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: Applicant’s amendments to the specification submitted on 6/8/2026 are in respect to paragraph [0033], however the specification as originally filed, does not contain paragraph [0033] as submitted in the amendment on 6/8/2026. It appears the correction submitted on 6/8/2026 is to paragraph [0031] of the original specification filed 8/22/2024.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christe, US20200087821 in view of Suzuki et al., US10563728.
Regarding independent claim 15, Christe discloses a winding device (1, Fig. 1) for winding a thread onto a bobbin tube in forming a wound bobbin (Fig. 1), comprising: a first swivel arm (7, Fig. 1) with a swivel axis (11, Fig. 1); a tube receptacle arranged on the first swivel arm to receive the bobbin tube (9, Fig. 1); a support roller configured to abut the bobbin tube and the wound bobbin (3, Fig. 1); a swivel drive (13, Fig. 1), the swivel drive further comprising: a swivel axis (11, Fig. 1); a drive shaft (11, Fig. 1); a motor coupled with the drive shaft (motor 13 is coupled to drive shaft 11, Fig. 1), wherein the drive shaft has a drive axis (11, Fig. 1);
Christe does not disclose a first gear stage coupled to the drive shaft; a second gear stage coupled to the first gear stage, the second gear stage having a gear output in the swivel axis; and the first gear stage comprising a first crown gear and the second gear stage comprising a second crown gear.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches a swivel drive having a motor coupled to a drive shaft having a first gear stage coupled to the drive shaft (36, Fig. 1); a second gear stage coupled to the first gear stage (42, Fig. 1), the second gear stage having a gear output in the swivel axis (output of 42 is via 34, Fig. 1); and the first gear stage comprising a first crown gear (22, Fig. 2) and the second gear stage comprising a second crown gear (28, 18, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the swivel drive of Christe with the first and second gear stage of Suzuki et al. in order to accommodate space constraints, gear reduction requirements, and increase degrees of freedom of the drive (Column 2, lines 18-21; Suzuki et al.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 15, and the winding device. Christe does not disclose wherein the first gear stage comprises a first pinion rotationally driven by the motor and engaged with the first crown gear.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches a swivel drive having a motor coupled to a drive shaft and wherein the first gear stage comprises a first pinion (20, Fig. 1) rotationally driven by the motor (Column 4, lines 38-43) and engaged with the first crown gear (20 engages with 22, 16, Fig. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Christe and Suzuki et al. to have a winding device with the swivel drive in order to accommodate space constraints, gear reduction requirements, and increase degrees of freedom of the drive (Column 2, lines 18-21; Suzuki et al.).
Regarding claim 13, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 12, and a winding device. Christe does not disclose the winding device comprising a second pinion coupling the first crown gear to the second crown gear, wherein the first crown gear and the second pinion are connected via a common axis.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches a swivel drive having a motor coupled to a drive shaft and comprising a second pinion (26, Fig. 2) coupling the first crown gear to the second crown gear (pinion 26 coaxial with first crown gear 22, engaged with second crown gear 28, Fig. 2), wherein the first crown gear and the second pinion are connected via a common axis (32, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Christe and Suzuki et al. to have a winding device with the swivel drive in order to accommodate space constraints, gear reduction requirements, and increase degrees of freedom of the drive (Column 2, lines 18-21; Suzuki et al.).
Regarding claim 14, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 15, and a winding device. Christe does not disclose wherein the motor is configured with an angle measurement.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches a swivel drive having a motor coupled to a drive shaft and wherein the motor is configured with an angle measurement (Column 4, lines 38-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Christe and Suzuki et al. to have a winding device with the swivel drive with a motor having angle measurement in order to “control the rotational angle” to precisely operate the swivel drive (Column 4, lines 38-45; Suzuki et al.).
Regarding claim 16, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 15, and further comprising a controller configured to control the swivel drive according to a yarn count input into the controller (Paragraph [0022], lines 21-34).
Regarding claim 17, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 15, and further comprising a force measurement device (12, Fig. 3) configured to measure an abutment force (F, Fig. 4) acting on the first swivel arm from abutment of the wound bobbin against the support roller (Paragraph [0022], lines 21-34).
Regarding claim 18, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 17, and further comprising a controller in communication with the swivel drive, the controller configured to determine a swiveling movement of the first swiveling arm about the swivel axis based on the abutment force to maintain the abutment force constant (Paragraph [0022], lines 21-34).
Regarding claim 19, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 15, and further comprising a second swivel arm (6, Fig. 1, 3) and a second tube receptacle arranged on the second swivel arm (8, Fig. 3), the swivel axis common to the first and second swivel arms (11 common to 6 and 7, Fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Christe teaches the limitations of claim 15, and a winding machine (Paragraph [0002], lines 1-3) comprising the winding device (1, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., backlash-free operation) 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).
With respect to applicant’s assertion that Christe requires a “self-locking gear” on page 7 of Remarks, filed 6/8/2026, it is noted that the portion of Christe on which applicant relies, Paragraph [0014], is a preferable embodiment, not required for the operation of the Christe device. Applicant’s arguments that the self-locking gear is required in order for Christe to operate, is not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s assertion that the combination of Christe and Suzuki et al. would fundamentally alter the principle of operation of Christe due to applicant’s assertion that the self-locking gear of the motor of Christe would require replacement by the two-stage gear mechanism of Suzuki et al., it is noted that the Examiner does not suggest such a combination, and the self-locking gear of Christe is part of the preferred electric motor, but not required for operation of the Christe device. Thus, applicant’s arguments that the two-stage gear mechanism of Suzuki would render Christe inoperable are not persuasive. Further applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of claim 15 under U.S.C. 103 and the combination of Christe and Suzuki et al. as presented above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the swivel drive of Christe with the first and second gear stage of Suzuki et al. in order to accommodate space constraints, gear reduction requirements, and increase degrees of freedom of the drive (Column 2, lines 18-21; Suzuki et al.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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