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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 31-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities:
“Application No.: Herewith 3” needs to be deleted and a period needs to be added after the word axis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whiting (US Patent No. 2,076,312 A – of Record).
Regarding claim 21, Whiting teaches a cone rolling machine (Fig. 1), comprising a pulling mechanism configured to pull paper from a paper source (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 15, 16; Page 2, Second Colum, Lines 18-26) where the paper passes through a tensioning mechanism (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 16) and a cutting mechanism (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 31-38). The tensioning mechanism is configured to maintain a constant tension in the paper (Page 2, First Colum, Lines 61-73) and the cutting mechanism is configured to cut a cone blank (Page 2, Second Column Lines 27-37). Whiting also teaches a transport mechanism (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 15, 16) configured to receive the cone blank and transport the cone blank, a gluing mechanism (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 11) configured to glue an edge of the cone (Page 2, First Column, Lines 61-73), and a rolling mechanism (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 53, 53’) configured to roll the cone blank in to a cone (Page 3, First Column, Lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 22, Whiting teaches a releasing mechanism that is configured to receive the cone from the rolling mechanism and release the cone into a collection bin (Page 4, First Column, Lines 54-75).
Regarding claim 23, Whiting teaches that the tensioning mechanism comprises a pulley system of at least four pulleys including three stationary pulleys (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20, 21, 23) and a movable pulley (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 17).
Regarding claim 25, Whiting teaches that the transport mechanism uses a pneumatic system (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 77) for holding the cone blank.
Regarding claim 26, Whiting teaches that the transport mechanism uses a pneumatic system (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 77) for holding the cone blank and the pneumatic system would be capable of rotating the cone blank. Regarding claim 28, Whiting teaches that the gluing mechanism applies glue to both sides and faces (Page 2, First Column, Lines 61-73), which would include the lagging edge.
Regarding claim 29, Whiting teaches that the rolling mechanism is a mandrel (Col. 3, First Column, Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 30, Whiting teaches the rolling mandrel uses a pneumatic system (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 77) to receive the cone blank.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiting (US Patent No. 2,076,312 A) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of O’Malley (US 2017/0099869 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Whiting teaches a cutting mechanism (Page 2, Second Column Lines 27-37) including a cutter frame, but does not teach using a steel rule die.
In an analogous art, O’Malley teaches using die cutting with a steel rule die to cut cones (Para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whiting with O’Malley to base the cutting mechanism on die cutting with a steel rule die. This modification will allow multiple stacks of paper to be cut in one pass (O’Malley; Para. [0046]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiting (US Patent No. 2,076,312 A) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tobias et al. (US 2007/0017536 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Whiting does not teach that the gluing mechanism uses a piezo-based valve.
In an analogous art, Tobias teaches using a piezoelectric valve to control the amount of additives tobacco producing apparatus (Para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whiting to use a piezoelectric valve to apply the glue. This modification will allow you to control the exact amount of glue being added (Tobias; Para. [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights