DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/14/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: winding device, paper leading edge detection unit, taping device, control unit in claim 1, and outer diameter acquisition unit, rotation amount acquisition unit, computation unit, in claim 2..
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. The winding device is interpreted as winding device 106 [0044], the paper leading edge detection unit is interpreted as unit 102 [0044], the taping device is interpreted as device 107 [0044], and the control unit is interpreted as unit 1112 [0049]. The outer diameter acquisition unit is interpreted as unit 103 [0044], the rotation amount acquisition unit is interpreted as unit 104 [0044], and the computation unit is interpreted as unit 111 [0049].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the act of controlling rotation speed based on an arrival direction of the leading edge of the corrugated cardboard base paper with respect to the taping device when the paper leading edge detection unit detects the leading edge of the corrugated cardboard paper base and activating the taping device after controlling the rotation speed, appears to be an abstract idea. Further, as recited in claim 2, the act of calculating the activation starting time based on a detection result, an acquisition result to activate the taping device at the activation starting time, is also an abstract idea, in that the evaluation can be performed in a human mind. The three prong analysis for USC 101 are as follows.
Step 2A, prong 1 (is it an abstract idea)
In the present case, the act of controlling rotation speed based on an arrival direction of the leading edge of the cardboard base paper and then accordingly activating the taping device after controlling the rotation speed, are mere evaluations that can be performed in the human mind i.e. by observing the arrival direction of the leading edge of the cardboard base paper and then appropriately modifying the rotation speed and then activating or using a taping device, are all actions that can be performed based on evaluations in the human mind. The courts have held that evaluations are generally considered abstract ideas because they can be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a))
Step 2A, prong 2 (is it a particular practical application)
In this case controlling or making an evaluation based on the arrival direction i.e. observation of arrival direction and then appropriately activating a taping device and controlling rotation speed, is certainly an application of the abstract idea, but it is not a particular practical application. This is merely a general application of the evaluation and the courts have held that generally “applying” the abstract idea is not considered a particular practical application (MPEP 2105.05(f)). The courts have been clear that there must be a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) and not simply a drafting effort to monopolize it (MPEP 2106.05(e) – the Vanda memo).
Step 2B (is it something more)
Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? In the present case the elements of a winding device, taping device, leading edge detection unit, and control unit all seem to be present in the art.
The dependent claims do not appear to remedy the 101 rejection that the independent claim is subject to.
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.
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(s) 1-4 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (U.S PG Pub 20100163154A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 8, Masuda, drawn also to the art of manufacturing corrugated cardboards using a base paper sheet (Abstract; [0001]), discloses a winding device (rolls 12), a taping device (gluing machine 19) [0074 & 0076]. Masuda also discloses a controller (66) (i.e. control unit) and further discloses a leading edge detection unit (travel distance detector 28). Regarding the limitations of the control unit controlling the rotation speed of the base paper roll based on the arrival direction of the leading edge and then activating the taping device on this basis, the apparatus as disclosed by Masuda would be capable of performing the intended use of the control unit as recited, further the act of automating a task that can be performed manually i.e. observing leading edge arrival direction and controlling rotation speed and activation of taping device on this basis, is held to be obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 (III)). Masuda has further disclosed a mill roll stand (29) [0079] that supports a bottom liner (back liner BL) [0073-0075], medium (corrugated sheet SC [0076], and top liner (face liner FL) [0077].
Regarding claim 2, Masuda has disclosed various sensors (sensors 61, 62, 63), which can function as the outer diameter and rotation amount acquisition units, and further the controller (66) as disclosed by Masuda, in conjunction with the sensors above, can perform the intended use recitations of acquiring outer diameter, rotation amount, and then performing calculations to calculate starting time of the taping device based on evaluated data.
Regarding claim 3, the controller (66) of the Masuda, in conjunction with the sensors (see claim 2 rejection above), can perform the intended use of calculating a speed reduction starting time based on the evaluated data.
Regarding claim 4, Masuda discloses a support member and a hold member (mill roll stand and arms [0079]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S PG Pub 20180345618A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746