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 .
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 “another sensor” of claims 12 and 17; “a spool” of claims 3 and 6 (drawings show a roll of material held on a shaft, but no spool is shown); “and the first exterior portion and the second exterior portion have outer diameters greater than an outer diameter of the spool” of claim 6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Regarding claim 6, for the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intends to mean “and the first exterior portion and the second exterior portion have outer diameters greater than an inner diameter of the spool” as is consistent with applicant’s invention represented by the drawings.
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.
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 9-11 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the assembly” in line 4 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the “an assembly” of Claim 1, or one of the assemblies recited in claim 9, the “an upper guide assembly” or “the top block assembly”.
Claims 10-11 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the assembly” in line 2 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the “an assembly” of claim 1, or one of the assemblies recited in claims 9 or 10: “an upper guide assembly”; “a top block assembly”, or “a bottom block assembly”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butler, US5139206.
Regarding independent claim 1, Butler discloses a dynamic tension control system (35, 45, Fig. 10), the system comprising: an assembly (35, Fig. 3) for receiving a material (72, Fig. 2) from a roll of the material held on a shaft (70, held on shaft 101, Fig. 5), wherein the shaft is driven by a motor (98, Fig. 5); a sensor configured to: detect whether the assembly is proximate the sensor (50, Fig. 3; Column 4, line 66 - Column 5, line 2); transmit, based on detecting that the assembly is not proximate the sensor, a signal (Column 4, line 66- Column 5, line 2); and stop transmitting, based on detecting that the assembly is proximate the sensor, the signal (Column 4, lines 61-66); and a controller (127, Fig. 7), wherein the controller is configured to: command, based on receiving the signal from the sensor, the motor to accelerate (Column 2, lines 15-19); and command, based on stopping receiving the signal from the sensor, the motor to decelerate (Column 2, lines 6-9, 26-29).
Regarding claim 2, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 1 (from which this claim depends) and a frame (97, 10, 130 Fig. 7) configured for positioning and supporting the shaft (101, Fig. 5), the motor (98, Fig. 5), the assembly (35, Fig. 3), the sensor (50, Fig. 3), and the controller (127, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 1 (from which claim 3 depends), and a non-drive-side tube insert (112, Fig. 5) to position a spool of the roll (70, Fig. 5) such that the shaft passes through a center of the spool (101 passes through center of spool 70, Fig. 5); and a drive-side tube insert (111, 110, Fig. 5) to position the spool of the roll such that the shaft passes through the center of the spool (101 passes through 70, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 3 (from which claim 4 depends), and wherein: the non-drive-side tube insert (112, Fig. 5) comprises a first attachment mechanism for attaching the non-drive-side tube insert to the shaft to prevent the non-drive-side tube insert and the roll from sliding off the shaft (116, Fig. 5); and the drive-side tube insert comprises a second attachment mechanism for attaching the drive-side tube insert to the shaft to prevent the drive-side tube insert and the roll from sliding off the shaft (108, 109, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 3 (from which claim 5 depends), and wherein: the non-drive-side tube insert comprises a first conical portion (114, 115, Fig. 5), a first intermediate portion (114, in contact with spool 70, Fig. 5), and a first exterior portion (113, outside of reel 70, Fig. 5); and the drive-side tube insert comprises a second conical portion (111, Fig. 5), a second intermediate portion (portion of 111 in contact with reel 70, Fig. 5), and a second exterior portion (110, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 5 (from which claim 6 depends) and the first conical portion (114, Fig. 5) and the second conical portion (111, Fig. 5) have lengthwise increasing outer diameters for receiving the spool (114, 111, are tapered, Fig. 5); the first intermediate portion and the second intermediate portion have outer diameters equal to or less than an inner diameter of the spool (intermediate portions of 114, 111 have diameters less than or equal to spool 70 for which they are in contact with, Fig. 5); and the first exterior portion and the second exterior portion have outer diameters greater than an inner diameter of the spool (113, 110 have diameters greater than the inner diameter of the spool, just as shown in applicant's drawings Fig. 5; See claim interpretation above in the section titled Drawings).
Regarding claim 7, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 1 (from which claim 7 depends) and one or more dancer tension control guides (73, Fig. 10) for receiving the material from the roll (70, Fig. 7) and providing the material to the assembly (35, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 1 (from which claim 8 depends) and a user input device(132, Fig. 3) for controlling deceleration of the motor (Column 9, lines 41-44; emergency stop decelerates motor).
Regarding claim 9, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 1 (from which claim 9 depends) and a top block assembly (13, 18, 42, Fig. 3); and an upper guide assembly extending outward from the top block assembly (45, Fig. 3), wherein the material passes through the assembly (35, Fig. 3) and then through the upper guide assembly (45, Fig. 3, although material passes over upper guide assembly first, it is wound between the assembly and upper guide assembly multiple times, and thus the material passes through the assembly and then through the upper guide assembly as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 9 (from which claim 10 depends) and comprising a bottom block assembly (bottom of 13, 15, Fig. 3), wherein the sensor (50, Fig. 3) is positioned on the bottom block assembly (50 is on bottom block assembly of 10, 13, 15, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 10 (from which claim 11 depends) and comprising guide rods (20, 21, Fig. 3) extending between the bottom block assembly (bottom of 13, 15, Fig. 3) and the top block assembly (18, Fig. 1; Column 4, lines 5-10), wherein the assembly moves along the guide rods (Column 4, lines 11-22).
Regarding claim 12, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 1 (from which claim 12 depends) and a dynamic tension control system.
Butler does not teach another assembly for receiving the material from another roll of the material held on another shaft, wherein the other shaft is driven by another motor; another sensor configured to: detect whether the other assembly is proximate the other sensor; transmit, based on detecting that the other assembly is not proximate the other sensor, another signal; and stop transmitting, based on detecting that the other assembly is proximate the other sensor, the other signal; wherein the dynamic tension control system is configured to: command, based on receiving the other signal from the other sensor, the other motor to accelerate; and command, based on stopping receiving the other signal from the other sensor, the other motor to decelerate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have another assembly, roll, shaft, motor and sensor, 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. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to double product output.
Regarding independent claim 18, Butler discloses a dynamic tension control system (35, 45, Fig. 10), the system comprising: an assembly (35, Fig. 10) for receiving a material (72, Fig. 10) from a roll of the material (70, Fig. 5, 7) held on a shaft (101, Fig. 5), wherein the shaft is driven by a motor (98, Fig. 5); a sensor (50, Fig. 3) configured to detect whether the assembly is proximate the sensor (Column 4, lines 61 - Column 5, line 2); and a controller (127, Fig. 7), wherein the controller is configured to: command, based on detecting that the assembly is not proximate the sensor, the motor to accelerate (Column 2, lines 15-19); and command, based on detecting that the assembly is proximate the sensor, the motor to decelerate (Column 2, lines 6-9, 26-29).
Regarding claim 19, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 18 (from which claim 19 depends) and comprising one or more dancer tension control guides (73, Fig. 10) for receiving the material from the roll (70, Fig. 7) and providing the material to the assembly (35, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 20, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 19 (from which claim 20 depends) and comprising a user input device(132, Fig. 3) for controlling deceleration of the motor (Column 9, lines 41-44; emergency stop decelerates motor).
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) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler, US5139206 in view of Mercuri, Foreign Patent Document, WO2022099386.
Regarding independent claim 13, Butler discloses a method of controlling tension in a linear material (Column 2, lines 6-30), the method comprising: receiving, with an assembly (Column 2, lines 6-30), a linear material (72, Fig. 3) from a roll of the linear material (70, Fig. 5) held on a shaft (101, Fig. 5), wherein the shaft is driven by a motor (98, Fig. 5); a signal (50, Fig. 3; Column 4, line 66 - Column 5, line 2); transmitting, with the sensor and based on detecting with a sensor that the assembly is not proximate the sensor, a signal (Column 4, line 66- Column 5, line 2); stopping transmitting, with the sensor and based on detecting that the assembly is proximate the sensor, the signal (Column 4, lines 61-66); causing in response to the sensor transmitting the signal, the motor to accelerate (Column 2, lines 15-19); and causing, in response to the sensor stopping transmitting the signal, the motor to decelerate (Column 2, lines 6-9, 26-29).
Butler does not disclose the linear material is a linear fabric material;
Mercuri teaches a method of controlling tension where the linear material is a fabric linear material (Paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Butler and Mercuri to use the dynamic tension control system with linear fabric material as taught by Mercuri because "it is desirable to dispense the elastic cord for ear loops in a controlled manner" (Paragraph [0007], lines 1-3; Mercuri).
Regarding claim 14, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 13 (from which claim 14 depends) and receiving, with one or more dancer tension control guides (73, Fig. 10), the linear material from the roll (73 receives material 72 from roll 70, Fig. 10); and providing, with the one or more dancer tension control guides, the linear fabric material to the assembly (providing material 72 to assembly 35, Fig. 10).
Butler does not disclose the linear material is a linear fabric material.
Mercuri teaches a method of controlling tension where the linear material is a fabric linear material (Paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Butler and Mercuri to use the dynamic tension control system with linear fabric material as taught by Mercuri because "it is desirable to dispense the elastic cord for ear loops in a controlled manner" (Paragraph [0007], lines 1-3; Mercuri).
Regarding claim 15, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 13 (from which claim 15 depends) and receiving, with a user input device (132, Fig. 3), a control for the motor, wherein the control comprises deceleration of the motor (Column 9, lines 41-44; emergency stop decelerates motor); and controlling the motor based on the received control (Column 9, lines 41-44; emergency stop 132, Fig. 3 controls motor to decelerate).
Regarding claim 16, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 13 (from which claim 16 depends) and guiding, using guide rods (20, 21, Fig. 3), movement of the assembly (Column 4, lines 11-22).
Regarding claim 17, modified Butler teaches the limitations of claim 13 (from which claim 17 depends) and a method for controlling tension in a linear fabric material.
However, Butler does not disclose receiving, with another assembly, another linear fabric material from another roll held on another shaft, wherein the other shaft is driven by another motor; detecting, with another sensor, whether the other assembly is proximate the other sensor; transmitting, with the other sensor and based on detecting that the other assembly is not proximate the other sensor, another signal; stopping transmitting, with the other sensor and based on detecting that the other assembly is proximate the other sensor, the other signal; causing, in response to the other sensor transmitting the other signal, the other motor to accelerate; and causing, in response to the other sensor stopping transmitting the other signal, the other motor to decelerate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same method of claim 13 with another assembly, roll, shaft, motor and sensor, 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. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to double product output.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12162716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences amount to minor rewording of claim limitations and the patent claims are narrower in scope than the instant claims. As such, the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant claims with some additional limitations. Therefore, the patent claims encompass the instant claims and render the instant claims unpatentable under anticipatory obvious type double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619