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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/094,677 (filed on 10/21/2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/506,766 (filed 10/21/2021), and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sigs that are mentioned in the description: 6 (in paragraph 0029) and 44 (in paragraphs 0032-0033). 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.
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 cable and the strap (which are recited within claims 8-9, 11, and 14) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In paragraph 0035, line 2, the limitation “the movable sheave 25” should read -- the movable sheave 52 --.
In paragraph 0035, line 2, the limitation “the yarn path 40” should read -- the rope path 40 --.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11-12 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 1, line 4, the limitation “a feed rate of yarn” should read -- a feed rate of the yarn --.
In claim 11, line 4, the limitation “the rope along” should read -- the rope, cable, or strap along --.
In claim 11, line 5, the limitation “in the rope” should read -- in the rope, cable, or strap --.
In claim 12, line 2, the limitation “the rope along” should read -- the rope, cable, or strap along --.
In claim 12, line 4, the limitation “in the rope” should read -- in the rope, cable, or strap --.
In claim 14, line 1-2, the limitation “to, rope, cable, or strap” should read -- to the rope, cable, or strap --.
In claim 15, line 3, the limitation “the first pressure” should read -- the first output pressure --.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitation is:
A tensioning assembly (which is configured to effect tension in the rope, cable, or strap) in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slezak et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0125014 A1 hereinafter referred to as “Slezak”).
In regards to claim 1, Slezak teach (Figures 1-10N) a method (process of operating the tension controller apparatus 202 in the creel system 100; which is performed by the central control system 116/900) comprising: applying a first resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are fully arrested by engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; which will prevent the wire ‘W’ from being payed-out from the spool 108; see also paragraphs 0055-0058) to rotation of a beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) upon a condition (when the air pressure control/APC system 118 receives a signal from the central control system 116/900 to appropriately actuate the tension controller apparatus 202, such that said air pressure control/APC system 118 apply the correct air pressure to the diaphragm actuator 308 to fully engage the brake shoe 306 with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; thereby completely impeding the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108); the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) having yarn (wire ‘W’ of the spool 108 that is rotationally fixed to the spindle 302) wound therearound, and the yarn (wire ‘W’) being fed into a textile machine (paragraph 0026 disclose, the creel system 100, from which the wire ‘W’ is supplied, can be used to deliver/convey cords for textile manufacturing); wherein the first resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are fully arrested by engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304) to rotation of the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) reduces a feed rate of the yarn (wire ‘W’ of the spool 108 that is rotationally fixed to the spindle 302) from the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) (see also paragraphs 0038-0040, 0044-0069, 0074-0092).
In regards to claims 2-3 and 6-7, Slezak teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Slezak further teach (Figures 1-10N), the method (process of operating the tension controller apparatus 202 in the creel system 100; which is performed by the central control system 116/900) additionally comprising: applying a second resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are permitted by moving the brake shoe 306 at least partially away from the braking surface of the brake drum 304; which will allow the wire ‘W’ to be payed-out from the spool 108 under tension; see also paragraphs 0055-0058) to rotation of the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) after applying the first resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are fully arrested by engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; which will prevent the wire ‘W’ from being payed-out from the spool 108; see also paragraphs 0055-0058) to rotation of the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) (paragraphs 0055-0058 disclose, the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 being fully arrested, via engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304, prior to feeding/conveying the wire ‘W’ from the spool 108; and the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 being permitted, via the movement of the brake shoe 306 away from the braking surface of the brake drum 304, such that the wire ‘W’ can be fed/conveyed from the spool 108); the second resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are permitted by moving the brake shoe 306 at least partially away from the braking surface of the brake drum 304) being lower than the first resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are fully arrested by engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304) (i.e. the frictional force generated between the brake drum 304 and the brake shoe 306 when said brake shoe 306 is moved away from or not in contact with said brake drum 304, would inherently be lower than the frictional force generated between the brake drum 304 and the brake shoe 306 when said brake shoe 306 is fully engaged with or fully in contact with said brake drum 304); the condition (when the air pressure control/APC system 118 receives a signal from the central control system 116/900 to appropriately actuate the tension controller apparatus 202, such that said air pressure control/APC system 118 apply the correct air pressure to the diaphragm actuator 308 to fully engage the brake shoe 306 with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; thereby completely impeding the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108) being an electrical signal (signal sent from the central control system 116/900); and applying the second resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are permitted by moving the brake shoe 306 at least partially away from the braking surface of the brake drum 304) to rotation of the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) after applying the first resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are fully arrested by engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304) to rotation of the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) including, applying the second resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are permitted by moving the brake shoe 306 at least partially away from the braking surface of the brake drum 304) a predetermined time (wired feeding time where the wire ‘W’ is payed-out from the spool 108 by facilitating the rotation of spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) after the condition (when the air pressure control/APC system 118 receives a signal from the central control system 116/900 to appropriately actuate the tension controller apparatus 202, such that said air pressure control/APC system 118 apply the correct air pressure to the diaphragm actuator 308 to fully engage the brake shoe 306 with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; thereby completely impeding the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108); wherein the predetermined time (wired feeding time where the wire ‘W’ is payed-out from the spool 108 by facilitating the rotation of spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) is greater than a stopping time of the textile machine (when the wire ‘W’ is not payed-out from the spool 108, which can occur when the rotation of spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202 is arrested via the air pressure control/APC system 118, upon receiving a stop signal from the central control system 116/900 that correspond to the creel system 100 and/or the associated textile manufacturing process being shut-down,/stopped).
In regards to claim 20, Slezak teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Slezak further teach (Figures 1-10N), the method additionally comprising: applying the second resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are permitted by moving the brake shoe 306 at least partially away from the braking surface of the brake drum 304; which will allow the wire ‘W’ to be payed-out from the spool 108 under tension; see also paragraphs 0055-0058) to rotation of the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) before applying the first resistance (when the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 are fully arrested by engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; which will prevent the wire ‘W’ from being payed-out from the spool 108; see also paragraphs 0055-0058) to rotation of the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) (based on the disclosure in paragraphs 0055-0058, the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108 being fully arrested, via engaging the brake shoe 306 into contact with the braking surface of the brake drum 304, prior to or any time after the feeding/conveying of the wire ‘W’ from the spool 108).
Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ball et al. (U.S. Patent 3,117,737 A hereinafter referred to as “Ball”).
In regards to claim 1, Ball teach (Figures 1-4) a method comprising: applying a first resistance (when maximum braking force is applied to the beam 39 by fully tensioning the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76; where the application of said maximum braking force occurs due to the tension in the yarn 52 decreasing or being substantially low, and it may cause the rotation of the beam 39 to decelerate or completely stop) rotation of a beam (beam 39) upon a condition (when the tension in the yarn 52 decreases by an amount that causes the weight 68 to exert a maximum downward force on the brake shoe actuating lever 72 via the chain 66, which causes the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of both the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76 so as to fully tensioning the rope 90; where the tension in the yarn 52 is detected by the pivotal movement of the roller carrying arm 60 and the tension relieving arm 63, and the full tensioning of the rope 90 results in the maximum braking force being applied to the beam 39); the beam (beam 39) having a yarn (yarn 52) wound therearound, and the yarn (yarn 52) being fed into a textile machine; wherein the first resistance to rotation of the beam (when maximum braking force is applied to the beam 39) reduces a feed rate of the yarn (yarn 52) from the beam (beam 39) (see also Col. 1, line 40 - Col. 2, line 3 and Col. 2, line 22 - Col. 5, line 20).
In regards to claim 2, Ball teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ball further teach (Figures 1-4), the method additionally comprising: applying a second resistance (when minimum braking force is applied to the beam 39 by not tensioning the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal counterclockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76; where the application of said minimum braking force occurs due to the tension in the yarn 52 increasing or being substantially high, and it cause the beam 39 to rotate freely without any resistance/braking by the rope 90) to rotation of the beam (beam 39) after applying the first resistance (when maximum braking force is applied to the beam 39 by fully tensioning the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76; where the application of said maximum braking force occurs due to the tension in the yarn 52 decreasing or being substantially low, and it may cause the rotation of the beam 39 to decelerate or completely stop) to rotation of the beam (beam 39); wherein the second resistance (when minimum braking force is applied to the beam 39) is lower (i.e. since the application of the minimum braking force to the beam 39 can permit it to rotate freely, while the application of the maximum braking force to the beam 39 can completely halts its rotation) than the first resistance (when maximum braking force is applied to the beam 39).
In regards to claim 8, Ball teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ball further teach (Figures 1-4), the beam (beam 39) including a sheave groove (peripherally grooved beam head 42), and a rope (rope 90) that is received within at least a portion of the sheave groove (peripherally grooved beam head 42); wherein the applying of the first resistance (when maximum braking force is applied to the beam 39 by fully tensioning the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76; where the application of said maximum braking force occurs due to the tension in the yarn 52 decreasing or being substantially low, and it may cause the rotation of the beam 39 to decelerate or completely stop) to rotation of the beam (beam 39) upon the condition (when the tension in the yarn 52 decreases by an amount that causes the weight 68 to exert a maximum downward force on the brake shoe actuating lever 72 via the chain 66, which causes the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of both the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76 so as to fully tensioning the rope 90) involves applying a predetermined braking tension (maximum tension applied to the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76, or when the chain 66 and the weight 68 exert a maximum downward force on the brake shoe actuating lever 72) to said rope (rope 90).
In regards to claim 9, Ball teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ball further teach (Figures 1-4), the method additionally comprising: applying a second resistance (when minimum braking force is applied to the beam 39 by not tensioning the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal counterclockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76; where the application of said minimum braking force occurs due to the tension in the yarn 52 increasing or being substantially high, and it causes the beam 39 to rotate freely without any resistance/braking by the rope 90) to rotation of the beam (beam 39) after applying the first resistance (when maximum braking force is applied to the beam 39 by fully tensioning the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76; where the application of said maximum braking force occurs due to the tension in the yarn 52 decreasing or being substantially low, and it may cause the rotation of the beam 39 to decelerate or completely stop) to rotation of the beam (beam 39) by applying a predetermined resistance tension (minimum tension applied to the rope 90 when the pulley 76 is simply in contact with the rope 90, when the brake shoe actuating lever 72 is fully pivoted/rotated in a counterclockwise direction, or when the downward force exerted on the brake shoe actuating lever 72 by the chain 66 and the weight 68 is fully counteracted by the counterclockwise pivoting/rotation of the roller carrying arm 60 and the tension relieving arm 63 due to the low tension in the yarn 52) to the rope (rope 90) that is received within the at least a portion of the sheave groove (peripherally grooved beam head 42); wherein the predetermined resistance tension (minimum tension applied to the rope 90 when the pulley 76 is simply in contact with the rope 90, when the brake shoe actuating lever 72 is fully pivoted/rotated in a counterclockwise direction, or when the downward force exerted on the brake shoe actuating lever 72 by the chain 66 and the weight 68 is fully counteracted by the counterclockwise pivoting/rotation of the roller carrying arm 60 and the tension relieving arm 63 due to the low tension in the yarn 52) is less than half of the predetermined braking tension (maximum tension applied to the rope 90 via the maximum pivotal clockwise rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 and the pulley 76, or when the chain 66 and the weight 68 exert a maximum downward force on the brake shoe actuating lever 72) (based on the disclosure of Ball in Col. 2, line 22 - Col. 5, line 20, it is evident that the minimum tension applied to the rope 90, which would allow the beam 39 rotate freely without any resistance/braking by the rope 90, would inherently be zero or less than half the maximum tension applied to the rope 90, which would completely brake/stop the rotation of the beam 39).
In regards to claim 10, Ball teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ball further teach (Figures 1-4), the beam (beam 39) being one of a plurality of beams (beams 25, 26, 38 and 39) positioned on a rack (creel frame formed by the girders 10/11, the legs 12, the rear supporting brackets 13/13', the front supporting brackets 14/14', the bolts 15, the struts 16/17, and the bolts 18).
In regards to claim 11, Ball teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ball further teach (Figures 1-4), the beam (beam 39) being mounted on a frame (); the rope (rope 90) having a first end and a second end (ends of the rope 90, which are appropriately anchored to the rear supporting bracket 13 by placing the loops formed at the ends of the rope 90 around the stub shaft 53, as described in Col. 4, line 20-39); the rope (rope 90) defining a rope path (path extending along the rope 90) between the first end and the second end of the rope (ends of the rope 90, which are anchored to the rear supporting bracket 13/stub shaft 53 ); and a tensioning assembly (combined structure of the chain 66, the weight 68 with the weight retaining member 67, the brake shoe actuating lever 72 with the bolt 70 and the flange 71, the stub shafts 73/74, and the pulley 75/76) being in contact with the rope (rope 90) along the rope path (path extending along the rope 90); wherein the tensioning assembly (combined structure of the chain 66, the weight 68 with the weight retaining member 67, the brake shoe actuating lever 72 with the bolt 70 and the flange 71, the stub shafts 73/74, and the pulley 75/76) is configured to effect tension in the rope (rope 90).
In regards to claim 18, Ball teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ball further teach (Figures 1-4), the beam (beam 39) additionally including a main body (beam body 43), and a pair of end plates (beam heads 42) that are positioned at opposed longitudinal ends of the beam (beam body 43); wherein at least one end plate (beam heads 42) defines the sheave groove (peripherally grooved on the beam head 42, which receives the rope 90).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slezak.
In regards to claims 4-5, Slezak teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Slezak further teach (Figures 1-10N), the condition (when the air pressure control/APC system 118 receives a signal from the central control system 116/900 to appropriately actuate the tension controller apparatus 202, such that said air pressure control/APC system 118 apply the correct air pressure to the diaphragm actuator 308 to fully engage the brake shoe 306 with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; thereby completely impeding the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108) can be initiated by a stop button (emergency stop 908 on the control console 900 that includes the central control system 116), and the yarn (wire ‘W’ of the spool 108 that is rotationally fixed to the spindle 302) wound on the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202) can be fed into a textile machine (paragraph 0026 disclose, the creel system 100, from which the wire ‘W’ is supplied, can be used to deliver/convey cords for textile manufacturing). Yet, Slezak dose not explicitly reveal, the condition (when the air pressure control/APC system 118 receives a signal from the central control system 116/900 to appropriately actuate the tension controller apparatus 202, such that said air pressure control/APC system 118 apply the correct air pressure to the diaphragm actuator 308 to fully engage the brake shoe 306 with the braking surface of the brake drum 304; thereby completely impeding the rotation of the spindle 302 and the spool 108) being indicative of stopping the textile machine.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operative functionality of the stop button in Slezak’s creel system, such that the pressing of said stop button result in the stopping of both the textile machine/textile manufacturing process that is associated with said creel system and the application of the first resistance to the beam of said creel system. Stopping the textile machine/textile manufacturing process via a stop button, while simultaneously applying the first resistance to the beam (about which the yarn is wound) also via said stop button, would effectively prevent the over feeding/conveying of the yarn from the beam toward the textile machine, when necessary or required (e.g. during an emergency situation and/or when the textile manufacturing process simply needs to be shut-down for repairs or other needs); thereby everting any unwanted/undesirable unwinding of the yarn from the bean, and limiting said yarn from becoming overly slackened between the beam and the textile machine (i.e. when the yarn is not being conveyed or processed).
In regards to claim 19, Slezak teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Slezak further teach (Figures 1-10N), the beam (spindle 302 of the tension controller apparatus 202), on which the yarn (wire ‘W’ of the spool 108 that is rotationally fixed to the spindle 302) is wound, being a component of a creel system (creel system 100) that is associated with a textile machine (paragraph 0026 disclose, the creel system 100, from which the wire ‘W’ is supplied, can be used to deliver/convey cords for textile manufacturing). Yet, Slezak dose not explicitly reveal, the textile machine being a tufting machine.
Nevertheless, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the creel system employed in Slezak’s method, in a textile manufacturing process that involves a tufting machine. Examiner is taking official notice that tufting machines are widely known and are commonly used in textile manufacturing; where prior-art tufting machines typically includes creel systems having multiple beams for carrying and dispensing wound yarns or spools of yarn. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily conceived to pair the creel system taught by Slezak’s (which operates/functions in the exact manner recited within parent claim 1, as explained above) with a tufting machine, such that the yarn being unwound and supplied from each beam in said creel system can be further processed during textile manufacturing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for the following reasons:
In regards to claim 12, Ball teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ball further teach (Figures 1-4), the tensioning assembly (combined structure of the chain 66, the weight 68 with the weight retaining member 67, the brake shoe actuating lever 72 with the bolt 70 and the flange 71, the stub shafts 73/74, and the pulley 75/76) including a movable sheave (pulley 76) that is in engagement with the rope (rope 90) along the rope path (path extending along the rope 90). Yet, fails to disclose, said tensioning assembly (combined structure of the chain 66, the weight 68 with the weight retaining member 67, the brake shoe actuating lever 72 with the bolt 70 and the flange 71, the stub shafts 73/74, and the pulley 75/76) also including a piston that is coupled to the movable sheave (pulley 76 and being configured to apply a force to the movable sheave (pulley 76) during the application of the predetermined braking tension to the rope (rope 90). On the contrary, the movement of the pully 76 is caused by the pivotal rotation of the brake shoe actuating lever 72 about the stub shaft 73, as a result of a pulling force exerted on said brake shoe actuating lever 72 by the chain 66 and the weight 68. Although, prior art does propose movable sheaves in rope tensioning assemblies being displaced via pneumatic pistons, configuring Ball’s rope tensioning assembly with such a pneumatic piston (i.e. for actuating the movement of the movable sheave) would require significant structural alterations to said tensioning assembly, without yielding any conceivable functional or performance improvements; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not had the sufficient motivation/rational required to carry out such a modification. In addition, Slezak also does not propose, the beam having a sheave groove for applying the first resistance to rotation of the beam, a rope/cable/strap being received within said sheave groove, a movable sheave of a tensioning assembly being in contact with said rope so as to affect its tension, or said tensioning assembly including a piston for controlling the movement of said movable sheave. Furthermore, all other prior art of record, either individual or in combination, fails to explicitly reveal or render obvious, a beam braking method being performed using the specific sequential steps and the precise structural arrangement, that are recited collectively by claims 1, 8, and 11-12. Accordingly, claim 12 appears to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification, and when they are considered together with the superseding limitations in parent claims 1, 8, and 11.
Claims 13-17 depends from claim 12. Thus, claims 13-17 also include the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the attached PTO-892 for complete list of pertinent prior art references made of record by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights