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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the insertion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the opening of a shed of warp yarns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the determination” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “the determination of a set of opening parameters minimizing, at least locally, said objective function”. It is unclear how “a set of opening parameters minimizing, at least, said objective function” as the claims only recite “…an objective function having a first member evaluating a balance of said warp yarns during said shed opening, … and a second member evaluating constraints specific to said weaving machine”.
Claim 3 recites “the determination” in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “said opening parameters” in line 2. It is unclear which opening parameters the Applicant wants to refer to and whether “said opening parameters” is the same or different from “said set of opening parameters” in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “the opening of a shed” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the determination” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “prior steps of optimizing an objective function having a first member evaluating a balance of said warp yarns during said shed opening, said balance of the warp yarns being evaluated by differences in elongation between the warp yarns of an upper opening of said shed, and of a lower opening of said shed, and a second member evaluating constraints specific to said weaving machine, said optimization comprising the determination of a set of opening parameters minimizing, at least locally, said objective function”, which is a mathematical formula (see specification para. [0126], the function f(v) is calculated based on the first member obje(v) and the second member k.c(v)). Claim 3 further recites “said optimization comprises the determination of a global optimum of said objective function by introducing a random perturbation”, which is a mathematical formula. Claim 4 recites “said optimization uses a basin-hopping algorithm”, which is a known mathematical formula.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea with additional structures of “a first member” and “a second member”, however, additional structures do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because “a first member” and “a second member” are also abstract ideas (see specification, para. [0124]-[0129]), which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim(s) recite(s) additional structures of a weaving machine, however, the additional structures of the weaving machine are known in the art, then the additional structures of the weaving machine do no add significantly more.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehnert (US 5669421) in view of CN102121160 (hereinafter CN’160).
Regarding claim 1, Lehnert teaches a method for automated weaving a woven structure using a weaving machine (see claim 1), comprising the insertion of a weft yarn during the opening of a shed of warp yarns (implicit feature of shed opening), and prior steps of optimizing an objective function (tension curve optimization) having a first member evaluating a balance of said warp yarns during said shed opening (window 2, shed opening) (col. 4, lines 36-61), and a second member evaluating constraints specific to the weaving machine (warp yarn breakage, see col. 4, lines 62-63), said optimization comprising the determination of a set of opening parameters that minimize, at least locally, said objective function, and said set of opening parameters being used to parameterize said weaving machine (see col. 4, lines 18-67).
Lehnert does not teach the balance of the warp yarns being evaluated by differences in elongation between the warp yarns of an upper opening of said shed, and of a lower opening of said shed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, CN’160 teaches a two-layered fabric weaving yarn dividing device (figs. 1-4), each layer shed forms a diamond shape by adjusting the upper and lower height positions of the upper shed twisted rod carrier 2, the twisted rod carrier 3, the lower shed twisted rod carrier 4 and adjusting the front and rear positions of the yarn dividing device wall panel relative to the weaving machine wall panel 9, and AB+BC=AD+DC can be made, so the elongation of the two layers of warp yarns is consistent, reducing the tension difference, helping opening and shedding and providing good working conditions for weft insertion.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lehnert with the teaching of CN’160 that the balance of the warp yarns being evaluated by differences in elongation between the warp yarns of an upper opening of said shed, and of a lower opening of said shed, is taken into consideration in controlling warp yarn tension so that the elongation of the upper warp yarns and the lower warp yarns is consistent, reducing the tension difference, favoring opening and shedding and providing good working conditions for weft insertion (CN’160, machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method Lehnert-CN’160 teaches said woven structure is a reinforcement for composite materials (Lehnert, claim 1, the woven structure of Lehnert can be used as a reinforcement for composite materials).
Regarding claim 3, as determination of a global optimum of the function by introducing a random perturbation is a known mathematical method, it is obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Lehnert-CN’160 with random perturbation in a global optimization technique for the benefit of improving model robustness in optimization method.
Regarding claim 4, as a basin-hoping algorithm is a known global optimization technique, it is obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Lehnert-CN’160 with a basin-hoping algorithm for the benefit of providing effectiveness in high-dimensional optimization.
Regarding claim 5, the modified method Lehnert-CN’160 teaches said opening parameters define a first straight line determining an upper opening of said shed, and a second straight line determining a lower opening of said shed (Lehnert, col. 4, lines 18-67; CN’160, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method Lehnert-CN’160 teaches said second member evaluates a height between an upper opening and a lower height of said shed (CN’160, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method Lehnert-CN’160 teaches said second member evaluates distances between said warp yarns and a rapier of said weaving machine and/or a beater of said weaving machine (CN’160, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method Lehnert-CN’160 does not teach a computer-readable recording medium including instructions for, when executed by a processor, implementing a method according to claim 1.
However, it is obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a computer program comprising instructions, when executed by a processor, to implement the method of claim 1 for the benefit of improving productivity in the weaving process as a computer-readable recording medium including instructions executed by a processor is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Lehnert teaches a weaving tool including a weaving machine (see claim 1) with a woven structure adapted for inserting a weft yarn during the opening of a shed of warp yarns (implicit feature of shed opening), and a tool (fig. 1) of optimizing an objective function (tension curve optimization) having a first member evaluating a balance of said warp yarns during said shed opening (window 2, shed opening) (col. 4, lines 36-61), and a second member evaluating constraints specific to the weaving machine (warp yarn breakage, see col. 4, lines 62-63), said optimization comprising the determination of a set of opening parameters that minimize, at least locally, said objective function, and said set of opening parameters being used to parameterize said weaving machine (see col. 4, lines 18-67).
Lehnert does not teach the balance of the warp yarns being evaluated by differences in elongation between the warp yarns of an upper opening of said shed, and of a lower opening of said shed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, CN’160 teaches a two-layered fabric weaving yarn dividing device (figs. 1-4), each layer shed forms a diamond shape by adjusting the upper and lower height positions of the upper shed twisted rod carrier 2, the twisted rod carrier 3, the lower shed twisted rod carrier 4 and adjusting the front and rear positions of the yarn dividing device wall panel relative to the weaving machine wall panel 9, and AB+BC=AD+DC can be made, so the elongation of the two layers of warp yarns is consistent, reducing the tension difference, helping opening and shedding and providing good working conditions for weft insertion.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lehnert with the teaching of CN’160 that the balance of the warp yarns being evaluated by differences in elongation between the warp yarns of an upper opening of said shed, and of a lower opening of said shed, is taken into consideration in controlling warp yarn tension so that the elongation of the upper warp yarns and the lower warp yarns is consistent, reducing the tension difference, favoring opening and shedding and providing good working conditions for weft insertion (CN’160, machine translation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 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 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights