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 referred to in the information disclosure statements filed on November 22, 2024 has been considered as to the merits.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites “bristle bundles” in line 1, “loose bristle filaments” in line 2 and then recites “the supply of loose bristle bundles” in line 4. There is no antecedent basis for the phrase “loose bristle bundles.” Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “at least two rear reversal points (26,28) which face away from a filling tool” in lines 3-4. It is not clear how a reversal point can “face away” from the filling tool. It appears that Applicant is describing how the separating notch moves in two directions, one direction toward the tool and a second direction away from the tool and that the direction of movement changes at least twice while the notch is being filled with bristles. Clarification is required.
Claims 6 and 14 each recite an/the “actuator (21) which is disposed in a force flux between the bundle separator (13), on which the separating notch (140 is formed, and a drive motor (7).” It is not clear what is meant by “a force flux.” Clarification is requires.
Claim 12 recites “ a con-rod mechanism” in line 2. It is not clear what is meant by this phrase.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected as best understood under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bayer (DE 929124). With respect to claims 1 and 8, Bayer discloses a method for separating and a separating device for performing the method of separating bristle bundles from a supply (the supply housed within a magazine) of loose bristles filaments, the method comprising: moving a bundle separator (13) having a separating notch (16) past the supply (an along slideway (17)) of loose bristle filaments, and in the process separating a bristle bundle (i.e. defined by a set of bristles packing the interior of notch (16)) from the supply and the bristle bundle making its way into the separating notch, and when the separating movement of the separating notch (16) is carried out, changing a direction of movement of the separating notch in a separating region on the supply at least twice (see PatDocs PDF Export, 2024-08-09, page 5 “This pressure exerted on the fiber material in Connection with the one or more times periodically changing direction of rotation and complete and always evenly filling the slits, even then, only burn completed few fibers should be separated.”
With respect to claim 2, the separating notch passing at least two reversal points, given that the direction of rotation may be change more than one time.
With respect to claim 3, the two reversal points are disposed at different positions in the separating region on the supply, given that to change direction more than once, the points at which direction is changed must be spaced apart to some extent.
With respect to claims 4-6 and 9, generating the separating movement by superimposing at least two movements carried out successively (i.e. one movement of notch (16) through the supply and away the filling tool (4), one movement of notch (16) backward through the supply and toward the filling tool (4), one movement of the notch (16) through the supply and away from the filling tool, and one final movement through the supply and to the filling tool (4) for actuation by the filling tool (4) on the bundle to move it out of the notch and onto the substrate (25). Bayer discloses a drive motor (unillustrated) to rotate shaft (21) and effectuate movement of (13) by actuator (15) which is disposed in a force flux (along a force transmission path) from the motor and output shaft (21) to the bundle separate (13).
With respect to claim 7, predefining a frequency or amplitude of at least one additional movement of the main movement by a controller (18) which controls the frequency or amplitude by it positioned along a guide slot formed in actuator (15).
With respect to claim 16, a filling tool (14) is adapted to fill bristle bundles into a bristle carrier (25) which is the form of a conveyor belt.
With respect to claim 17, a common drive motor which drives shaft (21), drives the separating device (13) and the filling tool (14).
With respect to claim 18, the split lever (15) constitutes an eccentric for connecting output shaft (21) to filling tool (14).
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) 10-13, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (DE 929124) in view of Boucherie (DE 102010055702 A1). Bayer does not disclose a gear box or controls as claimed. Boucherie teaches the use of a cam gear transmission between a drive and a bundle separator wherein the shape of the cam gear transmission controls the frequency and amplitude and direction of motion of the bundle separator and notch. Using such a gear box is known in the art and use of such a gear box would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of filing to control the speed at which bundles are separated which is a function of notch size and bristle density.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art / related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Konig (US 2026/0090633 A1); Mao (US 2013/0038155) and Liebig (1,203,212).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights