DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 9/30/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 12-16 and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome most the claim objections and all the § 112(b) rejections as set forth in the office action of 6/3/2025. Therefore, the § 112(b) rejections and most of the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see 8-9, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that NAGANO, ORLANDI, EIBAN, MALINI, DUSSAULT, CONNOLLY, AINS and SMYCZEK do not teach or suggest the newly amended limitation of “a printing signal interface configured to capture a control signal related to the outputting of the printed tube”. The Examiner agrees that the prior art references do not teach the newly amended claim limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the printed tube” should read “the cut and printed tube” in line 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 14-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, in view of Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE.
Regarding claim 1, NAGANO teaches: A device for providing a tube arranged or arrangeable in a circumferentially closed manner around a prolate object (NAGANO teaches a device for providing a tube arranged or arrangeable in a circumferentially closed manner around an object [Abstract; Fig. 1]), as a marking of the object (NAGANO teaches the tubes are used for labeling the objects [Col. 1, lines 5-10]), the device comprising: . . . a material interface configured to receive a printed tube output . . . in the longitudinal direction (NAGANO teaches a sensor is disposed above the guide roller (17) in order to detect a predetermined marking point printed on the web material (1) [Col. 3, lines 6-9].); a cutting unit configured to cut through the printed tube at a cutting position of the tube in a transverse direction to the longitudinal direction of the printed tube (NAGANO teaches a cutting unit (4) configured to cut through the printed tube at a cutting position of the tube in a transverse direction to the longitudinal direction of the tube [Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 3-6].), at least at the cutting position an upper half of the printed tube and a lower half of the printed tube, at an end and/or on an inside, abut each other or are connected to each other (NAGANO teaches the cutting unit has at least two cutting positions which are at an upper half of the tube and at a lower half of the tube [Fig. 2; Col. 3, lines 30-42]); an opening unit configured to open upper and lower halves of the printed tube (NAGANO teaches an opening unit (10) configured to open upper and lower halves of the tube (1) [Figs. 1, 4B, 5A-5B; Col. 3, lines 42-48; Col. 5, lines 44-53]), the opening unit comprising at least two opening rollers each rotatable about a rotational axis (NAGANO teaches the opening unit (10) comprises at least two opening rollers (12b, 25) and each roller is rotatable about a rotational axis[Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 42-53; Col. 4, lines ]), a respective rotational axis being perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and to the transverse direction (NAGANO shows the respective rotational axis being perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and to the transverse direction [Fig. 1]); . . . , wherein the at least two opening rollers abut against the cut and printed tube on opposite sides in the transverse direction or each is configured to drive a belt abutting against the cut and printed tube on opposite sides in the transverse direction (NAGANO shows the at least two opening rollers (12b) would inherently abut against the cut and printed tube on opposite sides in the transverse direction and each is configured to drive a belt abutting against the cut and printed tube on opposite sides in the transverse direction [Fig. 1]).
NAGANO does not explicitly teach: a printer configured to output a printed tube in a longitudinal direction or a material interface configured to receive a printed tube output from a printer in the longitudinal direction or a printing signal interface configured to capture a control signal related to the outputting of the printed tube.
In the same field of endeavor, labeling devices, SCHANKE teaches sleeves (102) are printed on upstream by a separate machine [Col. 9, lines 49-54; Col. 5, lines 66-67 – Col. 6, lines 1-4]. SCHANKE teaches there may be a presence sensor that detects the presence of a sleeve on the carrier in the position along the feed path which the sleeve is removable [Col. 6, lines 66-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-5]. The Applicant’s specification stated that the “printing signal interface” may be “for example sensor for detecting the printed tube” [0299]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO, by having a printer to output a printed tube in a longitudinal direction and have a presence sensor, as suggested by SCHANKE, in order to provide identifying information [Col. 9, lines 51-52] and to prevent the operation cycle from being performed without a sleeve present [Col. 7, lines 9-10].
Regarding claim 2, NAGANO teaches: wherein the opening rollers abut against the cut and printed tube in pairs at locations that are opposite to each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (NAGANO teaches the opening rollers (12b; 25) abut against the cut and printed tube in pairs at locations opposite of each other [Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 3, NAGANO teaches: further comprising: an object centering unit configured to arrange the prolate object, in alignment or coaxially with the cut and printed tube (NAGANO teaches an object centering unit (32) configured to arrange the object in alignment with the cut and printed tube [Col. 4, lines 37-42]).
Regarding claim 4, NAGANO teaches: wherein the opening rollers are configured to push the cut and printed tube along the longitudinal direction over the prolate object for circumferentially closed arrangement around the prolate object (NAGANO teaches the opening rollers (12b, 25) are configured to push the cut and printed tube along the longitudinal direction over the object [Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 5, NAGANO teaches: further comprising: at least one sensor configured to capture a control signal related to the providing of the marking (NAGANO teaches a sensor is disposed above the guide roller in order to detect a predetermined marking point printed on the web material [Col. 3, lines 5-11]).
Regarding claim 6, NAGANO teaches: further comprising: a roller drive configured to synchronously rotate the opening rollers about the respective rotational axis (NAGANO teaches that the drive pulley (9) rotates the pulleys (12a, 12b) to rotate in a manner substantially the same as the belt members (5) [Col. 3, lines 45-55]), wherein the opening rollers adjacent to the cut and printed tube on opposite sides in the transverse direction are configured to rotate in opposite directions (NAGANO teaches the opening rollers are on opposite sides in the transverse direction [Fig. 1] and would inherently operate in opposite directions similar to the drive pulleys (9) [Fig. 2]).
Regarding claim 10, NAGANO teaches: further comprising: a holding-flat unit configured to prevent buckling of the cut and printed tube in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and/or in a direction perpendicular to the transverse direction (NAGANO teaches a holding-flat unit (5) configured to convey the tubular member straightforward and secured fed to the suction belt members (11) [Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 18-23]).
Regarding claim 14, NAGANO teaches: further comprising: a reduced pressure opening unit comprising at least one suction cup (NAGANO teaches a pair of vacuum chambers (13) which are disposed inside each suction belt member (11) to be associated with the vacuum ports (11a) of the suction belt members (11) [Fig. 4B; Col. 3, lines 45-48]); each of which is configured to be brought into contact with the upper half of the cut and printed tube and/or the lower half of the cut and printed tube, respectively, and each of which is configured to separate the upper half of the cut and printed tube and the lower half of the cut and printed tube at least partially from each other by a reduced pressure in the respective suction cup for opening the cut and printed tube (NAGANO teaches each is configured to be brought into contact with the upper half or lower half of the tube and configured to separate the upper and lower half of the tube at least partially from each other [Figs. 5A-5B; Col. 3, lines 57-61]).
Regarding claim 15, NAGANO teaches: A system for providing a tube arranged or arrangeable in a circumferentially closed manner around a prolate object (NAGANO teaches a device for providing a tube arranged or arrangeable in a circumferentially closed manner around an object [Abstract; Fig. 1]), as a marking of the object (NAGANO teaches a device for providing a tube arranged or arrangeable in a circumferentially closed manner around an object [Abstract; Fig. 1]), . . . .
NAGANO does not explicitly teach: a printer configured to output a printed tube in a longitudinal direction or wherein the material interface is arranged, relative to the printer, to receive the printed tube output from the printer as the printed product.
In the same field of endeavor, labeling devices, SCHANKE teaches sleeves (102) are printed on upstream by a separate machine [Col. 9, lines 49-54; Col. 5, lines 66-67 – Col. 6, lines 1-4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO, by having a printer to output a printed tube in a longitudinal direction, as suggested by SCHANKE, in order to provide identifying information [Col. 9, lines 51-52].
Regarding claim 18, NAGANO teaches: wherein the cutting unit is configured to cut through the printed tube at the cutting position of the printed tube in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the printed tube (NAGANO teaches a cutting unit (4) configured to cut through the printed tube at a cutting position of the tube in a transverse direction to the longitudinal direction of the tube [Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 3-6].).
Regarding claim 20, NAGANO teaches: wherein the at least one suction cup comprises at least two suction cups (NAGANO teaches a plurality of vacuum ports (11a) are defined along the entire length [Col. 3, lines 42-49]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, and Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eiban (U.S. 6,923,884), hereinafter EIBAN.
Regarding claim 6, NAGANO and SCHANKE teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: further comprising: a roller drive configured to synchronously rotate the opening rollers about the respective rotational axis, wherein the opening rollers adjacent to the cut and printed tube on opposite sides in the transverse direction are configured to rotate in opposite directions. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, printed tubes, EIBAN teaches signals of the sensor make possible for the electro servo drive of the forward feed rollers a positionally-accurate transportation of the tubular label belt [Col. 4, lines 15-19]. EIBAN teaches the forward feed rollers (3), the cutting mechanism (4), the conveyor belts (12a, 12b), as well as the acceleration rollers (28) have their own electromechanical servo drives, which, by means of a common control unit (14), permit an operating sequence of the stated devices in a manner synchronous in speed and position [Col. 3, lines 58-65]. EIBAN teaches the servo drive (15) controls the belts and rollers [Coll 4, lines 1-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO and SCHANKE, by having a roller drive to rotate the rollers, as suggested by EIBAN, in order to accurately position the printed tube [Col. 4, lines 1-7].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, and Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Eiban (U.S. 6,923,884), hereinafter EIBAN.
Regarding claim 7, NAGANO and SCHANKE are silent as to: wherein the roller drive is configured to arrange the marking on the object in a circumferentially closed manner or to provide the marking for circumferentially closed arrangement, depending on the control signal for outputting the printed tube and/or the control signal for providing the marking. In the same field of endeavor, printed tubes, EIBAN teaches that after being cut with the marking, the cut and printed sleeve is driven into the flattening conveyors (12a, 12b) and which is driven by the electrical servo drive (16) and is synchronous in speed with the servo drive of the flat belts (11a) [Col. 4, lines 24-53]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO and SCHANKE, by having a roller drive configured to arrange the sleeve in a closed manner after the cutting and marking sensor, as suggested by EIBAN, in order for the sleeve to be accelerated vertically downward and brought into the calibration dimension of the labeling machine [Col. 4, lines 30-35].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, and Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malini (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0235613), hereinafter MALINI.
Regarding claim 8, NAGANO and SCHANKE teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising: two carriages longitudinally movable in the transverse direction, wherein on each of the two carriages at least one of the at least two opening rollers is mounted rotatably about the respective rotational axis, and wherein a distance between the two opening rollers of the respective pair of rollers and/or a pressing force of the opening rollers on the cut and printed tube depends on a captured or measured width of the tube. In the same field of endeavor, printed tubes, MALINI teaches two carriages with rollers that rotate the rollers and are movable that stretch the film [0092-0093; Fig. 10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO and SCHANKE, in order to stretch the film evenly and keep the printing on the film centered [0092].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE, and Malini (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0235613), hereinafter MALINI, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DUSSAULT (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0220832), hereinafter DUSSAULT.
Regarding claim 9, NAGANO, SCHANKE and MALINI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising: a width sensor disposed between a holding-flat unit and the opening unit or between pairs of rollers of the opening unit, the width sensor being configured to measure a width of the printed tube prior to the opening and/or during the opening. In the same field of endeavor, sensors, DUSSAULT teaches that a skilled artisan will appreciate that the apparatus also includes sensors that can determine the length, width and height of the load. The sensors are in communication with a controller such as a computer for example in order to send data thereto [0057]. DUSSAULT teaches the controller is in communication with the film dispensing and cutting assembly, the film conveying device and with the film stretch and bagging device so as to signal the foregoing to operate in a certain way depending on the data received from the sensor or sensors [0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO, SCHANKE and MALINI, by having a width sensor, as suggested by DUSSAULT, in order to signal the foregoing to operate in a certain way depending on the data received from the sensor or sensors [0057].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, and Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Connolly (U.S. 4,922,683), hereinafter CONNOLLY.
Regarding claim 11, NAGANO and SCHANKE teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the holding-flat unit and the cutting unit are driven by a common drive. In the same field of endeavor, printed tubes, CONNOLLY teaches the concept of one motor is used to control a cutting mechanism and web feet transport that flattens the web [Col. 8, lines 38-57]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO and SCHANKE, by having one motor control both the cutting mechanism and flattening device, as suggested by CONNOLLY, in order to operate the cutting operation to restart [Col. 8, lines 45-49].
Claim(s) 12-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, and Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ains et al. (FR 2964366 A1), hereinafter AINS.
Regarding claim 12, NAGANO and SCHANKE teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the holding-flat unit or an additional unit between the holding-flat unit and the opening unit comprises a heating element configured to heat the cut and printed tube on one side. In the same field of endeavor, printed tubes, AINS teaches heating sleeves on at least a portion of the sleeve/sheath [pg. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO and SCHANKE, by heating a portion of the sheath/sleeve, as suggested by AINS, in order to reduce residual deformation [pg. 3].
Regarding claim 13, AINS further teaches: wherein the opening unit or an additional unit between the holding-flat unit and the opening unit comprises two heating elements configured to press on the tube and/or conduct heat to opposite sides of the cute and printed tube in the transverse direction (AINS teaches the heating means may be of any known and suitable type, such as resistance heating, hot air heating, etc. [pg. 4]. AINS teaches the heating means can be presented, for example, in the form of an enclosure through which the sheath passes prior to its installation, or the sleeve or the sleeve with the stretching means [pg. 4]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO and SCHANKE, by having two heating elements, as AINS has stated any heating means can be presented and is a known option in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Regarding claim 19, AINS further teaches: wherein the heating element is configured to heat the cut and printed tube on an upper half of the cut and printed tube or the lower half of the cut and printed tube, for local deformation of the tube comprising local contraction of the cut and printed tube (AINS teaches heating sleeves on at least a portion of the sleeve/sheath [pg. 3]. AINS also teaches the whole sleeve may be heated [pg. 3]. AINS teaches that heating the sleeve increases its deformation capabilities while reducing the residual deformation after stretching [pg. 3].).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (U.S. 6,016,641), hereinafter NAGANO, and Schanke et al. (U.S. 9,944,422), hereinafter SCHANKE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smyczek et al. (U.S. 5,444,466), hereinafter SMYCZEK.
Regarding claim 17, NAGANO and SCHANKE teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the prolate object comprises a conductor. In the same field of endeavor, tubes, SMYCZEK teaches conductors in tubes [Col. 8, lines 14-17]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify NAGANO and SCHANKE, by having the object be a conductor, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the shortened statutory period, the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the advisory action mailing date. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule, 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748