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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19-2026 has been entered.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 limitation " the registered anomaly display maps" in the final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For instance, the claim recites “outputting for display, a portion of at least one of the registered anomaly data maps, the portion being selected based on one or more defect classifications detected in the at least one of the registered anomaly display maps”. It appears that the “registered anomaly display maps” refers to the previously claimed registered anomaly data maps.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 were previously withdrawn as being drawn to a non elected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed 2/27/2024. The Claims remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20170317327, Kashu in view of 20180179014 Nishimura, and JP 2005238390A Nakagiri.
Regarding Claim 1, Kashu discloses a method comprising:
A web including fiducial marks (L) defining physical locations in the web (par 0119-0122);
obtaining previously-generated anomaly data (par. 0120, Defects D and marks L) that registers defects (D) with physical locations (locations on the web, where the defects D are sensed) of the web (par 0119-0122),
wherein the fiducial marks (L) define the physical locations on the web and wherein the defects are spatially registered to the fiducial marks (fig. 17, and par 0187);
continually registering the previously-generated anomaly data with the physical locations of the web to create registered anomaly data (par 0187);
automatically controlling a slitter (slitting apparatus 6) to convert the web into a plurality of slit rolls in accordance with the registered anomaly data (par 0144) and a ruleset that specifies at least one condition indicating when the defects are to be removed from the web (par 0157-0159, via the determining device 75); and generating and storing registered anomaly data maps for each of the plurality of slit rolls (“defect information” of par 0135, including number, location and size of the defects on the slit rolls).
Kashu lacks Feature I: obtaining via a photo-optic sensor, position information associated with one or more fiducial marks included on a web; and wherein the registering of the defects with physical locations of the web are based on the position information obtained via the photo-optic sensor, and using the position information associated with the one or more fiducial marks to register the anomaly data, and
Feature II: outputting, for display, a portion of at least one of the registered anomaly data maps, the portion being selected based on one or more defect classifications detected in the at least one of the registered anomaly display maps.
Regarding Feature I: Nishimura discloses a web slitting and defect removing device (see abstract of Nishimura) in the same field of endeavor as the web slitting and defect removal device of Kashu and of the present application and discloses that in such an apparatus it is known to include obtaining via a photo-optic sensor (camera 4), position information associated with one or more fiducial marks included on a web (printed codes 2, par 0039); and wherein the registering of the detected information with physical locations of the web are based on the position information obtained via the photo-optic sensor (par 0044), and using the position information associated with the one or more fiducial marks to register the detected data (par 0044-0045), in order to calculate and process a sheet with certainty in a slitting operation (par 0022-0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu by including: obtaining via a photo-optic sensor, position information associated with one or more fiducial marks included on a web; and wherein the registering of the defects with physical locations of the web are based on the position information obtained via the photo-optic sensor, and using the position information associated with the one or more fiducial marks to register the anomaly data, in order to allow for on the fly user controlled adjustment of the machine as taught by Nishimura.
Regarding Feature II: Nakagiri discloses a web slitting and defect removing device (see abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the web slitting and defect removal device of Kashu and of the present application and discloses that in such an apparatus it is known to include outputting, for display, a portion of at least one of the registered anomaly data maps, the portion being selected based on one or more defect classifications detected in the at least one of the registered anomaly display maps, (PAR. 0038, under THE BEST MODE section, where it is noted that: “On the production management computer 38, when creating the failure map, it is determined whether the failure map 66A or the point failure 66B. This determination may be made automatically on the production management computer 38 using a defect classification system, and a failure map is displayed on a display device such as a CRT or a liquid crystal display, and an input such as a keyboard or a pointing device is used. A device or the like may be used to input a determination as to whether it is a streak fault 66A or a point fault 66B.”), in order to determine whether or not to cut out the defect based on the classification, par 38 under: BEST MODE section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu by including: outputting, for display, a portion of at least one of the registered anomaly data maps, the portion being selected based on one or more defect classifications detected in the at least one of the registered anomaly display maps, in order to determine whether or not to cut out the defect based on the classification as taught by Nakagiri.
Regarding Claim 2, in Kashu the method of automatically converting the web into a plurality of slit rolls comprises: identifying a first set of anomalies in the previously-generated anomaly data that satisfies a configurable condition in the ruleset (par 0120); identifying a first physical location of the web associated with the first set of anomalies in the registered anomaly data; stopping the slitter at the first physical location (par. 0206); removing material from the web at the first physical location that contains the first set of anomalies; splicing the web; and restarting the slitter (par 0120).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashu in view of Nishimura and Nakagiri, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of USPGPUB 20170239879, Pettersson, and in view of the teachings of USPN 3103320, Huck.
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Kashu discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above.
Kashu discloses a step of connecting portions of the web with one another after cutting of the web, and discloses that this step may be performed manually (par 0120). However, Kashu is silent as to whether this step is a splicing step.
Thus, Kashu lacks the method of use of the device thereof to comprise/include manually adding a splice to the web.
Pettersson discloses a slitter and joining device and method of use thereof, in the same field of endeavor as the slitter and joining device of Kashu and of the present application, and Petersson discloses steps of slitting a sheet to remove defects therefrom (par. 0064-0065) and subsequently rejoining portions of the sheet after defect removal, where the rejoining/reconnecting includes splicing the sheet (par 0049), in order to ensure that the reconnected (spliced) portions are securely intact with one another, which is ensured due to splicing (par 0031). Also, Huck teaches that in an automatic splicing machine that is it desirable to also include the ability to perform splicing either automatically or manually in a single machine, Huck, col 12 lines 35-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu to have the reconnecting step therein, which is said to be manually activated, be a splicing operation, in order to ensure that the reconnected portions are securely intact with one another, which is ensured due to splicing, as taught by Petersson, and via the teachings of Huck.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashu/Nishimura/ Nakagiri, as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20190018629, Seay.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kashu discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above.
Kashu lacks wherein the step of removing material from the web at the first physical location that contains the first set of anomalies is selectively modified or selectively disabled by user input.
Seay discloses a web slitting and defect removing device (See par 0105 and see abstract of Seay) in the same field of endeavor as the web slitting and defect removal device of Kashu and of the present application and discloses that in such an apparatus it is known to include in the step of removing material from the web at the first physical location that contains a set of anomalies the step being able to be selectively modified or selectively disabled by user input (par 0095, which discloses that the visual detection system, which detects defects may communicate with a user and allow a user to adapt operation of the device selectively to avoid waste selectively based on a controller’s knowledge), in order to allow for on the fly user controlled adjustment of the machine (par 0095).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu by including in the step of removing material from the web at the first physical location that contains the first set of anomalies to allow such a step to include a user input and communication assembly which allows a user to have the process be selectively modified or selectively disabled by user input in order to allow for on the fly user controlled adjustment of the machine as taught by Seay.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashu in view of Nishimura and in view of USPGPUB 20190016081, Widner and Nakagiri.
Regarding Claim 11, Kashu discloses a system comprising:
a database (information storing device 91) configured to store previously-generated anomaly data that registers defects with physical locations of the web (par 0123), wherein the fiducial marks (L and DC) define the physical locations on the web (par 0119) and wherein the defects are spatially registered to the fiducial marks (fig. 17 and par. 0187);
a fiducial reader (reading section 73) configured to read fiducial marks on the web (par. 0161), the fiducial marks indicating the physical locations of the web (par 0161-0162);
a slitter (6) configured to convert the web into a plurality of slit rolls (par. 0144); and
at least one defect removing device (84) configured to control the operation of the slitter (defect removing device 84; par 0120), the at least one processor/control apparatus configured to:
continually register the previously-generated anomaly data with the physical locations of the web to create registered anomaly data continually register the previously-generated anomaly data with the physical locations of the web to create registered anomaly data (par 0157-0159);
automatically control the slitter to convert the web into the plurality of slit rolls in accordance with the registered anomaly data and a ruleset that specifies at least one condition indicating when the defects are to be removed from the web (par. 0120, and 0157-0159); and generate and store registered anomaly data maps for each of the plurality of slit rolls (“defect information” of par 0135, including number, location and size of the defects on the slit rolls).
Regarding Claim 12, in Kashu the process to automatically convert the web into a plurality of slit rolls, the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a first set of anomalies in the previously-generated anomaly data that satisfies a configurable condition in the ruleset (par. 0120); identify a first physical location of the web associated with the first set of anomalies in the registered anomaly data; stop the slitter at the first physical location (par. 0206); cause the slitter to remove material from the web at the first physical location that contains the first set of anomalies; cause the slitter to splice the web; and restart the slitter (par. 0120).
Kashu lacks feature (I) the defect removing device, which controls the slitter to remove the defects being a processor, and feature (II) obtaining via a photo-optic sensor, position information associated with one or more fiducial marks included on a web; and wherein the registering of the defects with physical locations of the web are based on the position information obtained via the photo-optic sensor, and using the position information associated with the one or more fiducial marks to register the anomaly data, and feature III: wherein the defects are selected based on defect classifications detected in at least one anomaly display map associated with the previously- generated anomaly data.
Regarding feature (I), Widner discloses a control system for paper, sheet and box manufacturing systems, in the same field of endeavor as the control system for sheet material of the present invention, which system includes a slitter device that is controlled by a controller 90, which controller 90 controls a slitter based on markings detected by the control system (par 0012, par 0069), and discloses that the controller may be in the form of a processor coupled to a memory device (par. 0070), in order to have the controller and device be able to be controlled via a user interface and connected to a database and be run by known software programming (par 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu by making the device thereof, including the slitter thereof, be controlled by a processor to perform the defect removal function of Kashu, in order to have the controller and device thereof in general be able to be controlled via a user interface and connected to a database and be run by known software programming, as taught by Widner.
Regarding feature (II) Nishimura discloses a web slitting and defect removing device (see abstract of Nishimura) in the same field of endeavor as the web slitting and defect removal device of Kashu and of the present application and discloses that in such an apparatus it is known to include obtaining via a photo-optic sensor (camera 4), position information associated with one or more fiducial marks included on a web (printed codes 2, par 0039); and wherein the registering of the detected information with physical locations of the web are based on the position information obtained via the photo-optic sensor (par 0044), and using the position information associated with the one or more fiducial marks to register the detected data (par 0044-0045), in order to calculate and process a sheet with certainty in a slitting operation (par 0022-0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu by including: obtaining via a photo-optic sensor, position information associated with one or more fiducial marks included on a web; and wherein the registering of the defects with physical locations of the web are based on the position information obtained via the photo-optic sensor, and using the position information associated with the one or more fiducial marks to register the anomaly data, in order to allow for on the fly user controlled adjustment of the machine as taught by Nishimura.
Regarding Feature III: Nakagiri discloses a web slitting and defect removing device (see abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the web slitting and defect removal device of Kashu and of the present application and discloses that in such an apparatus it is known to include the method of use including wherein the defects are selected based on defect classifications detected in at least one anomaly display map associated with the previously- generated anomaly data, (PAR. 0038, under THE BEST MODE section, where it is noted that: “On the production management computer 38, when creating the failure map, it is determined whether the failure map 66A or the point failure 66B. This determination may be made automatically on the production management computer 38 using a defect classification system, and a failure map is displayed on a display device such as a CRT or a liquid crystal display, and an input such as a keyboard or a pointing device is used. A device or the like may be used to input a determination as to whether it is a streak fault 66A or a point fault 66B.”), in order to determine whether or not to cut out the defect based on the classification, par 38 under: BEST MODE section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu by including: the method of use including wherein the defects are selected based on defect classifications detected in at least one anomaly display map associated with the previously- generated anomaly data in order to determine whether or not to cut out the defect based on the classification as taught by Nakagiri.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashu in view of Widner, Nishimura, and Nakagiri as applied to Claim 12 further in view of Pettersson and Huck.
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Kashu discloses all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above.
Kashu discloses a step of connecting portions of the web with one another after cutting of the web, and discloses that this step may be performed manually (par 0120). However, Kashu is silent as to whether this step is a splicing step.
Thus, Kashu lacks the method of use of the device thereof to comprise a user interface in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the user interface includes an input for manually adding a splice to the web.
Pettersson discloses a slitter and joining device and method of use thereof, in the same field of endeavor as the slitter and joining device of Kashu and of the present application, and Petersson discloses steps of slitting a sheet to remove defects therefrom (par. 0064-0065) and subsequently rejoining portions of the sheet after defect removal, where the rejoining/reconnecting includes splicing the sheet (par 0049), in order to ensure that the reconnected (spliced) portions are securely intact with one another, which is ensured due to splicing (par 0031). Also, Huck discloses an automatic splicing machine that includes a user interface “auto-off” switch, which is in communication with a processor (motor control starter, col 9, 70-73), which allows a user to control the automatic or manual splicing, col. 12, 30-50 and discloses that it is beneficial to allow and include the ability to perform splicing either automatically or manually in a single machine, Huck, col 12 lines 35-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu to have the reconnecting step therein, which is said to be manually activated, be a splicing operation, in order to ensure that the reconnected portions are securely intact with one another, which is ensured due to splicing, as taught by Petersson, and to have the splicing device also include a user interface in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the user interface includes an input for manually adding a splice to the web, in order to allow a user to properly control the device and to allow for either auto or manual splicing, as taught via the teachings of Huck.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashu in view of Nishimura Widner and Nakagiri as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Seay.
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Kashu discloses all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above.
Kashu lacks a user interface in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the user interface includes an input for selectively modifying or selectively disabling removing material from the web at the first physical location that contains the first set of anomalies.
Seay discloses a web slitting and defect removing device (See par 0105 and see abstract of Seay) in the same field of endeavor as the web slitting and defect removal device of Kashu and of the present application and discloses that in such an apparatus it is known to include a user interface in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the user interface includes an input for selectively modifying or selectively disabling removing material from the web at the first physical location that contains the first set of anomalies (par 0095, which discloses that the visual detection system, which detects defects may communicate with a user and allow a user to adapt operation of the device selectively to avoid waste selectively based on a controller’s knowledge, and includes a user interface 105, to enable such communication and input by a user, par 0076 and 0094-0095), in order to allow for on the fly user controlled adjustment of the machine (par 0095).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashu by including a user interface in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the user interface includes an input for selectively modifying or selectively disabling removing material from the web at the first physical location that contains the first set of anomalies in order to allow for on the fly user controlled adjustment of the machine as taught by Seay.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/9/26, with respect to the rejections of the elected claims under 102/103 (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. None of the previously cited art includes: “outputting, for display, a portion of at least one of the registered anomaly data maps, the portion being selected based on one or more defect classifications detected in the at least one of the registered anomaly display maps” as now required by claim 1, nor “the method of use including wherein the defects are selected based on defect classifications detected in at least one anomaly display map associated with the previously- generated anomaly data” as now required by claim 10. Therefore, the previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakagiri.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs US 20130003052, Par 0091, 20040101099 par 31, 20040218806 are state of the art control devices for slitters, and the cited sections thereof disclose a display of data maps, and thus disclose pertinent teachings to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724