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 10/02/2025 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 Objections
Claims 19-20, 31, 32, 34 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 19-20, 32, 34 and 38, “microfibres” is read as “microfibers”.
In claim 31, “ionising” is read as “ionizing”.
In claim 34, “first predetermined rotations speed range” is read as “first predetermined rotation speed range”.
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 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: “an airflow generating device” in claim 19; “at leas one device configured to reduce static electricity within the chamber” in claim 30.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that us the word “means,” and they are 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 rotation means” in claim 19 and “a rotating means” in claims 34 and 38.
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.
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 § 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 33 and 34-38 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 33 recites “the airflow generating device” in line 4. It is unclear which airflow generating device the Applicant wants to refer to as there are an external airflow generating device and one or more airflow generating devices of one or more textile processing machines.
Claim 34 recites “a method for removing microfibres from textile products with a textile processing machine or a system comprising the textile processing machine of claim 19”. It is unclear claim 34 is dependent or not dependent upon claim 19. For the purpose of applying art, claim 34 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 19.
Claim 34 recites “them” in line 16 and claim 38 recites “them” in line 12. It is unclear which structures the Applicant wants to refer to by “them”.
Claim 35 recites “controlling the rotating means to rotate the rotatable drum within the chamber further comprises reversing a rotation direction of the rotatable drum or temporally increasing the rotation speed of the drum to a constant or variable speed being within a second predetermined rotation speed range being higher than the first predetermined speed range” and claim 36, which depends on claim 35, recites “the second predetermined rotation speed range is configured such that, when the rotatable drum rotates at a rotation speed being within said second predetermined rotation speed range, the textile products are pressed against the surface of the drum with a force that prevents the textile products from being agitated/shaken inside the drum”. It is unclear that if a prior art satisfies the limitation “controlling the rotating means to rotate the rotatable drum within the chamber further comprises reversing a rotation direction of the rotatable drum”, does the prior art satisfy the limitation in claim 36 or not? For the purpose of applying art, because claim 35 recites alternative limitations, if the prior art satisfies the limitation “controlling the rotating means to rotate the rotatable drum within the chamber further comprises reversing a rotation direction of the rotatable drum”, the prior art satisfies the limitation of claim 36.
Claim 38 recites “the system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending on a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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 19-30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209798313 (hereinafter CN’313) in view of Long (US5455991).
Regarding claim 19, CN’313 teaches a textile processing machine (fig. 1) for removing microfibres from textile products, the textile processing machine comprising:
a rotatable drum (fig. 1, drum 2) configured for receiving textile products (machine translation, weaving textile) and configured for being rotated about its longitudinal axis, the rotatable drum comprising a surface (fig. 1) delimiting the rotatable drum, an inner side of the said surface comprising one or more paddles (figs. 1, 3, columns 27) arranged thereto, wherein the surface further comprises a plurality of perforations (fig. 1, holes 24) configured to prevent the textile products from passing through and to allow microfibres to pass through to an outside of the rotatable drum (machine translation, the wind in the textiles blows out the fluffs from the holes 24);
a rotation means (fig. 1, motor 4) connected to the rotatable drum and configured for rotating the rotatable drum about its longitudinal axis; and
a chamber (fig. 1, cabinet 1) configured to enclose the rotatable drum, the chamber comprising an air inlet (fig. 1, machine translation, the wind blown by fan 3 enters along hollow shaft 21 into the material bin) and an air outlet (fig. 2, outlet 13);
wherein the textile processing machine is configured to be connected to an airflow generating device (fig. 1, fan 3) configured to generate an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet.
CN’313 does not teach the plurality of perforations of the surface of the rotatable drum are configured such that a percentage of the surface is in a range of 65%-98% is formed by perforations devoid from any material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Long teaches the cross sectional area of said holes making up at least 20 percent of the area of the outer circumferential surface of said perforated sheet of a rotating drum (claim 1), which covers the claim range (65%-98%).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine CN’313 with the teaching that the plurality of perforations of the surface of the rotatable drum are configured such that a percentage of the surface is in a range of 65%-98% is formed by perforations devoid from any material as taught by Long for the benefit of collecting small diameter staple fibers across the surface of the drum (abstract).
Regarding claim 20, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches a filtering device configured as a dry filter, the filtering device configured to filter the airflow to retain the microfibres removed from the textile products (CN’313, a filtering device at outlet 13 so that flocculation happens at the outlet 13 and the flocking opening 13 is discharged after the dust removal treatment).
Regarding claim 21, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the air outlet and the air inlet are configured and arranged in the chamber such that the airflow generated by the airflow generating device impinges at least partially with an outer side of the surface of the rotatable drum (CN’313, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 22, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the air outlet and the air inlet are arranged with respect to the chamber such that the airflow generated by the air generating device is configured as a downward flow being at least partially vertical in a position of use of the machine (CN’313, fig. 1, along shaft 21); or
the air outlet and the air inlet are respectively configured to extend over at least a part of a width of the chamber, such that the air outlet and the air inlet are configured as respective slots (CN’313, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the airflow generating device is configured to generate the airflow flowing from the air inlet to the air outlet at a flow rate in a range of 25 to 70 times an internal total volume of the rotatable drum per minute; or
the air outlet and the air inlet are configured such that a speed of the airflow is greater at the air outlet than at the air inlet (CN’313, there are a second fan 6 to further blow air out to the outlet).
Regarding claim 24, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the rotatable drum is configured to have a cross section being circular or comprising a plurality of points being arranged at a plurality of radial distances from the longitudinal axis (CN’313, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the surface of the rotatable drum comprises a plurality of faces (CN’313, fig. 3, areas between two adjacent openings).
Regarding claim 26, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the plurality of faces has a number of faces in a range of 5 to 50 (CN’313, fig. 3, a cross section of the drum surface shows there are at least 5 areas between two adjacent openings).
Regarding claim 27, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches one or more paddles are arranged at a respective intersection between two adjacent faces (CN’313, fig. 3); or
one or more of the paddles are arranged on a respective face of the plurality of faces (CN’313, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the surface is at least partially configured as a meshed surface (CN’313, machine translation meshed tube 2) such that the plurality of perforations is configured as perforations of the meshed surface (CN’313, fig. 1); or the plurality of perforations has a size in a range of 2 to 30mm.
Regarding claim 29, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the surface of the rotatable drum is at least partially made of stainless steel (CN’313, fig. 1, the drum comprises a steel wire mesh 23), aluminum, plastic, ceramic, polyester, nylon or aramid; or the surface of the rotatable drum is coated with a non-conductive material.
Regarding claim 30, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches at least one device (CN’313, wet dust removal system 5) configured to reduce static electricity within the chamber.
Regarding claim 32, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches a system comprising one or more textile processing machines according to claim 19 and an external filtering device configured to retain microfibers trapped by the airflow, the one or more textile processing machine being connected to the external filtering device (CN’313, a filtering device at outlet 13 so that flocculation happens at the outlet 13 and the flocking opening 13 is discharged after the wet dust removal treatment).
Regarding claim 33, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches the external filtering device is configured as dry filter (CN’313, flocculation happens); or the system further comprises an external airflow generating device connected to the external filtering device, the airflow generating device being configured to generate an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet of each of the one or more textile processing machines and towards the external filtering device.
Regarding claim 34, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches a method for removing microfibres from textile products with a textile processing machine or a system comprising the textile processing machine of claim 19, each machine comprising a rotatable drum (CN’313, fig. 1, drum 2) which comprises a surface delimiting the rotatable drum, said surface comprising a plurality of perforations (CN’313, fig. 1, holes 24) configured to prevent the textile products from passing through and to allow microfibres to pass through to an outside of the rotatable drum, said plurality of perforations being configured such that a percentage of the surface in a rang of 65-98% is formed by perforations (Long, claim 1) devoid from any material, the method comprising:
controlling a rotating means (CN’313, fig. 1, motor 4) to rotate a rotatable drum within a chamber of each textile processing machine at a constant or variable rotation speed being within a first predetermined rotation speed range (CN’313, the rotatable drum is rotated at a rotation speed), the first predetermined rotation speed range being configured such that, when the rotatable drum rotates at a rotational speed within said first predetermined rotation speed range, the textile products are agitated and stirred inside the rotatable drum, thereby causing microfibres to detach from the textile products (CN’313, machine translation, the fluff, dust, and residue in the textiles are completely removed, and the blown-off fluff is blown out from the mesh of the mesh cylinder to the inner cavity of the cabinet with the wind);
controlling an airflow generating device (CN’313, fig. 1, fan 3) to generate an airflow within the chamber of each textile processing machine from a respective air inlet (CN’313, fig. 1, machine translation, the wind blown by fan 3 enters along hollow shaft 21 into the material bin) to a respective air outlet (CN’313, fig. 2, outlet 13) to trap the microfibres detached from the textile products and to expel them from the rotatable drum through the plurality of perforations and from the chamber through the air outlet (CN’313, machine translation); and
filtering the airflow to retain the microfibres trapped in the airflow (CN’313, a filtering device at outlet 13 so that flocculation happens at the outlet 13 and the flocking opening 13 is discharged after the dust removal treatment).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209798313 (hereinafter CN’313) and Long (US5455991), as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Sibson (US 1952825).
Regarding claim 31, the modified structure CN’313-Long does not teach a humidifier device configured to add moisture to the air being introduced into the chamber by the air inlet; or an ionizing device configured for treating the air being introduced into the chamber through the air inlet, the ionizing device being configured as an ion generator configured to release negatively charged ions into the chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sibson teaches a textile processing machine comprising a humidifier device (fig. 4, humidifier 45) configured to add moisture to the air being introduced into the chamber by the air inlet (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure CN’313-Long with a humidifier as taught by Sibson so that the humidified air intimately and uniformly penetrate fibers of the material (col. 1, lines 40-44).
Claims 35-36 are rejected to the degree of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209798313 (hereinafter CN’313) and Long (US5455991), as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Otaka (US 3552032).
Regarding claims 35 and 36, the modified method CN’313-Long does not teach controlling the rotating means to rotate the rotatable drum within the chamber further comprises reversing a rotation direction of the rotatable drum or temporally increasing the rotation speed of the drum to a constant or variable speed being within a second predetermined rotation speed range being higher than the first predetermined speed range.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Otaka teaches controlling the rotating means to rotate the rotatable drum within the chamber further comprises reversing a rotation direction of the rotatable drum (col. 2, lines 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method CN’313-Long with controlling the rotating means to rotate the rotatable drum within the chamber further comprises reversing a rotation direction of the rotatable drum as taught by Otaka for the benefit of uniformly beating and rubbing the textile against the inside wall of the drum (Otaka, col. 2, lines 58-61).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209798313 (hereinafter CN’313) and Long (US5455991), as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Compa (US 4041205).
Regarding claim 37, the modified method CN’313-Long teaches the airflow generation device to generate the air flow within the chamber further comprises an air flow relative to an internal total volume of the rotatable drum (CN’313, fig. 1).
The modified method CN’313-Long does not teach the airflow being configured to be in a range of 25 to 70 times the internal total volume of the rotatable drum per minute.
However, in the same field of airflow generated through the textiles in a rotatable drum, Compa teaches the airflow being configured to be in a range of 25 to 70 times the internal total volume of the rotatable drum per minute (col. 11, lines 9-10).
Further, the specification does not provide for criticality such that the airflow is configured to be in a range of 25 to 70 times the internal total volume of the rotatable drum per minute.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method CN’313-Long with the airflow being configured to be in a range of 25 to 70 times the internal total volume of the rotatable drum per minute as taught by Compa for the benefit of circulating air throughout the textile processing machine (Compa, abstract).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209798313 (hereinafter CN’313) and Long (US5455991), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Mira Paya (US 2021/0317608).
Regarding claim 38, the modified structure CN’313-Long teaches a method comprising controlling a rotating means (CN’313, fig. 1, motor 4) to rotate a rotatable drum within a chamber of each textile processing machine at a constant or variable rotation speed being within a first predetermined rotation speed range (CN’313, the rotatable drum is rotated at a rotation speed), the first predetermined rotation speed range being configured such that, when the rotatable drum rotates at a rotational speed within said first predetermined rotations speed range, the textile products are agitated and stirred inside the rotatable drum, thereby causing microfibres to detach from the textile products (CN’313, machine translation, the fluff, dust, and residue in the textiles are completely removed, and the blown-off fluff is blown out from the mesh of the mesh cylinder to the inner cavity of the cabinet with the wind);
controlling an airflow generating device (CN’313, fig. 1, fan 3) to generate an airflow within the chamber of each textile processing machine from a respective air inlet (CN’313, fig. 1, machine translation, the wind blown by fan 3 enters along hollow shaft 21 into the material bin) to a respective air outlet (CN’313, fig. 2, outlet 13) to trap the microfibres detached from the textile products and to expel them from the rotatable drum through the plurality of perforations and from the chamber through the air outlet (CN’313, machine translation); and
filtering the airflow to retain the microfibres trapped in the airflow (CN’313, a filtering device at outlet 13 so that flocculation happens at the outlet 13 and the flocking opening 13 is discharged after the dust removal treatment).
The modified structure CN’313-Long does not teach a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the textile processing machine, causes the machine or the system to carry out the methods.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mira Paya teaches a computer program comprising instructions (para. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure CN’313-Long with a computer program comprising instructions as taught by Mira Paya for the benefit of optimizing the textile processing system.
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
