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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the parent Application No. JP2024-010837, has been filed on 03/14/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 claim limitation(s) is/are:
a winding machine configured to rotate the bobbin in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to winding machine, published specification ¶0040 describes the winding machine as a winding motor. Therefore, the winding machine is being interpreted as winding motor or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine. Claim 1 recite(s) the winding device includes a processor configured to calculate a winding diameter of the bobbin, based on a relative moving speed of the bobbin with respect to the guide roller, the number of rotations of the bobbin, and a winding speed of the wire body. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites calculate a winding diameter of the bobbin, based on a relative moving speed of the bobbin with respect to the guide roller, the number of rotations of the bobbin, and a winding speed of the wire body. Without any specific limitation narrowing the calculation process, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of calculating a winding diameter based on the claimed parameters. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional limitations directed to A winding device for a wire body, the winding device comprising: a bobbin configured to wind the wire body; a winding machine configured to rotate the bobbin; and a guide roller configured to guide the wire body to the bobbin, wherein the bobbin is configured to reciprocate relative to the guide roller along an axial direction of the bobbin, These additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations merely attempts to limit the reach of the judicial exception or generally links the judicial exception to a particular environment of a wire winding device. These limitations are incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating winding diameter is performed. Therefore these limitations fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, The winding device for a wire body according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the number of rotations of the guide roller; and calculate the winding speed of the wire body, based on the number of rotations of the guide roller. With regards to acquire the number of rotations of the guide roller, this limitation is directed to acquiring information which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). With regards to calculate the winding speed of the wire body, based on the number of rotations of the guide roller, this limitation is directed to a mental process, as human mind with or without pen or paper is capable if determining the winding speed of the wire body, based on the number of rotations of the guide roller.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, The winding device for a wire body according to claim 1, further comprising: a capstan disposed upstream of the guide roller in a traveling path of the wire body, the capstan being configured to control a traveling speed of the wire body, wherein the processor is configured to use, as the winding speed of the wire body, the traveling speed of the wire body on the capstan. With regards to a capstan disposed upstream of the guide roller in a traveling path of the wire body, the capstan being configured to control a traveling speed of the wire body, these additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations merely attempts to limit the reach of the judicial exception or generally links the judicial exception to a particular environment of a wire winding device. These limitations are incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating winding diameter is performed. Therefore, these limitations fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). With regards to, wherein the processor is configured to use, as the winding speed of the wire body, the traveling speed of the wire body on the capstan. This limitation is an extension of the mental process recited in claim 1. Human mind with or without pen or paper is capable of using the traveling speed of the wire body on the capstan, as the winding speed of the wire body while calculating a winding diameter of the bobbin. Therefore, this limitation is directed to a mental process.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US20190331872A1) in view of KATSUFUMI (JP2020147382A- machine translation is being cited in the rejection)
Regarding claim 1,
Okada teaches, A winding device for a wire body, (Fig. 1 teaches a winding device for optical fiber)
the winding device comprising:
a bobbin configured to wind the wire body; (¶0033 teaches a bobbin for winding and holding a manufactured optical fiber)
a winding machine configured to rotate the bobbin; and (¶0056 teaches, The bobbin rotation motor 22 rotates the bobbin 8)
a guide roller configured to guide the wire body to the bobbin, (¶0050 teaches, The final pulley 7 changes a traveling direction of the optical fiber and guides it to the bobbin 8)
wherein the bobbin is configured to reciprocate relative to the guide roller along an axial direction of the bobbin, and (¶0051 teaches, bobbin 8 is reciprocated relative to the final pulley 7)
Okada doesn’t explicitly teach, the winding device includes a processor configured to calculate a winding diameter of the bobbin, based on a relative moving speed of the bobbin with respect to the guide roller, the number of rotations of the bobbin, and a winding speed of the wire body. (KATSUFUMI in ¶0037 teaches, The unit control unit 30 detects the diameter of the package P based on the running speed of the yarn Y (winding speed) in the yarn path between the yarn supply bobbin Bs and the contact roller 23. Specifically, the running speed (winding speed) of yarn Y is detected by the yarn clearer 25 or a dedicated yarn speed sensor. The unit control unit 30 calculates the twill angle based on the running speed and traverse speed (relative moving speed of the bobbin with respect to the guide roller) of the thread Y, and calculates the peripheral speed of the package P from the twill angle and the running speed. Furthermore, the diameter of package P can be calculated based on the rotational speed (the number of rotations of the bobbin) and peripheral speed of package P.)
KATSUFUMI is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a thread winding machine and a thread winding method (see ¶0001). A combination of KATSUFUMI with Okada would allow the system to determine a winding diameter of the bobbin, based on a relative moving speed of the bobbin with respect to the guide roller, the number of rotations of the bobbin, and a winding speed of the wire body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of KATSUFUMI with Okada. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to perform step precision winding in a step-like manner as the diameter of the package increases during the winding process. This would provide better control over the winding process.
Regarding claim 3,
Okada and KATSUFUMI teaches, The winding device for a wire body according to claim 1, further comprising: a capstan disposed upstream of the guide roller in a traveling path of the wire body, the capstan being configured to control a traveling speed of the wire body, (Okada in ¶0043 teaches, The take-up unit 5 is, for example, a take-up capstan, and a fiber drawing speed of the optical fiber strand is determined by the take-up unit 5)
wherein the processor is configured to use, as the winding speed of the wire body, the traveling speed of the wire body on the capstan. (Okada in ¶0044 teaches, a take-up speed of the take-up unit 5 that determines a linear velocity of the fiber drawing
Regarding claim 4,
Okada and KATSUFUMI teaches, The winding device for a wire body according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control a reversal position of a relative movement of the bobbin with respect to the guide roller, based on a newly calculated winding diameter and the winding diameter at an axial center of the bobbin. (Okada in ¶0054 teaches, update (i.e., adjust) the reversal position according to the winding diameter. ¶0084 teaches, update the reversal position according to an increase in winding diameter and an inclination of the inner surface 82 a)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US20190331872A1) in view of KATSUFUMI (JP2020147382A- machine translation is being cited in the rejection) and further in view of Princess (US20240025696A1)
Regarding claim 2,
Okada and KATSUFUMI doesn’t teach, The winding device for a wire body according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire the number of rotations of the guide roller; and (Princess in ¶0017 teaches, The sheave 36 could have a sensing element 44 disposed on both sides so that multiple sensors located at various spots could be used to determine the rotational speed of the sheave 36.)
calculate the winding speed of the wire body, based on the number of rotations of the guide roller. (Princess in ¶0018 teaches, The information from the sensor can be sent to a controller 48 of the rope pulling apparatus 10 where a speed of the rope 12 can be generated)
Princess is an art in the area of interest as it relates to winding and pulling a rope. A combination of Princess with Okada and KATSUFUMI would allow the system to acquire the number of rotations of the guide roller and calculate the winding speed of the wire body, based on the number of rotations of the guide roller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Princess with Okada and KATSUFUMI. Using a number of rotations of the guide roller to determine winding speed is known in the art as evident by Princess. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and 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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights