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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9-4-2023 has been entered.
Claims 8-21 were withdrawn. New Claim 22 was presented. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 22 are pending and examined in this action.
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.
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: a drive member for generating the stroke movement in Claim 1; and a take-off device configured to take a stamped lattice off from the stamping device, etc. in Claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-7 and 22 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.
In re Claim 1, “electrically drivable feed devices” is indefinite. It is unclear what the scope of the claims are. According to Applicant’s specification, feed devices “comprises two interacting rotatably driven rolls with a rubber jacket or a different high-friction coating.” As such, the term “feed devices” does not required an electric motor. Further, it is unclear what “electrically drivable” means. Does this mean capable of being driven by an electrical motor or is an electrical motor required by the claim. The claims were interpreted as a roller capable of being driven by an electrical motor. If applicant desires an electrical motor, the examiner suggest adding limitations directed to the structure of an electrical motor in the claims. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1790470 A2 in view of EP 0947306A1 and JP S61127545 A.
The Examine notes that the claims are directed to the structure of the device and the workpiece is not affirmatively claimed.
EP 1790470 A2 teaches a stamping machine for stamping labels and covers for containers made from paper, cardboard, metal, or laminated materials (see Fig. 1) manufactured therefrom from film supplied on a web (see Fig. 1, #3), the stamping machine comprising:
a feed unit (see Fig. 1, #19, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 21, 43) configured to transport the film from a coil (see Fig. 1, #5) to a stamping tool (see Fig. 1, #23), the coil being a web store (see Fig. 1, #5) for the film to be stamped, the feed unit includes a drivable feed device configured to take the film as a film web from the web store and for feeding the film to a stamping device that includes the stamping tool (see Fig. 1, rollers #9/7 and stamping device #23/27, 25, 29, etc.);
the drivable feed device includes two interacting rotatably driven rolls (see Fig. 1, #7/9);
the stamping tool including a stamping punch (see Fig. 1, #23/27), a die on a base plate with guides for the stamping punch during stroke movements, and a drive member for generating the stroke movement of the stamping punch (#27 moves up and down along “Y”);
a take-off device configured to take a stamped lattice off from the stamping device and for supplying the stamped lattice to a stamped lattice holder (see Fig. 1, #47).
EP 1790470 A does not teach the drive member is configured to generate a linear movement of the stamping punch and comprises a servomotor with a spindle, and the spindle is connected to a tool carriage which carries and guides the stamping punch. In other words, while EP 1790470 A teaches that the punch moves up and down, EP 1790470 A does not teach the structure for doing so.
However, EP 0947306A1 teaches that it is known in the art of punches to provide a drive member (see EP 0947306A1, Figs. 1-3, #20) is configured to generate a linear movement of the stamping punch and comprises a servomotor (see Figs. 1-3, #20) with a spindle (see Figs. 1-3, #24/26,27, etc.), and the spindle is connected to a tool carriage which carries and guides the stamping punch (se Figs. 1-3, #18/17, etc.).
In the same field of invention, mechanisms used for moving punches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the mechanism taught by EP 0947306A1 to move the punch in EP 1790470. Doing so is the substation of one know punch movement structure for another know punch movement structure to achieve the result of actuating a punch (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so provides for movement sequences that are quickly defined and changed (see EP 0947306A1, Para. 0002).
Additionally, EP 1790470 A does not teach an electrically driven feed device, wherein the two interacting rotatably driven rolls each include a rubber jacket arranged on a tube, the tubes are each carried by a plurality of bearing rings, the bearing rings of each tube are fastened to a respective shaft such that the tubes are rotatably mounted on the respective shaft via the bearing rings, and a plurality of magnets are fastened on each shaft and arranged parallel to axes of the shafts, the plurality of magnets on each shaft attract the two interacting rotatably driven rolls toward each other over an axial length thereof by mutual attractive magnetic forces.
However, JP S61127545 A teaches that it is known in the art of web feeding to provide an electrically driven feed device (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1, motor #42), wherein the two interacting rotatably driven rolls each include a rubber jacket arranged on a tube (see Fig. 1, #22/26 and abstract which states: both rollers 11, 12 are respectively provided with two rubber magnets 22, 26 molded ring-shaped on two designated places of shafts 21, 25), the tubes are each carried by a plurality of bearing rings (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1. #31/#32, the bearing rings of each tube are fastened to a respective shaft such that the tubes are rotatably mounted on the respective shaft via the bearing rings (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1 showing the tubular shafts mounted on bearing rings #32/31), and a plurality of magnets are fastened on each shaft and arranged parallel to axes of the shafts (see annotated Fig. 1, showing the outer surfaces of each of the magnets are parallel to the axis of the shaft), the plurality of magnets on each shaft attract the two interacting rotatably driven rolls toward each other over an axial length thereof by mutual attractive magnetic forces (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1, #22/#22/#26/#26 and Abstract which states: In this arrangement, both rubber magnets 22, 26 of the above rollers 11, 12 are absorbed to each other by magnetic force to always obtain favorable sheet transport force regardless of influences such as assembling accuracy, vibration and so on).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, rollers for webs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the rollers of EP 1790470 A with the system of JP S61127545 A. Doing so would provide rubber magnets on the rollers which absorb magnetic force to always obtain favorable sheet transport force regardless of influences such as assembling accuracy, vibration and so on (see JP S61127545 A, abstract).
In re Claim 3, modified EP 1790470 A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the spindle is a part of the servomotor (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the spindle of Figs. 1-3 of EP 0947306A1, is a part of the servo motor in that they are part of the assembly used to drive a punch).
In re Claim 5, modified EP 1790470, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the plurality of magnets are fastened spaced apart from the axes of the shafts (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1, #22/#22/#26/#26), and each shaft is configured to be rotated and adjusted independently of the respective interacting rotatably driven roll about axis of the shafts to adjust mutual spacing (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1, #34/36 and translation which states: -- slot 34.36 of both the support plate other half 35.37 -- a long circular hole -- formation -- it is attached in the up-and-down direction in the state where bearing 31.32 had movement to a horizontal direction prevented by ' Re and here, enabling somewhat free movement), the mutual spacing being a distance between one said magnet of the plurality of magnets on one side of said shafts and a corresponding one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets on the other said shaft (the slits #34/36 allow movement in a “vertical direction” between the magnets #26/22).
In re Claim 22, modified EP 1790470, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the two interacting rotatably driven rolls are driven synchronously. When shaft #11 of Ishidate rotates the other shaft, #12, rotates.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1790470 A2 in view of EP 0947306A1 and JP S61127545 A, and further in view of DE 195 36 727 C2.
In re Claim 2, modified EP 1790470 A2, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the spindle is connected to the servomotor by a clutch. However, DE 195 36 727 C2 teaches that it is known in the punching art to provide a clutch (see DE 195 36 727 C2, #17) connected to a servo motor (see DE 195 36 727 C2, #7). In the same field of invention, mechanisms for punch movements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a clutch to the mechanism of modified EP 1790470. Doing so allows the user to limit the torque of the mechanism to protect the structure of a mechanism if there is a jam.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1790470 A2 in view of EP 0947306A1 and JP S61127545 A, and further in view of US 20160251177A to Nutzel.
In re Claim 6, modified EP 1790470, in re Claim 1, teaches a wheel, which is at least partially encircled by a belt (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1, teaches wheel #41 and translation states: Pulley 41 is connected via the synchronous belt which is not illustrated to pulley 44 provided in output axis 43 of stepping motor 42.), the first wheel is fastened to an end of a first one of said interacting rotatable driven rolls (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1, #41), and the belt is drivable by a drive motor (see JP S61127545 A, Fig. 1, #42) such that during operation of the drive motor the belt drives the first wheel (see Fig. 1 and transition which states: P S61127545 A).
Modified EP 1790470, in re Claim 1, does not teach a toothed belt.
However, Nutzel teaches that it is known to utilize a toothed belt (see Fig. 3, #50). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize a toothed belt, as taught by Nutzel. Doing so provides a non-slip belt to prevent slipping (see Nutzel, Para. 0068).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1790470 A2 in view of EP 0947306A1, JP S61127545 A, and US 20160251177A to Nutzel, and further in view of US 2004/0065132 to Tschesche.
In re Claim 7, modified EP 1790470, in re Claim 6, does not teach further comprising, a second toothed wheel fastened to an end of a second one of said interacting rotatable driven rolls, wherein the toothed belt has teeth on both sides an partially encircles the first and second toothed wheels such that during operation of the drive motor, the toothed blet drives the first and second toothed wheels simultaneously.
However, Tschesche teaches a second toothed wheel fastened to an end of a second one of said interacting rotatable driven rolls (see Tschesche, Figs. 2 and Fig. 5), wherein the toothed belt has teeth on both sides an partially encircles the first and second toothed wheels such that during operation of the drive motor (see Tschesche, Fig. 2 and 5, and Para. 0005 and 0038, teaching a double sided belt for driving two toothed wheels fastened to different ends of a roller), the toothed blet drives the first and second toothed wheels simultaneously (see Figs. 1-5, and Para. 0038-0041).
In the same field of invention, drives for rollers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize a double sided toothed belt driving two wheels attached to rollers, as taught by Tschesche. Doing so is the substitution of one known driving arrangement for another known driving arrangement to achieve the result of driving web material (see MPEP 2143, I, b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Berhelter does not teach driven rolls. The examiner notes that the claim fails to require an electrical motor or other structure that drives the rolls. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “driven rolls” are rolls that are capable of being driven. The examiner notes that Ishidate teaches an electric motor that drives rolls (see Ishidate, Fig. 1, #42). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Ishidate does not disclose two driven rollers because only shaft #12 is driven by drive roller. Applicant appears to argue that the rolls must have structure that connects the rolls together and drives the them together. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separate structure for driving each roll individually are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner notes that when Roll #21 of Ishidate is rotated, the shaft #25, etc. rotates as well. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Ishidate, both shafts rotate and are therefore driven rolls. Applicant is using functional language (rolls rotating or being “driven”) and so long as the prior art performs that function, the prior art reads on the claims.
Applicant argues that the modeled in ring shapes at different positions on shafts #21 25 are not jackets. The Examiner disagrees, and notes that Applicant has not provided a special definition for the term “jacket” or required particular structural limitations in the claims. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the molded in ring shape structures of Ishidate cover the shafts and are there “jackets” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. IF applicant understands the term “jacket” to have different structural limitations, the examiner suggest adding those limitations into the claim to define over the art.
Applicant argues that the bearing rings #31 in Ishidate, carry the shafts #11/12 but do not carry the tubes. The examiner disagrees. Because the tubes are on shafts #11/12, the bearing rings “carry” the tubes, in that when the bearings support the shafts the bearings are indirectly supporting, or “carrying” the tubes. The Examiner suggests adding structural limitations to define over the prior art.
No further arguments were presented and therefore no further arguments were responded to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 at 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724