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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 14 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-34 are pending, of which claims 7-8 and 17-18 are withdrawn from consideration as explained in the Election/ Restrictions section below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/764,479, filed on 4 May 2020.
Election/Restrictions
Prior to addressing the Applicant’s traversal, following an examination of the elected claims of Invention I, the examiner has determined that there is no additional burden to further examining the claims of Inventions IV and V as set forth in the Requirement of 15 September 2025. As such, the restriction requirement with respect to Inventions IV and V as set forth in the Requirement of 15 September 2025 is withdrawn, and claims 14, 16, 24, and 26 are being examined along with the claims of the elected Invention I.
Next, Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 14 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all of the claims of these Groups involve an inventive step and are linked to form a single general inventive concept”. This is not found persuasive because this application is not a 371 application, such that the ‘unity of invention’ standard does not apply. Per MPEP 803, there are two requirements for a restriction: (A) the inventions must be independent or distinct as claimed and (B) there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. The Applicant’s argument is not against either of these requirements, and is therefore not persuasive. (Moreover, the ‘distinct’ element is discussed below.)
Second, the Applicant argues that the inventions are not “independent and distinct”. This argument is not persuasive. Merely having some features in common does not cause multiple inventions to fail to be ‘independent or distinct’. MPEP 809.03 acknowledges that linked inventions may be properly subject to restriction, and MPEP 806 also acknowledges that related but distinctly claimed inventions may also be subject to restriction. In this case, each of Inventions II and III is related as a combination with respect to the subcombination of Invention I because Inventions II and III require additional sensors not required by the subcombination of Invention I. A subcombination and a combination are distinct if it can be shown that the combination as claimed does not require the particular of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and the subcombination can be shown to have utility by itself or in another materially different combination (see MPEP 806.05(c)). In this case, the combination as claimed does not require the features of any of claims 2-4, 6, 9-13, 19-23, 28-30, or 32-34, such that the combination does not require the particulars of the subcombination for patentability (note that none of claims 1, 5, 27, and 31 is allowable – however, upon the indication of allowability of any of these claims, the restriction requirement with respect to claims 7-8 and 17-18 will be withdrawn). Moreover, the subcombination has utility by itself because the subcombination does not require either of a line camera and laser triangulation to be able to cut a sheet into a continuous strip. Therefore, Inventions II and III are directed to a combination that is distinct from the subcombination of Invention I consistent with MPEP 806.05(c). Moreover, there is a search burden for the reasons set forth in the Requirement mailed 15 September 2025, and the Applicant does not contend this point. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The examiner notes that upon the indication of allowability of any linking claims (e.g., claim 1 as presently presented), any withdrawn claims depending from the linking claim will be rejoined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Regarding the IDS filed 9 August 2023, the examiner has considered the ‘Notice of Allowance issued in related Korean Application Serial No. 10-2020-7015813, dated June 27, 2023 with partial machine translation, 9 pages’ document only to the extent of the English language translation provided by the Applicant. Any portions of the original document in Korean (or any other non-English language) that are not included in the English language translation have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 1 at lines 17-18 recites, “wherein the one or more sensors or one or more additional sensors are arranged for detecting the cross section or the height profile of the sheet”, and claim 5 at lines 17-18 recites, “wherein the one or more sensors or one or more additional sensors are arranged for detecting the cross section or the height profile of the sheet”. The present drawings only illustrate sensors 51 and 52 that are able to detect the edges 81 and 82 of the sheet 80 (see Fig. 4), but the sensors 51 and 52 are not positioned to detect the cross section or height profile of the sheet. Instead, the sensors 51 and 52 are positioned to detect the edges of the sheet 80. Moreover, the present specification explicitly acknowledges that no “additional sensors” are illustrated (see page 24 of the specification at lines 3-4). Therefore, not only are the illustrated sensors unable to detect the cross section or height profile, but the additional sensors described in the specification as being able to detect the cross section or height profile are also not shown. The above quoted features of claims 1 and 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“cutting members” as recited in claim 1 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “that are arranged for cutting the sheet”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the members);
“a feeding device” as recited in claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for feeding the sheet”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “feeding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“cutting members” as recited in claim 5 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for cutting the sheet”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the members); and
“a feeding device” as recited in claim 5 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for feeding the sheet”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “feeding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device).
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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at lines 10-11 recites, “a control unit that is operationally connected to the one or more drives, the feeding device and the one or more sensors for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members”. This recitation should read – a control unit that is operationally connected to the one or more drives, the feeding device and the one or more sensors, the control unit for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members –. As originally written, the passage appears to require that the control unit is required to be connected to only the one or more drives, and that the feeding device and the one or more sensors are the structures that control the movement of the cutting members. In view of the present specification, though, it is clear that the Applicant intends to require that the control unit is connected to the one more drives, that the control unit is connected to the feeding device, that the control unit is connected to the one or more sensors, and that the control unit is ‘for controlling the movement’.
Claim 1 at lines 19 and 20 inserts the word “detected” into the name of the previously introduced “cross section” and “height profile”. The word “detected” should not be added into the names of the previously introduced features. The Applicant should delete the word “detected” in the name of the previously introduced cross section and height profile. (If the Applicant desires, the Applicant may elect to recite – the cross section detected by … – and – the height profile detected by … –.)
The Applicant should correct this issue in all other pending claims. As one non-exhaustive example, claim 2 likewise includes the term “detected” in the names of the previously introduced cross section and height profile.
Claim 5 begins, “The apparatus”. The claim should begin with “An apparatus” because the claim is an independent claim, such that no apparatus is previously introduced.
Claim 5 at lines 10-11 recites, “a control unit that is operationally connected to the one or more drives, the feeding device and the one or more sensors for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members”. This recitation should read – a control unit that is operationally connected to the one or more drives, the feeding device and the one or more sensors, the control unit for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members – for the same reasons as explained above with respect to claim 1 at lines 10-11.
Claim 5 at line 12 recites, “the detection”. The claim does not explicitly introduce any ‘detection’ prior to line 12, although the claim does recite, “one or more sensors for detecting”. The claim should be amended to introduce “a detection” before reciting “the detection”. For example, the examiner suggests reciting that the one or more sensors are “configured to perform a detection” by detecting the longitudinal edges.
Claim 12 recites, “and terminating” at line 3. This recitation should read – and to terminate – for grammatical consistency.
Claim 12 recites, “one of the longitudinal edges”. This recitation should refer to “the” one of the longitudinal edges, since claim 1 already introduces this one of the longitudinal edges.
Claim 27 at line 2 recites, “to claim 1 ,”. The space between “1” and the comma should be deleted.
Claim 29 at line 7 recites, “the detection”. The claim previously introduces a step of “detecting”, and thus line 7 should refer to “the detecting” (or alternatively claim 29 should be amended to introduce a detection step including detecting).
Claim 30 at line 4 recites, “a transition width”. The transition width is previously introduced (see, e.g., claim 29 referring to “the transition width” at the final paragraph). As such, claim 30 should refer to “the” transition width.
Claim 33 at line 7 recites, “the detection”. The claim previously introduces a step of “detecting”, and thus line 7 should refer to “the detecting” (or alternatively claim 33 should be amended to introduce a detection step including detecting).
Claim 34 at line 4 recites, “a transition width”. The transition width is previously introduced (see, e.g., claim 29 referring to “the transition width” at the final paragraph). As such, claim 34 should refer to “the” transition width.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-6, 9-16, and 19-34 is/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 1 at lines 9-10 recites, “wherein the apparatus is further provided with the second longitudinal edge”. This recitation is indefinite. The preamble of claim 1 is directed to, “An apparatus for converting a sheet into a continuous strip”, where the sheet is introduced as an unclaimed workpiece upon which the claimed apparatus operates. Claim 1 also recites that the sheet has the second longitudinal edge (see lines 2-3), yet lines 9-10 explicitly requires the apparatus to include the second longitudinal edge. Claim 1 is thus indefinite because it is unclear whether “The second longitudinal edge” referred to in lines 9-10 is an edge of the apparatus or an edge of the unclaimed sheet. Put another way, is a new “second longitudinal edge” being referred to in lines 9-10?
Claim 1 at line 12 recites, “the detection of the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for any such detection in the claim, rendering claim 1 indefinite. Claim 1 at lines 8-9 recites, “one or more sensors for detecting the first longitudinal edge”. Not only does this passage not introduce any ‘detection’, but in this passage the one or more sensors are not required to detect the second longitudinal edge. Claim 1 at line 12, though, refers to “the detection” of both the first and second longitudinal edges. The lack of antecedent basis for “the detection” thus renders claim 1 indefinite. Is some new detection being introduced? Is the detection of line 12 only required to be a detection of the first longitudinal edge for consistency with lines 8-9?
Claim 1 at line 18 recites, “the cross section” and “the height profile” of the sheet. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, rendering claim 1 indefinite. The lack of antecedent basis renders claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear whether the sheet must have a single cross sectional value or a single height profile. That is, if claim 1 encompasses the sheet having multiple different cross-sectional shapes, or if claim 1 encompasses the sheet having multiple different height profiles, then it would be unclear which of these cross sections and height profiles are referred to in line 18. Even if claim 1 is interpreted as not requiring that the sheet has a single cross section value and a single height profile, the lack of antecedent basis regardless renders claim 1 indefinite. For example, does claim 1 permit “the cross section” to be any of multiple cross-sectional values, and does claim 1 permit “the height profile” to be any of multiple height profiles? Or, does claim 1 refer to some specific cross section and some specific height profile?
Claim 5 at line 18 recites, “the cross section” and “the height profile” of the sheet. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, rendering claim 5 indefinite. The lack of antecedent basis renders claim 5 indefinite because it is unclear whether the sheet must have a single cross sectional value or a single height profile. That is, if claim 5 encompasses the sheet having multiple different cross-sectional shapes, or if claim 5 encompasses the sheet having multiple different height profiles, then it would be unclear which of these cross sections and height profiles are referred to in line 18. Even if claim 5 is interpreted as not requiring that the sheet has a single cross section value and a single height profile, the lack of antecedent basis regardless renders claim 5 indefinite. For example, does claim 5 permit “the cross section” to be any of multiple cross-sectional values, and does claim 5 permit “the height profile” to be any of multiple height profiles? Or, does claim 5 refer to some specific cross section and some specific height profile?
Claim 9 at line 2 recites, “the volume” and “the mass” of the sheet. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, rendering claim 9 indefinite. It is unclear whether “the volume” and “the mass” can refer to any volume and any mass of the sheet, or whether these features are limited to being a total or cumulative amount of volume and a total or cumulative amount of mass that have passed. For example, it is unclear whether “the volume” and “the mass” would encompass a volume of the sheet and a mass of the sheet, respectively, that have passed within a time period of 30 seconds (as one example), since such a volume and such a mass are not total or cumulative values.
Claim 11 recites, “the entire sheet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 11 indefinite. The relationship between the previously introduce feature of “a sheet” and “the entire sheet” is unclear. Indeed, claim 11 recites, “the volume or mass of the entire sheet”. If “the entire sheet” is not identical to “the sheet”, then it is also unclear what volume and mass are being referred to in claim 11. As such, claim 11 is indefinite.
The term “nearly” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification only mentions the phrase “nearly depleted” without providing a standard for ascertaining the scope of “nearly”. Is the standard a percent of the sheet remaining? Is the standard a time that the machine can continue to operate? Is the standard some other standard? One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine, for example, whether a signal that 10% of the sheet remaining is sufficient to satisfy the ‘nearly depleted feature’. Does the determination that 10% of the sheet is remaining is ‘nearly depleted’ change if the stack is so large that 10% of the sheet still allows the device to operate for several hours?
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new “one of the longitudinal edges” and/or a new “the other of the longitudinal edges” is being introduced. Claim 1 already introduces “one of the longitudinal edges”. The fact that claim 12 refers to an edge of the same name suggests that claim 12 is referring to the same edge. However, the fact that claim 12 does not refer to this edge as “the one of the longitudinal edges” suggests that claim 12 may not be referring to the same edge. Indeed, if claim 12 is not referring to the same edge, it is unclear whether “the other” and “said other” longitudinal edge as recited in claim 12 must refer to the other longitudinal edge already introduced in claim 1. The examiner suggests consistently referring to “the first longitudinal edge” and “the second longitudinal edge” to avoid confusion regarding which edge is being referred to, noting that the first and second longitudinal edges are arbitrary designations. Note also that claim 12 requires that “the detection of the other of the longitudinal edges”, yet claim 1 only requires that the one or more sensors detect “the first longitudinal edge”. Must the other longitudinal edge be the first longitudinal edge?
Claim 19 at line 2 recites, “the volume” and “the mass” of the sheet. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, rendering claim 19 indefinite. It is unclear whether “the volume” and “the mass” can refer to any volume and any mass of the sheet, or whether these features are limited to being a total or cumulative amount of volume and a total or cumulative amount of mass that have passed. For example, it is unclear whether “the volume” and “the mass” would encompass a volume of the sheet and a mass of the sheet, respectively, that have passed within a time period of 30 seconds (as one example), since such a volume and such a mass are not total or cumulative values.
Claim 21 recites, “the entire sheet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 21 indefinite. The relationship between the previously introduce feature of “a sheet” and “the entire sheet” is unclear. Indeed, claim 21 recites, “the volume or mass of the entire sheet”. If “the entire sheet” is not identical to “the sheet”, then it is also unclear what volume and mass are being referred to in claim 21. As such, claim 21 is indefinite.
The term “nearly” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 11.
Claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new “one of the longitudinal edges” and/or a new “the other of the longitudinal edges” is being introduced. Claim 5 already introduces “one of the longitudinal edges”. The fact that claim 22 refers to an edge of the same name suggests that claim 22 is referring to the same edge. However, the fact that claim 22 does not refer to this edge as “the one of the longitudinal edges” suggests that claim 22 may not be referring to the same edge. Indeed, if claim 22 is not referring to the same edge, it is unclear whether “the other” and “said other” longitudinal edge as recited in claim 22 must refer to the other longitudinal edge already introduced in claim 5. The examiner suggests consistently referring to “the first longitudinal edge” and “the second longitudinal edge” to avoid confusion regarding which edge is being referred to, noting that the first and second longitudinal edges are arbitrary designations.
Claim 27 recites, “the cross section or the height profile of the strip”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such a cross section and height profile, rendering claim 27 indefinite. It is unclear whether claim 27 intends to refer to the cross section and the height profile of the sheet (rather than of the strip), since claim 1 refers to the cross section and height profile as being “of the sheet”.
Claim 28 recites, “the volume” of the strip. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 28 indefinite. A strip can have more than one volume, including a volume of a section of the strip, and a volume of the entirety of the sheet that has been cut into a continuous strip. It is unclear whether “the volume” as recited in claim 27 is limited to some particular volume, such as a volume of an entirety of a portion of the sheet that has been cut into a continuous strip.
Claim 30 at lines 1-2 recites, “the step of controlling the movement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, rendering claim 30 indefinite. It is unclear what particular step is being referred to by this recitation, or whether the recitation intends to introduce some new step. Claim 29 introduces steps of “providing a relative movement” and “variably controlling the strip width or the transition width”. It is unclear whether claim 30 is referring to one of these steps introduced in claim 29, or some other step.
Claim 31 recites, “the cross section or the height profile of the strip”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such a cross section and height profile, rendering claim 31 indefinite. It is unclear whether claim 31 intends to refer to the cross section and the height profile of the sheet (rather than of the strip), since claim 5 refers to the cross section and height profile as being “of the sheet”.
Claim 32 recites, “the volume” of the strip. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 32 indefinite. A strip can have more than one volume, including a volume of a section of the strip, and a volume of the entirety of the sheet that has been cut into a continuous strip. It is unclear whether “the volume” as recited in claim 32 is limited to some particular volume, such as a volume of an entirety of a portion of the sheet that has been cut into a continuous strip.
Claim 34 at lines 1-2 recites, “the step of controlling the movement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, rendering claim 34 indefinite. It is unclear what particular step is being referred to by this recitation, or whether the recitation intends to introduce some new step. Claim 33 introduces steps of “providing a relative movement” and “variably controlling the strip width or the transition width”. It is unclear whether claim 34 is referring to one of these steps introduced in claim 33, or some other step.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-16, 22-27, 29-31, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2006159382-A to Takayuki in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0090388 A1 to Toyoizumi et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2001/0003939 A1 to Liu et al.
Regarding claim 1, Takayuki discloses an apparatus (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3) for converting a sheet WA into a continuous strip (see 10 showing the sheet WA converted into a continuous strip via cutting along lines CL), wherein the sheet WA has a sheet body that extends in a longitudinal direction (the longitudinal direction corresponding to a right to left direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 3) and wherein the sheet WA has a first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal edge that extend on opposite sides of the sheet body (the first and second longitudinal edges being right and left edges of the sheet WA relative to Fig. 1), wherein the apparatus comprises a cutting device 30 with one or more cutting members 31 that are arranged for cutting the sheet WA along one or more cutting lines CL (see Figs. 5, 7, and 10) and a feeding device (including conveyor 1) for feeding the sheet WA in a feeding direction (the feeding direction corresponding to a right to left direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 3) and in a feeding plane across the one or more cutting lines (see Figs. 2 and 3, where the feeding plane extends out of the page relative to Fig. 2), wherein the apparatus comprises one or more drives for providing a relative movement between the one or more cutting members 31 and the sheet WA (see the final paragraph of page 4 of the English language translation of Takayuki, which describes multiple drives for providing the relative movement), wherein the apparatus is provided with one or more sensors 42 for detecting the first longitudinal edge (see Figs. 7 and 8; see also page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki at the paragraph beginning ‘The third sensor 42 includes two well-known…’), and wherein the apparatus is further provided with the second longitudinal edge (as best understood, this feature is satisfied because the sheet WA includes the second longitudinal edge, and the apparatus of Takayuki operates on the sheet WA) and a control unit 50 that is operationally connected to the one or more drives, the feeding device and the one or more sensors 42 for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members 31 relative to the sheet WA (see page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki at the paragraph beginning, ‘As shown in FIG. 11, the control unit 50 is connected …’; see also the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the English language translation of Takayuki disclosing that the control unit is operationally connected to the feeding device; see also step S13 in Fig. 12, which includes sending out an additional length of the sheet WA, noting that Fig. 12 is a flowchart of the operation of the control unit 50) based on the detection of the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge by the one or more sensors 42 (see the penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki; see also Fig. 10, showing that the cuts lines CL are formed in two opposing directions, such that the process of the penultimate paragraph of page 5 is repeated multiple times) to create a sequence of cuts in which the cuts are spaced apart in the feeding direction over a strip width and alternately extend in a first cutting direction transverse to the feeding direction and parallel to the feeding plane from one of the longitudinal edges towards and terminate at a transition width short of the other of the longitudinal edges to form a plurality of interconnected sheet sections (see Fig. 10, where the feeding direction is an up-and-down direction along the plane of the page, where the strip width is a vertical distance between cut lines CL, where the feeding plane is a plane of the page, and where the transition width is a spacing from an end of one of the cut lines CL to an adjacent one of the longitudinal edges of the sheet WA), and wherein the control unit 50 is arranged for variably controlling the strip width (the control unit 50 is arranged for variably controlling the strip width by controlling the feeding device per the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the English language translation of Takayuki; here, ‘arranged for’ is satisfied at least because the control unit 50 controls operation of the feeding device, and operation of the feeding device is what determines the magnitude of the strip width).
Regarding claim 3, Takayuki discloses that the control unit 50 is arranged for keeping the transition width constant (see Fig. 10; note also that this recitation is merely a manner of operating the claimed apparatus, and that per the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the English language translation of Takayuki the control unit 50 is arranged to control the transition width by controlling the feeding device).
Regarding claim 4, Takayuki discloses that the transition width is controlled to be equal to the strip width (first, this recitation is merely an manner of operating the claimed apparatus, noting that claim 4 is an apparatus claim and not a method claim -- a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim per Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); in this case, Takayuki discloses an apparatus that is able to control the transition width to be equal to the strip width, since the control unit 50 of Takayuki can control the feeding device to achieve a desired strip width, including a strip width that is equal to the transition width – indeed, Fig. 10 illustrates the transition width and strip width as being nearly equal, such that at most the control unit 50 need only slightly alter the control of the feeding device to achieve equality between the transition and strip widths).
Regarding claim 5, Takayuki discloses the apparatus [sic] (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3) for converting a sheet WA into a continuous strip (see 10 showing the sheet WA converted into a continuous strip via cutting along lines CL), wherein the sheet WA has a sheet body that extends in a longitudinal direction (the longitudinal direction corresponding to a right to left direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 3) and wherein the sheet WA has a first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal edge that extend on opposite sides of the sheet body (the first and second longitudinal edges being right and left edges of the sheet WA relative to Fig. 1), wherein the apparatus comprises a cutting device 30 with one or more cutting members 31 for cutting the sheet WA along one or more cutting lines CL (see Figs. 5, 7, and 10) and a feeding device (including conveyor 1) for feeding the sheet WA in a feeding direction (the feeding direction corresponding to a right to left direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 3) and in a feeding plane across the one or more cutting lines (see Figs. 2 and 3, where the feeding plane extends out of the page relative to Fig. 2), wherein the apparatus comprises one or more drives for providing a relative movement between the one or more cutting members 31 and the sheet WA (see the final paragraph of page 4 of the English language translation of Takayuki, which describes multiple drives for providing the relative movement), wherein the apparatus is provided with one or more sensors 42 for detecting the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge (see Figs. 7 and 8; see also page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki at the paragraph beginning ‘The third sensor 42 includes two well-known…’), and wherein the apparatus is further provided with a control unit 50 that is operationally connected to the one or more drives, the feeding device and the one or more sensors 42 for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members 31 relative to the sheet WA (see page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki at the paragraph beginning, ‘As shown in FIG. 11, the control unit 50 is connected …’; see also the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the English language translation of Takayuki disclosing that the control unit is operationally connected to the feeding device; see also step S13 in Fig. 12, which includes sending out an additional length of the sheet WA, noting that Fig. 12 is a flowchart of the operation of the control unit 50) based on the detection of the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge by the one or more sensors 42 (see the penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki; see also Fig. 10, showing that the cuts lines CL are formed in two opposing directions, such that the process of the penultimate paragraph of page 5 is repeated multiple times) to create a sequence of cuts in which the cuts are spaced apart in the feeding direction over a strip width and alternately extend in a first cutting direction transverse to the feeding direction and parallel to the feeding plane from one of the longitudinal edges towards and terminate at a transition width short of the other of the longitudinal edges to form a plurality of interconnected sheet sections (see Fig. 10, where the feeding direction is an up-and-down direction along the plane of the page, where the strip width is a vertical distance between cut lines CL, where the feeding plane is a plane of the page, and where the transition width is a spacing from an end of one of the cut lines CL to an adjacent one of the longitudinal edges of the sheet WA), and wherein the control unit 50 is arranged for controlling the transition width (the control unit 50 is arranged for controlling the transition width because the control unit 50 controls the cutting device 30 per the paragraph beginning ‘As shown in FIG. 11, the control unit 50 is connected…’ of page 5 and the penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki, such that the control unit 50 controls the cutting member 31 to move vertically downward from the sheet WA as can be seen in Fig. 8, and this downward movement ends the cutting to determine the transition width).
Regarding claim 6, Takayuki discloses that the control unit 50 is arranged for variably controlling the strip width (the control unit 50 is arranged for variably controlling the strip width by controlling the feeding device per the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the English language translation of Takayuki; here, ‘arranged for’ is satisfied at least because the control unit 50 controls operation of the feeding device, and operation of the feeding device is what determines the magnitude of the strip width).
Regarding claim 12, Takayuki discloses that, for each cut of the sequence of cuts, the control unit 50 is arranged for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members 31 to start the cut at one of the longitudinal edges (see Figs. 5 and 10) and terminating the cut at the transition width short of the other of the longitudinal edges based on the detection of said other of the longitudinal edges by the one or more sensors 42 (see Figs. 8 and 10 and the English language translation of Takayuki at the penultimate paragraph of page 5).
Regarding claim 13, Takayuki discloses that the one or more sensors 42 are arranged for moving together with the one or more cutting members 31 in the first cutting direction along the sheet WA to detect the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge in said first cutting direction (see, e.g., Figs. 5, 7, and 8).
Regarding claim 14, Takayuki discloses that the one or more sensors 42 comprises a first sensor 42 located at a first side of the one or more cutting members 31 in the first cutting direction for detecting the first longitudinal edge (the first sensor can be a left sensor 42 relative to Fig. 5) and a second sensor4 2 located at a second side of the one or more cutting members 31, opposite to the first side in the first cutting direction for detecting the second longitudinal edge (the second sensor can be a right sensor 42 relative to Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Takayuki discloses that the one or more drives comprises one or more first drive members for moving the one or more cutting members 31 with respect to the feeding device in the first cutting direction (see the movement of the cutting member 31 between Figs. 5, 7, and 8; see also the final paragraph of page 4 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Regarding claim 16, Takayuki discloses that the one or more drives comprises one or more second drive members for moving the one or more cutting members 31 in a second cutting direction transverse to the feeding plane towards and away from the feeding plane (the second cutting direction being an upward-and-downward direction along the plane of the page relative to Figs. 7 and 8; see the relative movement of the cutting member 31 between Figs. 7 and 8; see also the final paragraph of page 4 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Regarding claim 22, Takayuki discloses that, for each cut of the sequence of cuts, the control unit 50 is arranged for controlling the movement of the one or more cutting members 31 to start the cut at one of the longitudinal edges (see Figs. 5 and 10) and terminating the cut at the transition width short of the other of the longitudinal edges based on the detection of said other of the longitudinal edges by the one or more sensors 42 (see Figs. 8 and 10 and the English language translation of Takayuki at the penultimate paragraph of page 5).
Regarding claim 23, Takayuki discloses that the one or more sensors 42 are arranged for moving together with the one or more cutting members 31 in the first cutting direction along the sheet WA to detect the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge in said first cutting direction (see, e.g., Figs. 5, 7, and 8).
Regarding claim 24, Takayuki discloses that the one or more sensors 42 comprises a first sensor 42 located at a first side of the one or more cutting members 31 in the first cutting direction for detecting the first longitudinal edge (the first sensor can be a left sensor 42 relative to Fig. 5) and a second sensor4 2 located at a second side of the one or more cutting members 31, opposite to the first side in the first cutting direction for detecting the second longitudinal edge (the second sensor can be a right sensor 42 relative to Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 25, Takayuki discloses that the one or more drives comprises one or more first drive members for moving the one or more cutting members 31 with respect to the feeding device in the first cutting direction (see the movement of the cutting member 31 between Figs. 5, 7, and 8; see also the final paragraph of page 4 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Regarding claim 26, Takayuki discloses that the one or more drives comprises one or more second drive members for moving the one or more cutting members 31 in a second cutting direction transverse to the feeding plane towards and away from the feeding plane (the second cutting direction being an upward-and-downward direction along the plane of the page relative to Figs. 7 and 8; see the relative movement of the cutting member 31 between Figs. 7 and 8; see also the final paragraph of page 4 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Regarding claim 27, Takayuki discloses a method for converting a sheet WA into a continuous strip (shown in Fig. 10) using the apparatus substantially according to claim 1 (see the discussion of Takayuki above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 29, Takayuki discloses that the method further comprises the steps of: feeding the sheet WA in the feeding direction and in the feeding plane towards the one or more cutting members 31 (see step S1 in Fig. 12, which includes feeding the sheet WA until detection by sensor 40); detecting the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge with the use of the one or more sensors 42 (see Fig. 8 and step S9 in Fig. 12; where per Fig. 10 the process of cutting is repeated multiple times starting from the first and second longitudinal edges); providing a relative movement between the one or more cutting members 31 and the sheet WA based on the detection of the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge by the one or more sensors 42 to create the sequence of cuts (see Fig. 8 and step S10 of Fig. 12); and controlling the strip width (by the control unit 50 controlling operation of the feeding device; see the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Regarding claim 30, Takayuki discloses that wherein for each cut of the sequence of cuts, the step of controlling the movement comprises the steps of: starting the cut at one of the longitudinal edges (see Fig. 5), detecting the other of the longitudinal edges (prior to the downward movement of the cutting member 31 in fig. 8; see the penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki) and terminating the cut at a transition width short of the other of the longitudinal edges based on the detection of said other of the longitudinal edges by the one or more sensors 42 (see Figs. 8 and 10; see the penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Regarding claim 31, Takayuki discloses a method for converting a sheet WA into a continuous strip (shown in Fig. 10) using the apparatus substantially according to claim 1 (see the discussion of Takayuki above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 33, Takayuki discloses that the method further comprises the steps of: feeding the sheet WA in the feeding direction and in the feeding plane towards the one or more cutting members 31 (see step S1 in Fig. 12, which includes feeding the sheet WA until detection by sensor 40); detecting the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge with the use of the one or more sensors 42 (see Fig. 8 and step S9 in Fig. 12; where per Fig. 10 the process of cutting is repeated multiple times starting from the first and second longitudinal edges); providing a relative movement between the one or more cutting members 31 and the sheet WA based on the detection of the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge by the one or more sensors 42 to create the sequence of cuts (see Fig. 8 and step S10 of Fig. 12); and controlling the strip width (by the control unit 50 controlling operation of the feeding device; see the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Regarding claim 34, Takayuki discloses that wherein for each cut of the sequence of cuts, the step of controlling the movement comprises the steps of: starting the cut at one of the longitudinal edges (see Fig. 5), detecting the other of the longitudinal edges (prior to the downward movement of the cutting member 31 in fig. 8; see the penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki) and terminating the cut at a transition width short of the other of the longitudinal edges based on the detection of said other of the longitudinal edges by the one or more sensors 42 (see Figs. 8 and 10; see the penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the English language translation of Takayuki).
Takayuki fails to disclose:
that the one or more sensors or one or more additional sensors are arranged for detecting the cross section or the height profile of the sheet, and that the control unit is arranged for variably controlling the strip width in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile as required by claim 1;
that the control unit is further arranged for variably controlling the transition width in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile as required by claim 2;
that the one or more sensors or one or more additional sensors are arranged for detecting the cross section or the height profile of the sheet, and that the control unit is arranged for variably controlling the transition width in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile as required by claim 5;
that the method comprises detecting the cross section or the height profile of the strip as required by claim 27;
that the strip width or the transition width is variably controlled in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile as required by claim 29;
that the method comprises detecting the cross section or the height profile of the strip as required by claim 31; and
that the strip width or the transition width is variably controlled in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile as required by claim 33.
Toyoizumi teaches a sheet-processing apparatus that includes one or more additional sensors TS (see Fig. 2), where the one or more additional sensors TS are arranged for detecting the cross section or the height profile of a sheet S (see paragraph 98; see also the flow-chart of Fig. 8), and a control unit (shown in Fig. 6) is arranged for variably controlling processing of the sheet S in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile (see the flow chart of Fig. 8, in particular steps S27 and S33, and paragraphs 124 and 125, which teach that processing is impossible if the sheet is too thick). [Relevant to claims 1, 2, 5, 29, and 33] Toyoizumi also teaches a method that includes detecting the cross section or the height profile of a sheet S (the detection being with sensor TS; see paragraph 98, 124, and 125, along with the flow chart of Fig. 8). [Claims 27 and 31] Toyoizumi teaches that attempting to cut too thick of a sheet can lead to problems with a sheet-cutting mechanism, including breakage of the sheet-cutting mechanism and productivity losses (these problems are recognized at paragraph 126). Moreover, although Toyoizumi teaches that its sheet-cutting mechanism includes a punch and die, it is known in the art that other types of sheet cutting mechanisms including rotating cutter saws are likewise susceptible to problems if cutting too thick of a sheet is attempted (see, e.g., Liu at paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Takayuki with an additional sensor that is arranged for detecting the cross section or height profile of the sheet, and to arrange the control unit to variably control sheet processing in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile, in view of the teachings of Toyoizumi. In this modification, the ‘variably controlling’ sheet processing includes determining that processing is impossible and thus not performing processing on a section of the sheet that is too thick. This modification is advantageous because it provides the control unit with additional information related to the sheet being processed, including the thickness of the sheet, such that the control unit is able to take preventative action (including skipping a cutting operation) if too thick of a sheet is attempted to be processed.
As a result of this modification, Takayuki, as modified, teaches that the control unit is arranged for variably controlling the strip width in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile (relevant to claims 1, 29, and 33) for multiple reasons. First, the claim language ‘arranged for’ is broader than language such as ‘programmed to’. The language ‘arranged for’ is satisfied by Takayuki, as modified, because the control unit of Takayuki, as modified, is in communication with the additional sensor that detects the cross section or the height profile of the sheet, and the control unit also controls the cutting device and feeding device. The structures of the control unit receiving a signal from the additional sensor and the control unit controlling structures responsible for performing a cutting operation as taught by Takayuki, as modified, cause the control unit to be ‘arranged for’ variably controlling the strip width. That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘arranged for’ encompasses the control unit being in communication with and controlling structures responsible for determining the strip width. For example, the control unit is configured to control operation of the feeding device, where additional running out of the sheet between cuts results in a greater strip width. Second, Takayuki, as modified, teaches that the control unit determines that cutting is impossible when the thickness is too great. In this case, the control unit performs controlling so as to not cut the sheet. Since the control unit of Takayuki, as modified, is configured to perform controls including: (i) perform cutting with some strip width, and (ii) to not perform cutting, the control unit is configured to variably control the strip width. For example, the strip width is increased in a section of the sheet where cutting does not occur.
Similarly, as a result of this modification, Takayuki, as modified, teaches that the control unit is arranged for variably controlling the transition width in response to the detected cross section or the detected height profile (relevant to claims 2 and 5) for multiple reasons. First, the claim language ‘arranged for’ is broader than language such as ‘programmed to’. The language ‘arranged for’ is satisfied by Takayuki, as modified, because the control unit of Takayuki, as modified, is in communication with the additional sensor that detects the cross section or the height profile of the sheet, and the control unit also controls the cutting device and feeding device. The structures of the control unit receiving a signal from the additional sensor and the control unit controlling structures responsible for performing a cutting operation as taught by Takayuki, as modified, cause the control unit to be ‘arranged for’ variably controlling the transition width. That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘arranged for’ encompasses the control unit being in communication with and controlling structures responsible for determining the transition width. For example, the control unit of Takayuki, as modified, is configured to control operation of the cutting device, including the transverse positions along the sheet where the cutting member engages and disengages the sheet, where controlling the cutting member to lower into and/or raise up from the sheet during a cut determines the transition width. Second, Takayuki, as modified, teaches that the control unit determines that cutting is impossible when the thickness is too great. In this case, the control unit performs controlling so as to not cut the sheet. Since the control unit of Takayuki, as modified, is configured to perform controls including: (i) perform cutting with some transition width, and (ii) to not perform cutting, the control unit is configured to variably control the transition width by selecting two different options for the transition width, one of which options when no cutting is performed.
Claim(s) 9-11, 19-21, 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayuki as modified by Toyoizumi as applied to claims 1, 5, 27, and 31 above, respectively, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0102505 A1 to Ikeuchi et al.
At least for purposes of this rejection, Takayuki, as modified, is considered as failing to disclose that the control unit is arranged for calculating the volume or the mass of the sheet that has passed the one or more sensors or the one or more additional sensors from the cross section or the height profile as required by claims 9 and 19; the control unit is arranged for sending a notification signal to an operator when a predetermined value for the volume or the mass has been reached as required by claims 10 and 20; the sheet is supplied to the apparatus from a stack, wherein the predetermined value is related to the volume or mass of the entire sheet in the stack, and wherein the control unit is arranged to provide the notification signal to alert the operator that the stack is nearly depleted as required by claims 11 and 21; and that the method further comprises calculating the volume of the strip and providing a signal to alert the operator as required by claims 28 and 32.
Ikeuchi is in the field of endeavor of sheet processing, and Ikeuchi is further pertinent to the problem of determining when a supply of sheet material is near depletion (see the Abstract). Ikeuchi teaches a control unit 36 arranged for calculating the volume or the mass of a sheet that has passed a sensor 494 from the cross section or the height profile (see the ‘remaining paper volume calculator 366’ of the control unit 36 in Fig. 1; see also steps S115-S117 of the flow chart of Fig. 8; Ikeuchi continuously reduces the remaining volume, and therefore Ikeuchi calculates the volume of the sheet that has passed the sensor 494 as the value by which the remaining paper volume has decreased; alternatively, the value detected by the sensor 494 is treated by Ikeuchi as a volume, since this volume is subtracted from a remaining volume per paragraph 99). [Claims 9 and 19] Ikeuchi teaches that the control unit 36 is arranged for sending a notification signal to an operator when a predetermined value for the volume or the mass has been reached (the signal sent by the control unit 36 to the display unit per paragraph 97 is a ‘notification signal’; the predetermined value corresponds to the ‘certain load thickness’ that triggers the transition to the remaining paper volume calculating process mode – see steps S107 and S110 in Fig. 7). [Claims 10 and 20] Ikeuchi teaches that the sheet is supplied to the apparatus from a stack (see Fig. 2), wherein the predetermined value is related to the volume or mass of the entire sheet in the stack (the predetermined value is a ‘certain load thickness’ value determined by sensor 50 per paragraphs 47 and 50, which is relative to the volume or mass of the entire stack), and wherein the control unit 36 is arranged to provide the notification signal to alert the operator that the stack is nearly depleted (see step S117 in Fig. 8 and paragraph 97) [Claims 11 and 21] Ikeuchi teaches that the method further comprises calculating the volume of the strip (as best understood, this recitation encompasses a value of the sheet; step S116 in Fig. 8 calculates a remaining value of the sheet, thus satisfying this limitation as best understood; alternatively, the value detected by sensor 494 is considered as a volume per paragraph 99, since the value is subtracted from a volume to obtain a remaining volume) and providing a signal to alert the operator (the alter being provided by the control unit 36 to the display per paragraph 97 and step S117 in Fig. 8). [Claims 28 and 32] Ikeuchi teaches that a configuration of the control unit that allows for determining a remaining volume of sheet material (see the Abstract and Fig. 8 at step S116), which in turn enables the apparatus to inform a user of the remaining volume of sheet material (see step S117) so that a user may take appropriate action in response to the level of remaining sheet material running low (e.g., re-loading the apparatus, or stopping processing of the sheet material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control unit of Takayuki, as modified, which control unit already receives information related to sheet thickness, to calculate a remaining volume of sheet material and to provide a signal to a display to indicate to a user the remaining volume of sheet material in the manner disclosed by Ikeuchi. This modification is advantageous because it provides a user of the apparatus with information related to the running status of the apparatus, such that a user can determine when it is necessary to re-load the apparatus with additional sheet material and/or when the user should cause the apparatus to cease sheet processing operations. Moreover, in Takayuki, as thus modified, the control unit is ‘arranged for’ performing each function recited in the claims at issue because the control unit receives data related to the thickness of the sheet material. The phrase “arranged for” is broader than, e.g., ‘programmed to’, such that “arranged for” encompasses being operatively connected to structure that provide the control unit with necessary inputs to be able to perform the recited functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724