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
Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims received on May 26th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 13, and 16-18 have been amended and claim 12 has been canceled. Objections to the specification, drawings, and claims filed on March 20th, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding amended claim 1, that Cooper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,405,100 A) fails to disclose or teach the tilting actuator comprising a pivot arm supporting the cradle from a distal end of the pivot arm and pivoting with respect to a pivot point at a proximal end of the pivot arm, wherein the pivot point is laterally offset from the vertex. More specifically, it is argued that the pressure actuated cylinders 56 of Cooper et al. are linear actuators-not pivot arms that support the cradle from a distal end while pivoting about a proximal pivot point. However, it should be noted that the pivot arm that was mapped in the previous office action was addressed to element 56B found in Col. 4, Ln. 50-59. While the applicant is correct in stating that a pivot arm and a pressure actuated cylinder differ in function, it is expressed that the pressure actuated cylinders 56 correspond to the tilting actuator which and the pivot arm along with its pivot point are disposed at the end of the pressure actuated cylinder 56 indicated by element 56B in Fig. 2 and 4. The pivot element 56B is what provides the pivot motion of the prior art’s cradle, the pressure cylinders are what provide the power for the disclosed pivoting movement.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,405,100 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper et al. discloses a fabric spreading machine comprising (Fig. 1-4; Col. 3, Ln. 1-12, Machine 10) an unspooling cradle (Fig. 1-2; Col. 3, Ln. 13-19, Cradle 22) of opposing proximal and distal drive belt assemblies (Fig. 1-2; Col. 3, Ln. 20-29, Belt Support Means 26, 27), the opposing drive belt assemblies defining a lower vertex therebetween (Fig. 2 best depicting the vertex of Belt Support Means 26, 27 around which element 20 points), and a tilting actuator supporting the cradle from the chassis (Fig. 2, 4; Col. 4, Ln. 44-62, Pressure Actuated Cylinders 56), the tilting actuator comprising a pivot arm supporting the cradle from a distal end of the pivot arm and pivoting with respect to a pivot point at a proximal end of the pivot arm, wherein the pivot point is laterally offset from the vertex, (Fig. 2, 4; Col. 4, Ln. 44-62, Pivot point 56b).
Cooper et al. further discloses the tilting actuator configured to position the cradle in an unspooling position wherein the cradle is raised so that the drive belt assemblies are each angled with respect to the fabric spreading table to cradle a roll of fabric therebetween for unspooling (Fig. 2; Col. 2, Ln. 51-52), and the vertex and the fabric spreading table define a raised offset therebetween to provide clearance under the cradle for piled fabric lengths as the chassis traverses the fabric spreading table in use (Fig. 2 depicting the vertex being positioned above the base 12).
Cooper et al. further discloses a loading position wherein the cradle is lowered so that the proximal drive belt assembly is lowered towards the fabric spreading table to a lesser angle with respect to a surface of the fabric spreading table as compared to when the cradle is in the unspooling position (Fig. 4; Col. 2, Ln. 56-58), and the vertex and the fabric spreading table define a lowered offset therebetween, the lowered offset being less than the raised offset so that the lowered offset and the lesser angle allow a replacement spool to be more easily loaded into the cradle (Fig. 4 depicting the vertex being positioned in a lower position than in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Cooper et al. discloses wherein rollers of the drive belt assemblies are turned synchronously so that belts of the drive belt assemblies travel in the same direction to rotate the spool to unspool a sheet of fabric from the spool (Col. 3, Ln. 37-56).
Regarding claim 7, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the proximal drive belt assembly is lowered to be parallel with respect to the surface of the fabric spreading table (Fig. 4; Col. 4, Ln. 34-43).
Regarding claim 8, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the proximal drive belt assembly is lowered to lie flat against the surface of the fabric spreading table (Fig. 4; Col. 4, Ln. 34-43).
Regarding claim 9, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the drive belt assemblies are fixed with respect to each other, so that the distal drive belt assembly is also lowered when the cradle moves to the loading position but the distal drive belt assembly tilts to a greater angle as compared to when in the cradle is in the unspooling position (Col. 6, Ln. 54-60 depicting first and second belt support means 26, 27 may increase in angle to one another to support a wider variety). It appears that the prior labels the first and second support means on Col. 6, Ln. 56 as elements 26, 28, however, based off of previous element mappings within the specification, it is understood to be an error and should be elements 26, 27.
Regarding claim 10, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the machine comprises a controller and wherein the controller is controlled to only lower the cradle to the lowered position at an end of the fabric spreading table (Fig. 1; Col. 6, Ln. 37-53, Controller 96).
Regarding claim 18, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the tilting actuator is devoid of any driveshaft componentry across the chassis beneath the pivot point (Fig. 2, 4; Col. 4, Ln. 44-62, Pressure Actuated Cylinders 56).
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.
Claims 3-4, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,405,100 A) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-10, 12, and 18 above, and further in view of Keesling et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,537,662 A).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper et al. fails to disclose a counterrotating feed rollers dispensing the sheet down a chute. However, Keesling et al. teaches wherein the sheet is fed through counterrotating feed rollers (Fig. 6; Col. 14, Ln. 45-72, Tracking Wheel 124) down a dispensing chute (Fig. 8-10; Col. 6, Ln. 50-74, Discharge Bed 30). It is noted that invention of Cooper et al. is a part of a larger mechanism to unwind material rolls (Col. 1, Ln. 8-24). However, the primary art reference focuses on the cradling and loading mechanism of the roll and does not go into depth of the process that follows the loading of the new roll. The teachings of Keesling et al. provide the entire assembly of a spreading machine and thus clearly depicts that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the roll of material via counterrotating roller into a dispense chute since it was known in the art that the full assembly of a fabric spreading assembly comprises a means to feed the material as well as a chute to lay said dispensed material. See MPEP 2144.03. The incorporation of counterrotating feed rollers is also obvious to one skilled in the art as the roll requires a sort of clamping force for proper and efficient dispensing.
Regarding claim 4, Cooper et al. fails to disclose a mechanized cutter. However, Keesling et al. teaches wherein a mechanised cutter cuts across the sheet to cut the sheet into individual sheets (Fig. 23-24; Col. 16, Ln. 5-30, Cutting Machine 10). Similar to the rejection of claim 3, it is noted that invention of Cooper et al. is a part of a larger mechanism to unwind material rolls (Col. 1, Ln. 8-24). However, the primary art reference focuses on the cradling and loading mechanism of the roll and does not go into depth of the process that follows the loading of the new roll. The teachings of Keesling et al. provide the entire assembly of a spreading machine and thus clearly depicts that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cutting mechanism since it was known in the art that the full assembly of a fabric spreading assembly comprises a means to cut the material into lengths after it is dispensed. See MPEP 2144.03. The incorporation of a cutting mechanism is also obvious to one skilled in the art as the cutting mechanism moves separately from the cradle assembly and would only require the addition of this known process.
Regarding claim 11, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the tilting actuator to lower the cradle when a new spool is required to be loaded (Fig. 1; Col. 6, Ln. 37-53, Controller 96), but fails to disclose the controller capable of measuring a length. However, Keesling et al. teaches wherein the controller is configured to measure a length of fabric dispensed from the spool and automatically control the chassis to travel to and end of the fabric spreading table (Col. 15, Ln. 19-54, Trigger Switch 348, corresponding to a controller which controls length). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Keesling et al., in combination with the controller from Cooper et al. as such a modification would provide an efficient processing means for unspooling a wound material which further provides the dispensing of only the required amount as desired by the user. The addition of such a modification merely requires the incorporation of a switch as taught by Keesling et al. and doing so would not impede on any of the primary functionality of the machine of Cooper et al.
Regarding claim 13, Cooper et al. discloses the claimed invention except that a chain drive is used (Col. 4, Ln. 11-33) instead of a rack and pinion. Keesling et al. shows that a sprocket and chain drive is an equivalent structure or known variation of a curved rack and pinion in the art. Keesling et al. teaches wherein the tilting actuator comprises a chain interfacing the pivot arm and a sprocket turning against the chain (Fig. 7; Col. 11, Ln. 31-45, Chain Drives and assortment of Sprockets correspond to a curved rack and pinon). While a rack and pinion drive is not disclosed, suggested or taught by the prior art references, it should be noted that a sprocket and chain drive is an obvious substitute as it transmits rotational power (or torque) between two or more shafts, typically over a distance (as taught in Keesling et al.), and as such, it is very well known in the art that a circular or curved rack, with its corresponding pinion, outputs the same functionality. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a curved rack arm and pinion for a chain drive and sprocket. One skilled in the art may utilize a chain and sprocket over a curved rack arm and pinion as it is easier to manufacture and out source as opposed to a specifically shaped curved rack arm, and since it is known that both mechanisms provide the same function, it would be advantageous to one skilled in the art to opt for a cost-effective method for ease of maintaining.
Regarding claim 14, Cooper et al. fails to disclose stepdown gearing. However, Keesling et al. teaches further comprising an electric motor interfacing the pinion via stepped gearing (Fig. 7; Col. 11, Ln. 24-45, Stepped-up rotational drive connected to the drive motor 166). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Keesling et al., in combination with movement from Cooper et al. as such a modification would provide high-torque, precise speed control within compact, and would overall provide an efficient movement requiring less power depending on the amount of steps utilized. While stepped-up gears are taught by Keesling et al., it should be noted that stepped-up gears raise output speed while reducing torque and step-down gears lower output speed while increasing torque, the prior art reference teaches a stepped gearing configuration and thus one skilled in the art may adjust the gearing output for desired user results.
Regarding claim 15, Cooper et al. fails to disclose a worm drive. However, Keesling et al. teaches wherein the stepped gearing comprises a worm drive (Fig. 6; Col. 9, Ln. 5-10, Worm Gear Reducer 168). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Keesling et al., in combination with movement from Cooper et al. as such a modification would provide and include reliable self-locking capabilities to prevent back driving, smooth and quiet operation due to sliding contact, and high shock-load resistance for heavy-duty applications such movement of heavy rolls.
Regarding claim 16, Cooper et al. fails to disclose a drive shaft. However, Keesling et al. teaches wherein the machine comprises a cross driveshaft at the pivot point acting on respective pivot arms at each side of the chassis (Col. 10, Ln. 68-76; Col. 11, Ln. 1-8, drive shaft 220 having sprockets fixed in multiple directions corresponding to a cross-drive shaft). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Keesling et al., in combination with movement from Cooper et al. as such a modification would provide high angular capability, durable, simple construction for easy maintenance, and efficient, flexible power transfer between non-aligned components. Such an incorporation would be considered essential to one skilled in the art, as the pivoting of heavy loads are a core feature of the invention.
Claims 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,405,100 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Cooper et al. discloses an offset of the raised and lowered position (Fig. 4 depicting the vertex being positioned in a lower position than in Fig. 2), but fails to quantify said offset. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to quantify an offset for the raised and lowered positions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A. In this instance that such a modification would provide the advantage of ensuring the drive belt assemblies do not interfere with a surface. Furthermore, any load applied to the drive belt assemblies, such as a heavy roll of material, would add deflection to the assembly causing the drive belt assemblies to contact the table surface and further impeding the functionality of the cradle. Thus Cooper et al. also discloses absorbers to account for any deflection on top of the vertex offset provided.
Regarding claim 17, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the machine comprises electric motors at a side of the chassis (Fig. 2-4; Col. 4, Ln. 11-33, Motor 44). Cooper et al. fails to disclose the machine comprising motors displaced on each side of the chassis which are controlled synchronously to act on respective pivot arms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to displace motors on each side of the chassis for controlling the pivot arms, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In this case, providing motors on each side to control the pivot arms would improve the overall functionality of the machine when moving and pivoting heavy loads. The addition of two motors working simultaneously is effective as less power is needed to orient the heavy roll of material.
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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 P. 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights