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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11-11-2024 and 05-02-2025 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, Claims 11-21 in the reply filed on 12-04-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search for group II would encompass a search for any remaining claims. This is not found persuasive because the search for group II cannot encompass the limitation “removing a package from a package transporter”.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (2002/0060455) in view of Schuler (2023/0089801).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas teaches an apparatus for robotically tying a knot (figs 1-18), comprising: a knotting head apparatus at a knot-tying location for tying a knot to a yarn tail of a yarn package to secure the yarn tail from unraveling in subsequent yarn package handling (members 26-27).
Thomas does not clearly teach a digitally-controlled knot-validating apparatus for validating correct application of the knot to the yarn tail.
Schuler tech a knotting device having a digitally-controlled knot-validating apparatus for validating correction of the knot (para 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device of Thomas by adding a digitally-controlled knot-validating apparatus of Schuler in order to ensure there is a correction knot or not.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device Thomas-Schuler discloses the digitally-controlled knot-validating apparatus comprises an apparatus for monitoring torque to yarn indicating that a yarn end is loose, rather than being held in the knot (Schuler, para 0118 and 0132).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device Thomas-Schuler discloses the knot-validating apparatus comprises an apparatus for sensing a strain value (i.e. elastic) on the yarn tail indicating that the yarn end is loose, rather than being held in the knot (Schuler, para 0115 and 0132).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device Thomas-Schuler discloses the knot-validating apparatus is adapted for sensing the presence or absence of the knot in the yarn and is selected from the group consisting of a strain gauge (i.e. elastic, Schuler, para 0115 and 0132) and a load cell.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device Thomas-Schuler discloses the digitally-controlled knot-validating apparatus comprises a visual inspecting apparatus adapted to inspect a surface of the yarn package to determine the presence or absence of the knot by capturing an image of the package surface and comparing the image of the package surface against a digital store of images representing a yarn arrangement indicative of a correctly-tied knot (Schuler, para 0053).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device Thomas-Schuler discloses the digitally-controlled knot-validating apparatus comprises a source of energy adapted to apply energy to the surface of the package to detect, measure and compare a returned energy signal against a digital data store of surface irregularities on the package indicative of the presence or absence of a knot (Schuler, para 0053).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (2002/0060455) and Schuler (2023/0089801) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jackson et al. (6,633,383).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device Thomas-Schuler teaches all of the limitations except the energy source is selected from the group consisting of a laser and ultrasound.
Jason teaches an image system using laser source (col 4, lines 33 to 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device of Thomas by adding a laser image system of Jason in order to allow the overall inspection task becomes faster, more accurate, more repeatable, and allows quantification and differentiation.
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 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,576. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applicants claimed a device having a knottin head, a digital knot validating wherein the digital knot validating having laser inspecting apparatus and a yard package indexer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4pm.
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 D. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732