DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-16, and 18-21 are pending. Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are amended. Claim 17 is cancelled.
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 21, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 16, 18, 19, and 21 have been amended, and claim 17 has been cancelled. Thus, claims 2-16, and 18-21 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the drawing objection.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the specification objection.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome most of the 35 USC §112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §102(a)(1) and §103 rejections, however some claims remain rejected under §103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 5, 8, and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 3 and 4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Fitton does not relate to a drive belt and thus one would not modify Beatty to include the tensioner. The Examiner disagrees. Belts of all sorts require tensioning. That Fitton relates to a different belt does not detract from the advantage provided by Fitton which is to provide a mechanism to keep the belt properly taut.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to be arguing that Pioch is not analogous art because it relates to a depositing machine. As explained in the rejection, the examiner set forth that Pioch is directed to art pertinent to the problem faced by the applicant, which is to provide adequate tensioning or removal of chains. Applicant has not addressed this and thus the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “horsepower rating” is clear in view of the specification. The examiner disagrees as the specification merely recites “horsepower rating” but does not describe how a rating is determined. It is noted that the claims are to a rating, rather than the motor itself.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 includes underlining, brackets, and strikethroughs all at once. Applicant is reminded of proper amendment form (see MPEP 714(II)(C)). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “horsepower rating” of a particular horsepower. It is unclear under what metric this horsepower rating is determined. What testing parameters are required? This is in contrast to an unclaimed “horsepower”, rather the claim is limited to a “rating” rather than an actual horsepower and thus it is unclear what the rating parameters are.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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(s) 2, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beatty et al. (US 5287819), Morgante et al. (US 20080245181) and Neely (US 5706745).
Regarding claim 2, Beatty describes a tufting machine (abstract) comprising:
at least one needle bar (needle bar 24) having a plurality of needles (needles 25) mounted therealong; and
a drive system (motor, shaft, gears) comprising:
at least one motor (motor drives shaft 38, col. 3, ll. 40-42);
a first drive shaft (main drive shaft 38) and a second drive shaft (auxiliary drive shaft 38a);
a plurality of needle stroke assemblies arranged along the first and second drive shafts, each needle stroke assembly comprising:
at least one secondary drive shaft (see annotated Fig. 2 below)
a series of needle stroke drive gears (gear 51, gear 54, 51a, 54a) coupled one of the first (38, 38a) and second drive shafts and to the at least one secondary drive shaft (coupled via gear 54a and belt 53);
at least one drive member (timing belt 53, 53a) extending between and linking the needle stroke drive gears (51, 54, 51a, 54a) coupled to the one of the first and second drive shafts and the at least one secondary drive shaft such that the at least one secondary drive shaft (see annotated Fig. 2) is caused to rotate with rotation of the one of the first and second drive shafts;
a plurality of push rods (push rods 22 22a) coupled to the at least one needle bar (24) and to the needle stroke assemblies; and
a drive belt (timing belt 44) configured to link the at least one motor and the first and second drive shafts for driving rotation of the first and second drive shafts (see Fig. 2);
wherein the push rods (22, 22a) are driven in a linear motion by the needle stroke assemblies in response to rotation of the first and second drive shafts so as to reciprocate the needles in a substantially up and down direction; and
wherein the needles are configured to carry a plurality of yarns into and out of a backing material moving through the tufting machine for forming tufts of the yarns in the backing material (yarns, col. 2, ll. 63-64).
Beatty does not explicitly describe the motor having a motor drive shaft, the drive belt located along an exterior facing surface of the frame, wherein the drive belt extends about a motor drive gear coupled to the motor drive shaft and about a shaft gear coupled to each of the first and second drive shafts for driving rotation of the first and second drive shafts.
In related art, Morgante describes the motor having a motor drive shaft (see annotated Fig. 6B), the drive belt located along an exterior facing surface of the frame (see Fig. 6A), wherein the drive belt extends about a motor drive gear (gear 317) coupled to the motor drive shaft and about a shaft gear coupled to each of the first and second drive shafts (see Fig. 6A, extends around gears for each shaft) for driving rotation of the first and second drive shafts.
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 Beatty to be driven by a belt and motor as opposed to directly driven in order to allow for more optimal use of available space and for more easily realized changes in the ratio of motor revolutions to shaft revolutions to provide a mechanical advantage (Morgante, para. 0024).
Beatty as modified does not explicitly describe the motor is located along an upper portion of a frame of the tufting machine.
In related art for tufting machines, Neely describes a tufting machine in which the drive motor is located in an upper portion of a frame (see Fig. 1).
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 motor to be in the upper portion as opposed to a lower portion as such a modification is a rearrangement of parts that is a matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)) there being no criticality for the motor placement.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
675
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
641
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Beatty as modified describes the tufting machine of claim 2, wherein the at least one drive member of each needle stroke assembly comprises a belt (are belts) or a chain.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Beatty describes tufting machine of claim 2, but does not explicitly describe wherein the at least one drive member of each needle stroke assembly comprises a horsepower rating of approximately 60 HP to approximately 90 HP.
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 Beatty to include the approximate horsepower since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 9, Beatty describes the tufting machine of claim 2, wherein the drive belt comprises a double sided timing belt (is double sided, see Fig. 2).
Claims 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty et al. (US 5287819), Morgante et al. (US 20080245181), Neely (US 5706745) and Fitton (US 3906876).
Regarding claim 3, Beatty describes the tufting machine of claim 2, but does not explicitly describe further comprising a tension adjusting mechanism configured to adjust a tension in the drive belt.
In related art for tufting machines, Fitton describes a tufting machine further comprising a tension adjusting mechanism (tension pulley 90 and support) configured to adjust a tension in a belt.
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 Beatty to include a tension adjusting mechanism as disclosed in Fitton in order to keep the belt properly taut (col. 3, ll. 29-31).
PNG
media_image4.png
782
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Beatty as modified describes tufting machine of claim 3,
wherein the tension adjusting mechanism comprises a support positioned (see annotated Fig. 1 above, Fitton) along a surface of the tufting machine and a tension adjusting gear (90, Fitton) mounted along the support and configured to engage with the drive belt; and
wherein the support configured to move along the surface of the tufting machine (support includes a slot and bolt, Fitton) to (what follows is a recitation of intended use) adjust a position of the tension adjusting gear with respect to the shaft drive gears to maintain a selected tension in the drive belt (fully capable of moving and thus adjusting with respect to the first and second shaft drive gears).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty et al. (US 5287819), Morgante et al. (US 20080245181), Neely (US 5706745) and Pioch (US 3040381).
Regarding claim 6, Beatty describes tufting machine of claim 2, but does not explicitly describe wherein the at least one drive member of at least some of the needle stroke assemblies comprises a chain having at least one connecting link configured to be disengaged so as to enable removal of the chain from about the needle stroke drive gears.
In related art for timing gears, or art relevant to the problem of providing adequate tensioning or removal of chains, Pioch describes wherein the at least one drive member of at least some of the needle stroke assemblies comprises a chain (chain 85) having at least one connecting link (has removable links, col. 5, ll. 55-57) configured to be disengaged so as to enable removal of the chain (85) from about the needle stroke drive gears.
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 belt of Beatty with the chain 85 with removable links of Pioch in order to permit the length to be changed (col. 5, ll. 55-57) which would influence the amount of tension within the system.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty et al. (US 5287819), Morgante et al. (US 20080245181), Neely (US 5706745) and Morrison et al. (US 5794551).
Regarding claim 7, Beatty describes the tufting machine of claim 2, but does not explicitly describe wherein the at least one motor comprises a first motor connected to a first end of the first drive shaft and a second motor connected to a second end of the second drive shaft.
In related art for tufting machines, Morrison describes wherein the at least one motor comprises a first motor (24’) connected to a first end of the first drive shaft (connected via belts and gears and additional shafts) and a second motor (motor 200) connected to a second end of the second drive shaft (connected to the same area via belts, gears and shafts).
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 tufting machine of Beatty to include the two motor system of Morrison in order to permit the motors to work more efficiently (col. 10, ll. 58-62). That is, by utilizing two motors that work in tandem each motor may be able to work at a lower load level which could permit smaller motors to be utilized and also to permit the individual motors to work at a more efficient RPM. Because the motors as modified are connected via a belt to the shafts they are each considered to be connected to both of the first end of the first drive shaft and a second end of the second drive shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 and 18-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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