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 .
Correction of Previously Mailed Office Action
In response to applicant's telephone inquiry of March 17 regarding the last Office action, the following corrective action is taken.
The period for reply of 3 MONTHS set in said Office Action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter. A corrected prior art citation ) of the last Office Action is enclosed.
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 cross driveshaft of claim 16 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “108” has been used to designate both the unspooling cradle and the opposing drive belt assemblies;
reference character “112” has been used to designate the tilting actuator, the stepdown gearing, and the electric motor in paragraphs 31, 33, 39, and 46-50;
reference character “115” has been used to designate both the dispensing chute and the mechanised cutter in paragraph 36;
reference character “116” has been used to designate both the pile of individual lengths and the raised offset in paragraphs 36-37 and 42; and
reference character “119” has been used to designate the picot point, the pivot arm, and the curved rack arm in paragraphs 46-49.
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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character “108” has been used to designate both the unspooling cradle and the opposing drive belt assemblies in paragraphs 28, 44-46, and 50;
reference character “112” has been used to designate the tilting actuator, the stepdown gearing, and the electric motor in paragraphs 31, 33, 39, and 46-50;
reference character “115” has been used to designate both the dispensing chute and the mechanised cutter in paragraph 36;
reference character “116” has been used to designate both the pile of individual lengths and the raised offset in paragraphs 36-37 and 42; and
reference character “119” has been used to designate the picot point, the pivot arm, and the curved rack arm in paragraphs 46-49.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 12, 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).
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 12, Cooper et al. discloses wherein the tilting actuator comprises a pivot arm pivoting with respect to a pivot point and wherein the pivot point is laterally offset from the vertex (Fig. 2, 4; Col. 4, Ln. 44-62, Pivot point 56b).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references refer to fabric spreading machines or the like. The references comprise mechanisms which solve the applicant's problem of loading heavy loads of rolls onto a cradle. Said references comprise pivotable cradles as well as similar driving means to that of the claimed invention.
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-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654