to Claim 3, the limitations are unclear as a spinneret is not part of a drafting device.
In regards to Claim 12, it is unclear whether the claim is dependent or independent because the phrase “at least one of the steps of” allows for a step to be chosen which does not depend from another claim.
In regards to Claim 14, it is unclear whether the claim is dependent or independent because the phrase “at least one of the following” allows for a component to be chosen which does not depend from another claim.
In regards to Claim 15, it is unclear whether the claim is dependent or independent because the phrase “at least one of the steps of” allows for a step to be chosen which does not depend from another claim.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection through dependency.
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) 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baba (5809764).
In regards to Claim 1, Baba teaches a drafting device (Detail 1) for a textile machine comprising:
a plurality of roller pairs (Details 11, 12, 13, 14) which can be driven differently from one another (Abstract, rollers 12, 13), wherein the plurality of roller pairs are designed and arranged to guide a sliver between a top roller and a bottom roller of the plurality of roller pairs during a rotational operation thereof in order to stretch the sliver (Figure 2 shows drafting occurring);
wherein the drafting device is designed and configured to carry out a piecing method after severing of the sliver in the drafting device (Abstract); and
wherein the drafting device is designed and configured to engage at least two roller pairs of the plurality of roller pairs in a defined manner via a drive thereof in the piecing method (the roller pairs are driven at different speeds to cut the sliver).
In regards to Claim 2, Baba teaches the at least two roller pairs for a defined engagement are selected from the following:
an input roller pair;
a center roller pair (Detail 12); and/or
an apron roller pair (Detail 13).
In regards to Claim 3, Baba teaches a spinneret (Detail 2) designed and configured to assume at least one cleaning position (Figure 3 shows open position).
In regards to Claim 4, Baba teaches the drafting device is designed and configured to sever the sliver by a coordinated engagement of at least one roller pair of the plurality of roller pairs (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 5, Baba teaches the drafting device is designed and configured to coordinate severing of the sliver with a transfer of a spinneret to a cleaning position via a coordinated engagement of at least one roller pair of the plurality of roller pairs (the sliver must be severed before the piecing steps can be performed; the spinneret must be opened to allow for piecing; this must all be coordinated or the piecing steps could not be performed).
In regards to Claim 6, Baba teaches the drafting device is designed and configured to specifically adjust at least one process parameter for driving at least one of the roller pairs of the plurality of roller pairs over a defined period of time (the process parameter is speed).
In regards to Claim 8, Baba teaches the drafting device is designed and configured to maintain a defined temperature of a drive of one of the roller pairs of the plurality of roller pairs and/or of a rubber lining of rollers of one of the roller pairs of the plurality of roller pairs (the limitations are broad; the defined temperature could be the operational temperature resulting from typical use; using the rollers would maintain this temperature).
In regards to Claim 9, Baba teaches a spinning station comprising:
at least one spinneret (Detail 2);
at least one thread end preparer (Detail 45); and
at least one thread take-off (downstream from Detail 23 to take up Detail Y);
wherein the at least one thread take-off is arranged and designed to remove a thread from the at least one spinneret after a spinning process; and
wherein at least one drivable roller pair of the plurality of roller pairs of the drafting device above is engaged in a coordinated manner via the drive of the at least one roller pair of the plurality of roller pairs (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 11, Baba teaches the at least one spinneret is designed and configured to assume at least an operating position (Figure 2) and a cleaning position (Figure 3) different therefrom; and
the at least one thread end preparer is designed and configured to at least unravel a thread end by compressed air supply (Detail 45 suctions the thread, which will unravel fibers from the end).
In regards to Claim 12, Baba teaches a method comprising piecing by coordinated engagement of the at least two roller pairs of the drafting device (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 14, Baba teaches a textile machine comprising a drafting device (Detail 1) for a textile machine having a plurality of roller pairs which can be driven differently from one another (Abstract), wherein the roller pairs are designed and arranged to guide a sliver between a top roller and a bottom roller of the roller pairs during their rotational operation in order to stretch the sliver (Figure 2 shows drafting occurring), wherein the drafting device is designed and configured to carry out a piecing method after severing of the sliver in the drafting device, and wherein the drafting device is designed and configured to engage at lest two roller pairs in a defined manner via their drive in the piecing method (Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba in view of Fox et al (6035622).
In regards to Claim 13, while Baba essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, including control over the method, it fails to specifically teach a control apparatus. Fox, however, teaches that when dealing with a piecing method, it is well known that the control over the method is carried out by a control apparatus (Column 6, lines 56-61; Column 8, lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a control apparatus as taught by Fox, so as to perform the control steps as needed. The ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that a control apparatus would be necessary to actually control the method, and would have know to use a control apparatus as detailed.
In regards to Claim 15, Fox teaches the control apparatus contains a computer program product (Column 6, lines 56-61: Column 8, lines 43-45). By using the control apparatus of Fox in the invention of Baba, a computer program product designed to piece by coordinated engagement of at least two roller pairs of the drafting device would be present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Specifically, at least Kubler et al (9719192) Abstract, Anderegg et al (20020144496) Abstract, Figure 3, Baba et al (5673547) Figures, and Banba (5511373) Figures 3-5 teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732