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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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. Therefore, the housing of claim 3 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.
The drawings are objected to because figure 4 depicts character 51a pointing towards the loading strip, however, character 51a is designated for a blade which is not clearly depicted in said figure. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 5, lines 9-10, reads "on which hinge a retaining element”, however it should read “on which [] a retaining element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 26, claim 4, ln. 20-21 reads "on which hinge a retaining element”, however it should read “on which [] a retaining element”. 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.
Claims 2-7, and 9-11 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 2 recites the limitation "the surface of a winding shaft" in lines 5-6 on page 26. The limitation of “a winding shaft” is found in claim 1 and thus the limitation should read “the surface of the winding shaft” or clarification is required. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 3-5, and 11 are also rejected as they depend on claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "insists on a winding shaft" in line 15 on page 27. The limitation of “a winding shaft” is found in claim 1 and thus the limitation should read “insists on the winding shaft” or clarification is required. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "configured to abut on a surface of the latter" in lines 23-24 of page 27. The pronoun of “the latter” renders the scope indefinite as it is ambiguous between “the cutting member” and “the movable accompanying member”. Possible amendments may be made to clarify which element is referred to as “the latter”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cutting device" in lines 1-2 of page 28. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to refer to “the cutting member” found in claim 6, which claim 7 depends on, or if they are attempting to introduce a new element. If the applicant is attempting to introduce a new element, it should be pointed that the introduction of “a cutting device” is introduced in the same claim 7 on lines 4-5. Further clarification is required as to what limitation the applicant is referring to. In regards to the rejection made below; the examiner has opted to refer “the cutting device” found on the first two lines to “the cutting member” as it is understood to be the element which makes the most sense. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the blade of the cutting device" in lines 6-7 of page 29. The applicant introduces “one or more cutting device” and “each cutting device” within the claim and thus makes the limitation of “the blade of the cutting device” indefinite since the applicant does not specify if each of the cutting devices comprises said blade or only one of the cutting devices comprises the blade.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the plurality of strips originated by the longitudinal cutting unit" in lines 1-13 on page 29. The applicant fails to introduce the reference to multiple strips and the limitation of the longitudinal cutting unit is first introduced in claim 9, however, claim 10 does not depend on claim 9. Therefore, clarification is needed as to whether the applicant is intending to have claim 10 depend on the limitations of claim 9 or if they are attempting to introduce a new embodiment, to which the limitations should read “a plurality of strips originated by a longitudinal cutting unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation "so that it faces the accompanying member and is comprised between the latter" in lines 14-16 of page 29. The pronoun of “the latter” renders the scope indefinite as it is ambiguous between “idler roller”, “a path” and “the strip”. Possible amendments may be made to clarify which element is referred to as “the latter”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the tilting arm" in line 21 on page 29. The limitation of “a tilting arm” is introduced in claim 8, to which claim 11 does not depend on. The limitation of claim 11 should read “a tilting arm” or clarification is required. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oravits (US 2013/0200200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oravits discloses a machine for converting coils of a material into coils of smaller size, comprising a loading unit for loading a strip of material into the machine, an accumulation unit of the strip being processed (Pg. 3, ¶28, wherein the understanding that a loading unit and an accumulation unit is known within the art), and a winding unit of the strip on a winding shaft to form respective coils, characterized in that the winding unit comprises (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶17, winder assembly 10 and cores 16, 18):
a revolving disc, which supports two winding shafts of coils (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶17, turret assembly 12 corresponding to a revolving disc and first and second cores 16, 18);
a feeding roller of the strip to a winding position (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶19, lay-on roll assembly 22 having roll 36 contacting and feeding the material);
a movable accompanying member of the strip (Fig. 3; Pg. 2, ¶20, enveloper assembly 38) and a cutting member associated in an operating manner with said feeding roller (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶24, cutting assembly 56),
wherein the feeding roller, the movable accompanying member, and the cutting member are placed on a carriage, movable horizontally between at least one forward or operating position and a retracted or resting position (Fig. 3; Pg. 2, ¶20; & Pg. 3, ¶24 depicting the enveloper 38 and cutting 56 assembly with lay-on roll assembly 22 mounted on a carriage of sorts where character 38 is pointing); and
wherein the movable accompanying member and the cutting member are hinged on the feeding roller axis and are tiltable between a non-operating position and an operating position adapted to operate the crosswise cut of the strip (Figs. 3-4 depicting operating and non-operating positions of the corresponding assemblies).
Regarding claim 2, Oravits discloses wherein the movable accompanying member comprises a body having an arc-of-circle-shaped recess of shape and size such to couple with an at least semi- cylindrical portion of the surface of a winding shaft (Figs. 3-4; Pg. 3, ¶22, enveloper assembly 38 having an arc shaped recess fitting on a semi-cylinder of the core 18).
Regarding claim 5, Oravits discloses wherein the accompanying member comprises a tilting arm, which distally comprises a holding roller, and which is movable between a non-operating position and an operating position, in which the holding roller insists on a winding shaft (Fig. 5B; Pg. 2-3, ¶21; Pg. 4-5, ¶29, actuator 46 corresponding to a tilting arm; Pg. 3, ¶24, guide rollers 54 corresponding to a holding roller).
Regarding claim 6, Oravits discloses wherein the cutting member comprises a blade located on a side of the cutting member which, in an operating condition, faces the movable accompanying member and is configured to abut on a surface of the latter during the cutting of the strip (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶24, cutter 58).
Regarding claim 7, Oravits discloses wherein the cutting device comprises a body (Fig. 6; Pg. 3, ¶25, cutting head 64 corresponding to a body), which extends along a longitudinal axis and comprises a holding roller at one end and, adjacent thereto, a cutting device, which protrudes along a direction substantially perpendicular to the body and carries said blade at its distal end (Figs. 5-6; Pg. 3, ¶24, roller 52 corresponding to a holding roller).
Regarding claim 8, Oravits discloses wherein the carriage comprises a tilting arm carrying a holding roller at one end, the tilting arm being movable between a non-operating position and an operating position in which the holding roller abuts against the feeding roller (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶20, actuator 42; Pg. 3, ¶24, guide rollers 54 corresponding to a holding roller being disposed on the unlabeled carriage).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oravits (US 2013/0200200 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Oravits discloses wherein the recess comprises a housing which develops along its entire extension and in which an accompanying element of the strip slides, the accompanying element being movable between a retracted position and an extended position, in which, by sliding in said housing, it performs a rotation of about 180° about a rotation axis parallel to the rotation axis of the winding shafts (Figs. 3-5; Pg. 2-3, ¶21, side plate 50 corresponding to accompanying element disposed on an unlabeled housing assembly depicted in figure 5B, and wherein positions 50’, 50” define a rotation). Oravits specifically discloses that the arms which all for the rotation or pivoting movement of the housing is not limited to the suggested pivot arms. Therefore, although a rotation of 90° is depicted in the figures, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporating rotating the housing 180°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. Allowing the housing to complete a full 180° rotation would ensure a tighter winding procedure which allow for efficient packaging.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oravits (US 2013/0200200 A1) in view of Prittie (US 2009/0078814 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Oravits fails to disclose a longitudinal cutting assembly. However, Prittie teaches wherein the carriage comprises a longitudinal cutting assembly of the strip, configured to cut the strip fed to the winding unit according to its length, so as to reduce its width and ultimately obtain two or more coils of rewound material (Fig. 16; Pg. 5, ¶103, slitting assembly 42), said longitudinal cutting assembly comprising a crosswise supporting bar comprising one or more cutting devices, wherein each cutting device comprises a vertically sliding blade, the blade preferably being a discoidal blade rotating in an idle manner (Fig. 16-17; Pg. 5, ¶¶104, 108, slitter shaft 54 corresponding to a supporting bar with blade holders 59 having rings 58 corresponding to discoidal blades), and wherein the crosswise supporting bar is movable along a track arranged diagonally on the carriage, between a raised position and a lowered position, the longitudinal cutting assembly further comprising a contrast cylinder, on which the strip is intended to slide and which, in operating condition, is tangential with the blade of the cutting device (Fig. 16-17; Pg. 5, ¶109, wherein the upper shaft 54 can move close or far from the lower shaft 51 corresponding to a contrast cylinder). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a longitudinal cutting assembly to the winding unit to provide a means for decreasing the width of the rolled material.
Regarding claim 10, Oravits discloses wherein the winding unit comprises an idle roller placed laterally and at a higher position relative to the feeding roller, said idle roller being configured to outline a path of the strip, so that it faces the accompanying member and is comprised between the latter and the cutting member (Fig. 1; Pg.3, ¶26, thread over rollers 70-73 corresponding to an idle roller being disposed higher than the lay-on roll assembly 22)., but fails to disclose a longitudinal cutting unit. However, Prittie teaches a longitudinal cutting unit which cuts the stirps into multiple pieces. Rationales to have modified/combined are above and are reincorporated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 4 is allowable because it includes the limitation of the machine according to claim 1 wherein the accompanying element comprises a semicircular portion having a first end and a second end, comprising an arc-of-circle-shaped portion and a protruding portion, which extends along a direction substantially perpendicular to a tangent of the arc-of-circle-shaped portion, and more specifically, wherein the protruding portion comprises a suction/blowing grille, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 4. In most instances found within the cited prior art references, a protrusion is present on the accompanying element towards a tangential end of an arc shaped member. However, the prior art references do not provide the function of comprising a suction type mechanism. Rather, the references merely depict the protrusion as an attachment means to which the accompany element is hinged to. Dependent claim 11 is also distinguished from the prior art as it further limits claim 4 in a way that is not taught or suggested by the prior art.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references refer to machines for converting coils of a material to smaller coils having a revolving disc, movable accompanying members, and cutting devices along with a plurality of rollers to assist with the winding and unwinding process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654