DETAILED ACTION
Claims 9-16 are pending. Claims 12 and 14 are amended.
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 7, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 12 and 14 have been amended. Thus, claims 9-16 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawing has overcome the drawing objection.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §112(b).
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has not overcome the 35 USC §103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the abstract are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gustmann teaches away from increasing the rotary hook size. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gustmann is silent as to any particular size of a rotary hook other than “normal” or “conventional” rotary hooks. Gustmann also describes that an object of the invention is to permit the rotary hook for a sewing machine that can be used with conventional machines (col. 3, ll. 65- col. 4, ll. 4). Thus, if a conventional machine already had a “larger” rotary hook, it would be obvious to replace it with the same sized rotary hook. Applicant further alleges that increasing the size of the rotary hook of Gustmann would render it inoperative for its intended purpose. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the rejection, the Examiner has modified the size of the rotary hook, which Gustmann is entirely silent as to the actual size, to be 42 mm as described in Hayakawa. Hayakawa describes this size as a “standard” rotary hook (para. 30). Thus, the modification merely modified the rotary hook to be a “standard” size in order to accommodate a standard bobbin.
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 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 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 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 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustmann et al. (US 4572091) in view of Hayakawa (KR 20090023202).
Regarding claim 9, Gustmann describes a sewing unit (see Fig. 1 with thread), comprising:
a CNC controller (automatic work feed, col. 1, ll. 35-39); and
at least one sewing machine (see Fig. 1), having
a workpiece bed plate (base plate 1) for provision of a workpiece bed (top surface of plate 1),
an upper sewing part (head 4) with
a needle bar (needle bar 5) which can move up and down in a controlled manner and
an upper thread guide (guide pine 10) for guiding an upper thread from an upper thread supply (spool 9 and thread therefrom) to the needle bar (5), and
at least one lower sewing part (rotary hook 21, shaft 19), cooperating with the upper sewing part (4) to form a seam,
with a looper (21),
wherein the looper (21) can be rotationally driven in a controlled manner and has a lower thread supply (bobbin 75) in a looper bobbin case (bobbin case holder 36),
wherein the looper (21) can rotate about an axis (axis of 19) which extends parallel to the workpiece bed (19 is parallel to workpiece bed),
wherein the looper has a diameter (has a diameter),
with a bobbin case holding component (stop finger 48) disposed in a region of the workpiece bed being in engagement with the looper bobbin case (36) in such a way that, during a rotation of the looper, the looper bobbin case (stop finger secures 36 against rotation, col. 5, ll. 40-43) does not rotate therewith, and
with a bobbin case lifter (case lifter 77) which can be driven in a controlled manner for displacement of the looper bobbin case (36) between
a neutral position (when lifter is lowered, which happens when eccentric rod 81 is driven by shaft 82, col. 6, ll. 30-34) and
an opened position in which a free space for a thread (N) between the looper bobbin case (36) and the bobbin case holding component (48) is enlarged in comparison with the neutral position (gap created when pressed, col. 7, ll. 40-54).
Gustmann does not explicitly describe that the looper has a diameter of at least 30 mm.
In related art for sewing machines. Hayakawa describes the looper has a diameter of at least 30 mm (42 mm, para. 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the looper to have a diameter of at least 30 in order to accommodate a standard sized lower thread bobbin (Hayakawa, para. 29 and 30 describing that the diameter is related to the size of the bobbin, and that a standard size hook is 42 mm).
Regarding claim 14, Gustmann as modified describes the sewing unit as claimed in claim 9, wherein the at least one sewing machine comprises an activatable thread tensioner (thread tensioning device 8, activated when thread is used) for setting a thread tension of the upper thread.
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustmann et al. (US 4572091) in view of Hayakawa (KR 20090023202), Hashiride (US 5441003) and Brother (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 12, Gustmann as modified describes the sewing unit as claimed in claim 9, wherein the upper sewing part (4) comprises a housing arm portion (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the housing arm portion terminates in a housing head (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein the needle bar (5) is guided in the housing head (see Fig. 1).
Gustmann as modified does not explicitly describe wherein the housing head including the upper thread supply.
In related art for sewing machines, Hashiride describes the upper thread supply (spool 10) is mounted on the housing head (is in the head) as an extension of the housing arm portion (forms an extension of the arm, see Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the location of the spool to be in the head such as in Hashiride in order to eliminate the need to thread the needle thread onto the thread feed means. That is, changing the thread is easier because it does not require the time and the adjustment of tension when the thread is changed (Hashiride, col. 1, ll. 25-30, col. 2, ll. 4-18)
Gustmann as modified does not explicitly describe a width in a dimension parallel to the workpiece bed and perpendicular to the housing arm portion which amounts to a maximum of 300 mm.
In related art, Brother describes a sewing machine that includes a width of 5.9 inches which is less than 300 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the sewing machine of Gustmann to be the width of Brother in order to provide a machine that does not take up a large amount of space, especially for beginner sewists who may not use one frequently (see description describing use for beginners and comment from Matt K, a beginner, on September 20, 2016).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Gustmann as modified describes the sewing unit as claimed in claim 12, wherein the upper thread supply (spool 10, Hashiride) is mounted on the housing head (is in the head, Hashiride) as an extension of the housing arm portion (forms an extension of the arm, see Figs. 1 and 2, Hashiride).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustmann et al. (US 4572091) in view of Hayakawa (KR 20090023202) and Gross et al. (US 20110030599).
Regarding claim 10, Gustmann as modified describes the sewing unit as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly describe further comprising a thread cutting device (44) for cutting off thread ends of the upper thread and/or of a lower thread which protrude above a formed seam and have a maximum excess length of 15 mm.
In related art directed to cutting threads associated with sewing material, Gross describes a thread cutting device (cutting device 80) for cutting off thread ends of the upper thread and/or of a lower thread which protrude above a formed seam and have a maximum excess length of 15 mm (cuts upper and/or lower thread, para. 0078, such that threads are 10 mm at maximum, para. 0078-0079).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the machine of Gustmann to include the cutter as described in Gross in order to provide a flush surface so that thread is not extending beyond the surface providing a clean looking material.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustmann et al. (US 4572091) in view of Hayakawa (KR 20090023202), Gross et al. (US 20110030599) and Rodriguez (US 8104413).
Regarding claim 11, Gustmann as modified describes the sewing unit as claimed in claim 10, but does not explicitly describe wherein the thread cutting device (44) comprises a cutting blade (45) which is driven in a controlled manner by a dual-acting pneumatic cylinder (47).
In related art for sewing machines, Rodriguez describes wherein the thread cutting device comprises a cutting blade (knife) which is driven in a controlled manner by a dual-acting pneumatic cylinder (activated and deactivated cylinder, col. 2, ll. 53-64 describing activating a cylinder to cause knife to move, and deactivating causing knife to cut the threads).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the unit of Gustmann to include the mechanism of Rodriguez in order to provide automated cutting of a thread at the end of a thread cycle thereby simplifying the stitching process for a user (col. 2, ll. 45-55).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustmann et al. (US 4572091) in view of Hayakawa (KR 20090023202), and Fritz (US 2140693).
Regarding claim 15, Gustmann describes the sewing unit as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly describe wherein the at least one sewing machine (3) comprises a presser foot bar (19) with activatable foot height adjustment (20).
In related art for sewing units, Fritz describes wherein the at least one sewing machine comprises a presser foot bar with activatable foot height adjustment (presser foot is adjustable in height, col. 1, ll. 40-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the presser bar to be adjustable in order to regulate the height depending on the thickness of the material being utilized (Fritz, col. 1, ll. 40-44).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustmann et al. (US 4572091) in view of Hayakawa (KR 20090023202), and Heimann et al. (US 3741138).
Regarding claim 16, Gustmann describes the sewing unit as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly describe wherein the at least one sewing machine (3) is one of a plurality of sewing machines (3),and wherein the plurality of sewing machines (3) are supported by a common support frame of the sewing unit (1) and can be displaced with respect to each other along at least one displacement dimension in a controlled drivable manner.
In related art, Heimann describes wherein the at least one sewing machine is one of a plurality of sewing machines (5-5e),and wherein the plurality of sewing machines (5-5e) are supported by a common support frame (supporting rods 21, 22) of the sewing unit and can be displaced with respect to each other along at least one displacement dimension (slidable secured to rods, col. 8, ll. 12-18, col. 18, ll. 16-34) in a controlled drivable manner (fully capable of being moved in a controlled drivable manner).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify unit of Gustmann to include multiple units in order to permit simultaneous sewing of workpieces thereby reducing the time required to form a stitch (Heimann, col. 1, ll. 5-9).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732