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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025 and 11/14/2025 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 10-14 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “a suspension device 250”; “heater 261”.
The drawings are objected to in that, though elements are labeled, it is unclear to examine the application. New drawings are recommended for compact, accurate examination purposes. Instead of using photographs, it is recommended that ink drawings are provided, as the current drawings render the individual components illegible.
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.
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.
Claims 10 and 17 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.
Claim 10 recites “the rotation axis”, “the feeding direction” and “the fabric” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the curled part” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH02161989 (hereinafter JPH’989).
Regarding claim 1, JPH’989 teaches an adaptive fabric folding system for folding a subject fabric article, comprising: a turnover device (figs. 1 and 5, plate 26); a fold line adjuster (fig. 1, a folding guide 22) configured to adjust a fold line of the subject fabric article; a pleat generator (fig. 1, guide 60 and presser 64); and a fold line fixing device (fig. 1, output horn 29).
Regarding claim 2, JPH’989 teaches the pleat generator comprises an adjustor (figs. 9-10, guide 60) adjusting a width of a pleat of the subject fabric article and a fabric feeding device (fig. 12, element 13).
Regarding claim 3, JPH’989 teaches the turnover device is configured to flip a margin of the subject fabric article delimited by a fold line (figs. 1-5, plate 26 is moved upward, the edge Wa of the cloth W is pushed up from below by the plate 26), the fold line being a visible fold line or a virtual fold line.
Regarding claim 4, JPH’989 teaches the fold line adjuster comprises a guiding portion (fig. 1, leading edge 23a) having at least one side aligned with the fold line.
Regarding claim 5, JPH’989 teaches the fold line adjuster is configured such that a lateral movement of the guiding portion changes a width of margin of the subject fabric article that engages with a surface of the turnover device to alter the fold line (fig. 11, as the head 11 moves along the edge Wa, the edge 23a moves laterally to change the width of margin of the cloth W), the surface having a curvature (figs. 2-3, the corner of plate 26 is curved).
Regarding claim 6, JPH’989 teaches the pleat generator is configured to create and regulate widths of pleats while moving the subject fabric article (figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 14, JPH’989 teaches a method for adaptively folding a subject fabric article on a working surface, the method comprising:
flipping, by a turnover device (figs. 1 and 5, plate 26), a margin of the subject fabric article (fig. 1, cloth W) delimited by a preset fold line;
adjusting, by a fold line adjuster (fig. 1, a folding guide 22), a fold line of the subject fabric article;
creating and regulating widths of pleats of the subject fabric article, by a pleat generator (fig. 1, guide 60 and presser 64), while moving the subject fabric article on the working surface (figs. 9-10); and
flattening, by a fold line fixing device (fig. 1, output horn 29), the subject fabric article under pressure or simultaneously under pressure and heat (the output horn 29 is brought into contact with the cloth W in order to press the bent portion of the edge Wa immediately after being bent).
Regarding claim 15, JPH’989 teaches the flipping a margin of the subject fabric article comprises guiding a portion of the subject fabric article and rotating by a surface (fig. 5, surface of plate 26) having a surface of a curvature (figs. 2-3, the corner of plate 26 is curved) in such a way that the subject fabric article becomes curled, when the subject fabric article engages the surface of a curvature of the turnover device (when the cloth W is turned over, the folded portion of the cloth becomes curled).
Regarding claim 16, JPH’989 teaches the adjusting fold line comprises changing a width of the margin of the subject fabric article (fig. 11, as the head 11 moves along the edge Wa, the edge 23a moves laterally to change the width of margin of the cloth W) that engages with a surface of the turnover device, the surface having a curvature (figs. 2-3, the corner of plate 26 is curved).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH02161989, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Ezbelent (US 2923447).
Regarding claim 7, JPH’989 does not teach the fold line fixing device comprises a roller configured to flatten the subject fabric article under pressure and/or heat.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ezbelent teaches the fold line fixing device comprises a roller (fig. 4, roller 12) configured to flatten the subject fabric article under pressure and/or heat.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine JPH’989 with a roller configured to flatten the subject fabric article as taught by Ezbelent for the benefit of forming pleats on a cloth by a pressing roller instead of forming pleats by ultrasonic wave.
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent does not teach a heater is provided to heat the roller to a predetermined temperature.
However, Ezbelent teaches a heater is provided to heat the roller to a predetermined temperature (column 4, lines 33-34; column 5, lines 6-8, heat source is inside the hollow shafts 47, 48).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent with a heater as taught by Ezbelent for the benefit of forming pleats on a cloth by heat pressing instead of forming pleats by ultrasonic wave.
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent does not teach the roller is rotatably supported by a hollow shaft, inside of which the heater is mounted.
However, Ezbelent teaches the roller is rotatably supported by a hollow shaft, inside of which the heater is mounted (column 4, lines 33-34; heat source is inside the hollow shafts 47, 48).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent with the teaching that the roller is rotatably supported by a hollow shaft, inside of which the heater is mounted as suggested by Ezbelent for the benefit of forming pleats on a cloth by heat pressing instead of forming pleats by ultrasonic wave.
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent does not teach a rotary/hinge mechanism is provided to adjust an angle of the rotation axis of the roller with respect to the feeding direction of the fabric.
However, Ezbelent teaches a rotary/hinge mechanism (fig. 1, cam C4) is provided to adjust an angle of the rotation axis of the roller with respect to the feeding direction of the fabric (figs. 7-8, the angle of the rotation axis of the roller 12 is adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent with a rotary/hinge mechanism as taught by Ezbelent for the benefit of obtaining conical pleating of any desired angle and width in any article and in particular in bands (Ezbelent, column 1, lines 69-71).
Regarding claim 11, JPH’989 does not teach a suspension module.
However, Ezbelent teaches a suspension module (fig. 2, guides 50, springs 51, 56, members 53).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine JPH’989 with a suspension module as taught by Ezbelent for the benefit of permitting adjusting the pressure exerted by the pressure roll in forming pleats on a cloth by heat pressing instead of forming pleats by ultrasonic wave.
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent teaches the suspension module comprises platens, columns, and coil springs (Ezbelent, fig. 2, guides 50, springs 51, 56 members 53).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure JPH’989-Ezbelent teaches the suspension module is configured to absorb vibrations of the adaptive fabric folding system and assist with leveling of the adaptive fabric folding system when the subject fabric article moves on a working surface (Ezbelent, fig. 2, column 4, lines 43-45, spring 51 permits adjusting the pressure exerted by the corresponding end of the roll 12 on the roll 13).
Regarding claim 19, JPH’989 does not teach the flattening the subject fabric article under pressure or simultaneously under pressure and heat comprises bringing protruded fabric under a roller of the fold line fixing device.
However, Ezbelent teaches the fold line fixing device comprises a roller (fig. 4, roller 12) configured to flatten the subject fabric article under pressure and/or heat.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine JPH’989 with a roller configured to flatten the subject fabric article as taught by Ezbelent for the benefit of forming pleats on a cloth by a pressing roller instead of forming pleats by ultrasonic wave.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH02161989 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Freermann (US 3579876).
Regarding claim 17, JPH’989 teaches when the curled part of the subject fabric article is brought under a pressing plate (16), the curled part under the pressing plate is flattened (fig. 4), wherein the creating and regulating widths of pleats comprises creating wave-like protrusions (figs. 9-10) that are in turn depressed by a flap (fig. 10, element 64), when the flipped fabric is brought under the pressing plate (16), and wherein the widths of pleats are regulatable by a height and/or a level of the flap (fig. 10, the widths of the pleats are pressed by a level of element 64).
JPH’989 does not teach a feeding roller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Freermann teaches a feeding roller for pressing the folded material in the area of the edge (column 1, lines 43-49).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine JPH’989 with a feeding roller as suggested by Freermann for the benefit of minimizing friction in pressing down the folded material.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH02161989, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zornow (US 2020/0165762).
Regarding claim 22, JPH’989 does not teach a robot fabric folding system comprising: a robot manipulator; and a force sensing device coupling the adaptive fabric folding system to the robot manipulator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zornow teaches a robot manipulator (fig. 1, robot arm 162) and a force sensing device (para. [0124]) coupling the adaptive fabric folding system (para. [0014]) to the robot manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine JPH’989 with a robot fabric folding system as suggested by Zornow for the benefit of automatically manufacturing of flexible goods (Zornow, abstract).
Regarding claim 23, the modified structure JPH’989-Zornow does not teach an image capturing device for capturing real-time images or videos of motions of the robot manipulator for visualization and/or motion control of the robot manipulator or the adaptive fabric folding system.
However, Zornow teaches an image capturing device (para. [0047]) for capturing real-time images or videos of motions of the robot manipulator for visualization and/or motion control of the robot manipulator (para. [0086], [0198]) or the adaptive fabric folding system.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure JPH’989-Zornow with an image capturing device as suggested by Zornow for the benefit of automatically manufacturing of flexible goods (Zornow, abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732