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 . Claims 1-20 are being treated on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/24/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6-7, 11, 13-14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 6, "the entry" appears to read "an entry" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 2, line 8, "the outlet" appears to read "an outlet" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 2, line 10, "the outlet" appears to read "an outlet" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 2, second to the last line, "the direction" appears to read "a direction" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 2, last two lines, "the direction of development" should read "the development direction" for consistency;
In claim 6, line 4, "the direction" appears to read "a direction" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 7, last line, "the passage" appears to read "a passage" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 11, line 3, "said padding mass" should read "said mass of padding" for consistency;
In claim 13, last line, "the first and the second configuration" appears to read "the first and the second configurations";
In claim 14, line 4, "said padding mass" should read "said mass of padding" for consistency;
In claim 16, line 3, "the development direction" appears to read "a development direction" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations "shaking means" in claim 1 and "suction means" in claim 14 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Specifically, the following interpretations have been made according to the specification:
1) "shaking means" has been interpreted as comprising at least one comb configured to oscillate along a direction of development of the at least one operating channel (para. 0055).
2) "suction means" has been interpreted as comprising at least one fan configured to generate a depression in correspondence with the second outlet section (para. 0084).
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites a plurality of limitations which appear to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. For example, "a plurality of fragments of padded textile articles are introduced into said operating channel", "a mass of padding separated from said lining fragments is expelled from said operating channel" in claim 1, and "shaking means, housed in said operating channel, that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. It is respectfully suggested that this rejection may be overcome by including a phrase such as "configured to," "adapted to," "when in use," or "capable of", etc.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 14 and 16-17 each recite the limitation "said operating channel" or "the operating channel", which renders the claims indefinite. Claim 1 has previously set forth at least one operating channel. In scenarios of two or more operating channels, it is unclear which operating channel is being referred to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be said at least one operating channel.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said operating channel", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has previously set forth at least one operating channel. In scenarios of two or more operating channels, it is unclear which operating channel is being referred to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be said at least one operating channel.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a development direction", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be a development direction of the at least one operating channel.
Claims 2 and 4 each recite the limitation "substantially vertically", which renders the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is a term of approximation, which is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is unclear what is included or excluded by "substantially vertically"; e.g., how far a direction can deviate from a vertical direction to still be considered as "substantially vertically". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 2 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "shaking means, housed in said operating channel, that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles and mechanically separates said mass of padding from said plurality of lining fragments", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said input section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be said inlet section.
Claim 5 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "moving away from said inlet section and a second configuration, approaching said inlet section", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 7 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "them", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the elongated elements.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "at least said lining fragments". It is unclear what other items are being referred to as to "at least". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 8 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "oscillating between a first configuration, moving away from said inlet section and a second configuration, moving towards said inlet section", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said direction of development". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which structure is being referred to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said direction of development". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which structure is being referred to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "between a first upper end in which said inlet section is obtained and said second outlet section and a second opposite end in which said first outlet section is obtained", which renders the claim indefinite. The claimed subject matter is not clear due to the claim language. It is unclear what is being referred to by "and said second outlet section" in the context of the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "between a first upper end in which said inlet section is obtained and a second opposite end in which said first outlet section is obtained".
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitations "said at least one comb", "said first configuration" and "said second configuration". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 12 has been construed to depend from claim 5.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the motor", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has previously set forth at least one motor. In scenarios of two or more motors, it is unclear which motor is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the at least one motor.
Claim 14 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "which suck said padding mass", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said shaking means comprise at least one first comb and at least one second said comb", which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 15 depends from claim 5, and claim 5 has already set forth said shaking means comprising at least one comb. It is unclear whether the at least one first comb and at least one second said comb belong to the previously defined at least one comb or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be that "said at least one comb comprises at least one first comb and at least one second said comb".
Claim 18 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "said at least one first comb and said at least one second said comb are actuated by the same actuator device", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 19 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "that receives padded textile articles and shred said padded textile articles", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said plurality of article fragments padded textiles", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said shredding station", which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and claim 19 has set forth at least one shredding station. In case of two or more shredding stations, it is unclear which shredding station is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be said at least one shredding station.
Claim 20 is set forth as apparatus claim. However, the claim recites the limitation "said shredding station produces fragments of padded textile articles", which appears to be positively claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "an elongated development", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which item is being referred to. The shredding station? The fragments of padded textile articles? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a prevailing direction", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which item is being referred to. It is also unclear which direction is considered as a prevailing direction. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
The examiner respectfully notes that the claims are generally narrative and indefinite and include a significant number of limitations that are not clear. Effort has been made to identify all the indefinite issues; however, the above list is not necessarily to be comprehensive. In addition, the interpretations aforementioned do not necessarily constitute suggestions, especially in light of the plethora of potential inconsistencies and indefiniteness throughout the claims. Applicant is recommended to review the claims in full and make proper amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
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 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 1-2, 4-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kohler (EP 1023951 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Kohler discloses a machine (a separating device; fig. 1; see English translation; para. 0016) for separating a padding from a lining of padded textile articles (configured to separate cover and filling materials during quilt manufacturing; paras. 0004, 0014), the machine comprising:
- a support structure (frame 28; fig. 1; para. 0016) internally defining at least one operating channel (diffuser 27 and separating channels 28a, 28b; fig. 1; para. 0016) extending between:
- an inlet section (a lower section of diffuser 27 connecting suction hose 6a; fig. 1; para. 0016) in which a plurality of fragments of padded textile articles (edge strips 6b; fig. 1; para. 0016) are introduced into said operating channel (fig. 1; para. 0016), and
- a first outlet section (at switching diverter 29 and connecting to fabric strip container 31; fig. 1; paras. 0011) in which a plurality of lining fragments are expelled from said operating channel (fig. 1; paras. 0011, 0020), and
- a second outlet section (at switching diverter 29 and connecting to filling material bag 35; fig. 1; paras. 0011, 0020) in which a mass of padding separated from said lining fragments is expelled from said operating channel (fig. 1; paras. 0011, 0020);
- shaking means (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26 configured to perform an alternating movement along a development direction of the diffuser 27, where the development direction can be either a length direction or a width direction of the diffuser 27; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification), housed in said operating channel (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0016-0017), that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles so as to urge said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles into said operating channel thereby mechanically separating said mass of padding from said plurality of lining fragments (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0016-0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification). The fork arm 25 with fork tines 26 of Kohler forms a comb configured to perform an alternating movement, i.e., an oscillating movement along a development direction of the diffuser 27, therefore meets the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 2, Kohler discloses a machine (a separating device; fig. 1; see English translation; para. 0016) for separating a padding from a lining of padded textile articles (configured to separate cover and filling materials during quilt manufacturing; paras. 0004, 0014) comprising:
- a structure (frame 28; fig. 1; para. 0016) supporting at least one operating channel (diffuser 27 and separating channels 28a, 28b; fig. 1; para. 0016) which develops longitudinally (fig. 1), a development direction which is oriented substantially vertically (fig. 1), said operating channel comprising:
- an inlet section (a lower section of diffuser 27 connecting to suction hose 6a; fig. 1; para. 0016) for the entry into said operating channel of a plurality of fragments of padded textile articles (edge strips 6b; fig. 1; para. 0016),
- a first outlet section (at switching diverter 29 and connecting to fabric strip container 31; fig. 1; paras. 0011) for the outlet from said operating channel of a plurality of lining fragments (fig. 1; paras. 0011, 0020), and
- a second outlet section (at switching diverter 29 and connecting to filling material bag 35; fig. 1; paras. 0011, 0020) for the outlet from said operating channel of a mass of padding separated from said lining fragments (fig. 1; paras. 0011, 0020); and
- shaking means (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification), housed in said operating channel (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0016-0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification), that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles and mechanically separates said mass of padding from said plurality of lining fragments (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0016-0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification), and wherein said shaking means comprise at least one comb (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26 forming a comb; see fig. 5) which oscillates along the direction of development of said operating channel (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26 configured to perform an alternating movement, and also configured to pivot about pivot point 24, therefore configured to oscillate along a direction having a vertical component; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017).
Regarding claim 4, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said operating channel (diffuser 27; fig. 1) extends along a development direction which is substantially oriented vertically (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said shaking means comprise at least one comb (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017) movable alternately between a first configuration, moving away from said inlet section and a second configuration, approaching said inlet section (as being configured to perform an alternating movement as well as a pivoting movement; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017), to at least partially reject said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles towards said inlet section (when approaching the inlet section of diffuser 27; figs. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 6, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said shaking means comprise at least one comb (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017) which oscillates along a vertical direction and/or along the direction of advancement or fall of said plurality of fragments of padded textile items within the operating channel (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26 configured to perform both an alternating movement and a pivoting movement about pivot point 24, therefore being configured to oscillate along a direction having a vertical component; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017).
Regarding claim 7, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein said at least one comb of said shaking means comprises elongated elements (fork tines 26; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017) developing parallel to each other (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017), that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles and delimiting passage slots between them to allow the passage of at least said lining fragments (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 8, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein said at least one comb (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26; figs. 1, 5) is mobile in rotation around a rotation axis (configured to pivot about pivot point 24; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017), which is orthogonal with respect to said direction of development (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017), oscillating between a first configuration, moving away from said inlet section and a second configuration, moving towards said inlet section (as being configured to perform an alternating movement as well as a pivoting movement; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017).
Regarding claim 9, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said at least one comb of said shaking means extends between a first edge (see annotated fig. 5) rotatably constrained or integral with said support structure (see fig. 1; annotated fig. 5) and a free edge (see annotated fig. 5) which is defined by free ends of said elongated elements (see annotated fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 from EP 1023951 A2
Regarding claim 12, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the shaking means comprise at least one actuator device (including working cylinder 23; fig. 5; para. 0017), operationally associated with said at least one comb (fig. 5; para. 0017), which moves said at least one comb between said first configuration and said second configuration (fig. 5; para. 0017).
Regarding claim 14, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 1, and further discloses the machine further comprising suction means (transport fan 34; fig. 1; para. 0019) placed in communication with said second outlet section (fig. 1; paras. 0019-0020), which suck said padding mass from said operating channel towards said second outlet section (fig. 1; paras. 0019-0020).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassner, III (US 5,705,030 A) in view of Kohler (EP 1023951 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Gassner, III discloses a machine (a comb/brush separator; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55) for separating a padding from a lining of padded textile articles (configured to separate feather fibers and shaft particles, therefore being capable of separating a padding from a lining of padded textile articles; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55), the machine comprising:
- a support structure (the housing; figs. 4A-4B) internally defining at least one operating channel (figs. 4A-4B) extending between:
- an inlet section (top inlet A; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55) in which a plurality of fragments of padded textile articles are introduced into said operating channel (capable of receiving a plurality of fragments of padded textile articles; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55), and
- a first outlet section (bottom outlet C; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55) in which a plurality of lining fragments are expelled from said operating channel (capable of discharging heavier lining fragments; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55), and
- a second outlet section (side outlet B; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55) in which a mass of padding separated from said lining fragments is expelled from said operating channel (capable of discharging lighter padding; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55); and
- combs (figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55) housed in said operating channel (figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55), that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles (capable of intercepting said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles; figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55) so as to urge said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles into said operating channel thereby mechanically separating said mass of padding from said plurality of lining fragments (figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55).
Gassner, III does not disclose wherein the combs are configured to oscillate along a direction of development of the at least one operating channel, as required by the shaking means of the instant claim. However, Kohler, in an analogous art, discloses a machine (a separating device; fig. 1; see English translation; para. 0016) for separating a padding from a lining of padded textile articles (configured to separate cover and filling materials during quilt manufacturing; paras. 0004, 0014), the machine comprising shaking means (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26 configured to perform an alternating movement along a development direction of the diffuser 27, where the development direction can be either a length direction or a width direction of the diffuser 27; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification), housed in an operating channel (diffuser 27 and separating channels 28a, 28b; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0016-0017), that intercept said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles so as to urge said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles into said operating channel thereby mechanically separating said mass of padding from said plurality of lining fragments (figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0016-0017; also see para. 0017 of the instant specification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combs as disclosed by Gassner, III, with wherein the combs are each configured to oscillate along a direction of development of the at least one operating channel as taught by Kohler, in order to provide an improved configuration for the combs to efficiently separating the filling material from the fabric strips. The fork arm 25 with fork tines 26 of Kohler forms a comb configured to perform an alternating movement, i.e., an oscillating movement along a development direction of the diffuser 27. By this combination, the modified combs would meet the claimed requirement for shaking means.
Regarding claim 3, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 1, and Gassner, III further discloses wherein said input section is positioned at a higher level/height than said first output section (figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55), so as to have said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles fall, by gravity, inside the operating channel (figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-55).
Regarding claim 5, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 1. As discussed for claim 1, by combination of Gassner, III and Kohler, the combs of said shaking means would be configured to perform an alternating movement, therefore being movable alternately between a first configuration, moving away from said inlet section and a second configuration (see figs. 4A-4B), approaching said inlet section (see figs. 4A-4B), to at least partially reject said plurality of fragments of padded textile articles towards said inlet section (when approaching the top inlet A; see figs. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 10, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 1, and Gassner, III further discloses wherein said operating channel extends along said development direction between a first upper end (at top inlet A; figs. 4A-4B) in which said inlet section is obtained (figs. 4A-4B) and a second opposite end in which said first outlet section is obtained (at bottom outlet C; figs. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 11, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said second outlet section (side outlet B; figs. 4A-4B) for said padding mass is positioned at a higher level/height than said first outlet section (bottom outlet C; see figs. 4A-4B) for the plurality of lining fragments.
Regarding claim 15, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 5. As discussed for claim 5, Gassner, III discloses wherein said shaking means comprise at least one first comb and at least one second said comb (at least two comb sets; see figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-59).
Gassner, III does not disclose wherein the at least one first comb and the at least one second said comb are rotatable around two corresponding rotation axes parallel to each other and orthogonal to said development direction in said first and second configurations. However, Kohler teaches wherein the comb is also rotatable around a rotation axis (also configured to pivot about pivot point 24; figs. 1, 5; paras. 0010, 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the at least one first comb and at least one second said comb as disclosed by Gassner, III, with wherein the at least one first comb and the at least one second said comb are rotatable around two corresponding rotation axes parallel to each other as taught by Kohler, in order to provide improved separation efficiency via composite movements of the combs which facilitates air turbulence. By this combination, the two corresponding rotation axes of combs 2 would be perpendicular to the comb teeth (Gassner, III; figs. 4A-4B). In addition, the development direction of the operating channel is horizontal (Gassner, III; figs. 4A-4B). Therefore, the two corresponding rotation axes would be parallel to each other and orthogonal to said development direction in said first and second configurations.
Regarding claim 16, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 1, and Gassner, III further discloses wherein said shaking means comprise at least one first comb and at least one second said comb (at least two comb sets; see figs. 4A-4B; col. 4, ll. 43-59) overlapping each other along the development direction of said operating channel (the development direction of the operating channel is horizontal; see figs. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 17, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 16, and Gassner, III further discloses wherein said at least one first comb and said at least one second said comb comprise respective elongated elements (comb teeth; see figs. 4A-4B) and are mounted inside the operating channel so that the elongated elements develop in opposite directions (see figs. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 18, Gassner, III and Kohler, in combination, disclose the machine according to claim 17, except for wherein said at least one first comb and said at least one second said comb are actuated by the same actuator device. However, Gassner, III discloses that at least one first comb and said at least one second said comb are integrated side by side in the operating channel and configured to perform the same function. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the at least one first comb and said at least one second said comb to be actuated by the same actuator device. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler (EP 1023951 A2) in view of Wise (US 3,750,235 A).
Regarding claim 13, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 12, and further discloses wherein said actuator device includes at least one transmission mechanism (including working cylinder 23; see annotated fig. 5; para. 0027) connected to said at least one comb (fork arm 25 with fork tines 26; see annotated fig. 5), and wherein said transmission mechanism comprises at least one connecting rod-crank type coupling (see annotated fig. 5) that converts a rotary motion of the engine motor into an oscillatory movement, thereby causing the at least one comb to oscillate between the first and the second configuration (see annotated fig. 5).
Kohler does not explicitly disclose wherein said actuator device includes at least one motor, and at least one transmission mechanism interposed between the motor and said at least one comb. However, Wise, in an analogous art, teaches an actuator device (figs. 2, 9; ) includes at least one motor (motor 48; fig. 9; col. 14, ll. 41-55) and at least one transmission mechanism (cylinder 434, piston rod 436, crank arm 438; fig. 9; col. 14, ll. 41-55) comprising at least one connecting rod-crank type coupling (cylinder 434, piston rod 436, crank arm 438; fig. 9) interposed between the motor and a structure to be moved (pulley 404; fig. 9; col. 14, ll. 41-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the machine as disclosed by Kohler, with wherein said actuator device includes at least one motor, and at least one transmission mechanism interposed between the motor and said at least one comb as taught by Wise, in order to use a commonly used actuator device to actuate the shaking means.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler (EP 1023951 A2).
Regarding claim 19, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 1. Kohler does not explicitly disclose the machine further comprising at least one shredding station operationally connected with said inlet section that receives padded textile articles and shred said padded textile articles into said plurality of article fragments padded textiles. However, Kohler does disclose wherein the plurality of fragments of padded textile articles are supplied from a sewing station (fig. 1; para. 0016). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have recognize that the sewing station should comprise at least a cutting device to generate the edge strips 6b, as disclosed by Kohler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the machine disclosed by Kohler, with the machine further comprising at least one shredding station operationally connected with said inlet section that receives padded textile articles and shred said padded textile articles into said plurality of article fragments padded textiles, in order to provide small fragments of padded textile articles to the at least one operating channel for facilitating easy separation. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 20, Kohler discloses the machine according to claim 19, and further discloses wherein said shredding station produces fragments of padded textile articles with an elongated development along a prevailing direction (edge strips 6b each being a long and narrow piece by definition of "strip"; fig. 1; para. 0016).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Ji (CN 109295559 A) teaches a cotton processing device comprising shaking means, the shaking means comprising at least one comb configured to oscillate along a development direction of an operating channel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732