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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. 60 recites the “actuators 13, 14”, however, Paras. 55-67 recites “actuating means 13, 14”. If they are the same, the terminologies should be used the same throughout specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 limitation “a first motion transmission mechanism…a second motion transmission mechanism” in the last paragraph; and “a control and drive unit” in the last paragraph invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because for an example, the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (mechanism) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder (mechanism) is not preceded by a structural modifier. The "mechanism" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "motion transmission" preceding mechanism describes the function, not the structure of the mechanism. Similarly analysis with other limitations.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves 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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: delete a space between roller and period “.” in the last line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, the second last paragraph recites “a first motion transmission mechanism…a second motion mechanism” are new matter because the original specification are not supported. Reading the original specification, there is no language “mechanism” discussed. Thus, it is new matter since it is unclear structures of the “mechanism” be to acknowledge that the mechanisms are the same as first and second motion transmission means.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent from rejected parent claim.
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 1-4 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, the second last paragraph recites “a first motion transmission mechanism…a second motion mechanism” are failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. These mechanisms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see the discussion above). See MPEP 2181, Section II and Subsection A, these mechanisms must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. Reading at Para. 64 of Applicant’s specification “motion transmission means T1 …motion transmission means T2” without providing any guidance or structure of the motion transmission means T1 and the motion transmission means T2. Therefore, it is unclear and failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. What are the T1 and T2? Are the mechanisms same as motion transmission means T1 and motion transmission means T2?
Claim 1, the second last paragraph “an actuator configured to control rotation of the first cutting roller … and to control rotation of the second cutting roller …” is unclear (until claim 4 that recites 2 actuators) and conflicting to the original specification. As it is written, it appears only a single actuator to control both first and second rollers, however, Paras. 59-60 discusses two actuators 13, 14 respectively control the first and the second cutting rollers.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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. Speed
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 6544375) in view of Jackson (US 2010/0101386 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Schmitz shows a machine (Figure 1) for manufacturing absorbent sanitary articles (see the background “…diapers”), comprising:
at least one cutting unit (two cutting rollers 2, 3 and an anvil roll 1, Figure 1) configured to divide a continuous web into segments to be used for manufacturing the absorbent sanitary articles;
the at least one cutting unit comprising an anvil member (1) and a cutting member (2-3, Figure 1) positioned adjacent the anvil member to operatively act with the anvil member to cut the continuous web positioned between the anvil member and the cutting member;
the anvil member comprising a drum (Figure 1), rotatable about a drum axis of rotation, for engaging the continuous web and the segments obtained therefrom;
a control and drive unit (inherent limitation, in order to run this machine with different speeds, see abstract) configured to control movement of the cutting member at least as a function of a rotation speed of the drum (see Col. 3, lines 1-17 for first and second web portions cut being equal and unequal for 1st and 2nd embodiments);
the cutting member comprising a first cutting roller (2) and a separate second cutting roller (3), both actuatable to operatively act with the drum to cut the continuous web, with the first cutting roller being rotatable about a first axis of rotation and the second cutting roller being rotatable about a second axis of rotation (Figure 1).
However, it is unclear how the actuators and the control and drive unit of Schmitz work together to perform each of the first rotary motion of the first cutting roller (speed) and the second rotary motion of the cutting roller (speed) having respective accelerations and decelerations.
Jackson shows actuators (201, 203) configured to control rotation of a first cutting roller (18) in rotation about the first axis of rotation via a first motion transmission mechanism (for an example, gear 74, bearings 66, 68 and a shaft 62, Figure 3) and to control rotation of a second cutting roller (20) in rotation about the second axis of rotation via a second motion transmission mechanism (see the discussion above);
a control and drive unit (200, Figure 1) being is configured to selectively command the actuators to control the rotation of the first cutting roller when a respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within a first size range of the absorbent sanitary articles (Figure 1 and Paras. 21-22) and to control the rotation of the second cutting roller when the respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within a second size range of the absorbent sanitary articles (Figure 1 and Paras. 21-22), and to impart to the first cutting roller a first rotary motion (speed) when the respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within the first size range and to impart to the second cutting roller a second rotary motion (speed) when the respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within to the second size range; each of the first rotary motion and the second rotary motion having respective accelerations and decelerations (Para. 22 “Web cutting apparatus 10 may create signatures having different cut lengths by rotating cylinder bodies 19, 21 at various rotational frequencies for different signature lengths”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the machine of Schmitz to have a controller to independently control cutting rollers, as taught by Jackson, in order to allow the machine can create different cut lengths by rotating the cutting rollers at various rotational frequencies for different lengths as discussed in Paras. 15 and 22 of Jackson.
Regarding claim 2, the modified machine of Schmitz shows that the control and drive unit is configured to be externally programmed to receive instructions from a user relating to the first rotary motion and the second rotary motion (as this is written, it is unclear how the user enters instructions to the control and drive unit; see Figure 5 and Para. 46 of Jackson, the scenario parameters 100, 102, 104, 106, 108 that are inherently entered by a user to the system, in order to allow the machine to cut the desired length L…).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified machine of Schmitz shows that the actuators are configured to rotate the first cutting roller or, alternatively, to rotate the second cutting roller (see the discussion above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified machine of Schmitz shows that the actuators comprise a first actuator for actuating the first cutting roller and a second actuator for actuating the second cutting roller (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 6544375) in view of Jackson (US 2010/0101386 A1) and Thomas (JP 2007253321 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 5, the modified machine of Schmitz a method for making absorbent sanitary articles (see the discussion in claims 1-4 above), comprising:
providing a cutting unit comprising an anvil member and a cutting member positioned adjacent the anvil member to operatively act with the anvil member to cut a continuous web positioned between the anvil member and the cutting member (see the discussion in claim 1 above);
providing that the cutting member comprises a first cutting roller and a separate second cutting roller, both actuatable to operatively act with the anvil member to cut the continuous web, with the first cutting roller being rotatable about a first axis of rotation and the second cutting roller being rotatable about a second axis of rotation;
a step of cutting the continuous web to divide the continuous web into individual segments (101, 102, 103… of Schmitz) for use manufacturing the absorbent sanitary articles (Figure 1 of Schmitz); 19
the step of cutting comprising selectively rotating either the first cutting roller when a respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within a first size range of the absorbent sanitary articles or the second cutting roller when the respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within a second size range of the absorbent sanitary articles (see the discussion in claim 1 above), and imparting to the first cutting roller a first rotary motion when the respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within the first size range and imparting to the second cutting roller a second rotary motion when the respective size of the absorbent sanitary articles is within the second size range; each of the first rotary motion and the second rotary motion having respective accelerations and decelerations (see the modification in claim 1 above).
however, the modified machine of Schmitz fails to discuss in the step of cutting, when rotating one of the first cutting roller or the second cutting roller, holding stationary the other of the first cutting roller or the second cutting roller.
Thomas discusses in the step of cutting, when rotating one of first cutting roller or second cutting roller, holding stationary the other of the first cutting roller or the second cutting roller (Figures 1-2 and page 7 “Assuming a material web 30 conveyed at a constant speed, a format length on the order of or greater than the circumferential length of the rotating elements 14, 24 must be produced. , One or both of the rotating elements 14, 24 can be driven asynchronously at a variable speed. After that cut, the corresponding rotating element is stopped again to such an extent that the desired format length is advanced before another separate cut is made”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the machine of Schmitz to have a step of rotating one of first cutting roller or second cutting roller, holding stationary the other of the first cutting roller or the second cutting roller, as taught by Thomas, in order to allow the machine can create and cut a desired format length as discussed in Page 7 of Thomas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new arts above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 11/18/2025