A patent can't monopolize all uses of a law or force of nature nor can it monopolize a result. The famous case is Morse. Samuel Morse got claim wording that was extremely broad and a dispute went to the Supreme Court. The holding said -
"Professor Morse has not discovered that the electric or galvanic current will always print at a distance, no matter what may be the form of the machinery or mechanical contrivances through which it passes." Morse did not enable others to do more than make the repeater system that he described. Other persons may discover and disclose to the public other ways to use electromagnetic force to transmit messages, and the other ways may be cheaper or work better.
Many devices or methods can achieve the same result and be separately patented.
For you to get a patent you need to have a concept that is new and not obvious in light of whatever else has already been done or published anywhere anytime. Words in someones else's patent like -
the method and the weaving machine according to the invention presented in the claims are not restricted to the exemplary embodiments which have been illustrated and described, but rather may also encompass variants and combinations thereof which are within the scope of the claims.
do not constitute any technical substance that, by itself, gets in the way of you getting a patent for a variation on something the application covers.
There are two separate issues that you might have conflated (1) can you get a patent for a new variation (2) does your variation fall under one of the claims of someone else's patent. Your phase "wants to apply for a patent for its product will his product be subjected to piration as the person" shows this confusion of mixing up patentablity of your concept and your potential product infringing someone else's patent.
If your invention is obvious in light of the technical information in a patent (or patent application or magazine article) then you can't get a patent.
A different criteria applies to the question of you infringing a patent by producing and selling your own invention. Does your invention fall under the scope of their claims? Assume your product uses a different mechanism to that shown in the patent but does fall within the scope of a claim. Now the question will be if the claim is enabled across its scope. That means could a person of ordinary skill in the art make your invention after having read the patent. The boilerplate words do not really help the inventor show infringement.