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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 17 it appears there is a typographical error and “ has arc shape” should read “has an arc shape”.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kedl et al. US5522785.
Regarding independent claim 17, Kedl et al. discloses a taper-adjustable roller (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a support shaft (18, Fig. 1); a plurality of support sheets arranged circumferentially around the support shaft (14, Fig. 1), circumferential surfaces of the plurality of support sheets at sides of the plurality of support sheets facing away from the support shaft being assembled to form a roll surface (12, Fig. 1), each of the plurality of support sheets having a first end and a second end in an axial direction of the support shaft (end of sheets 14 at 34, Fig. 1), and each of the plurality of support sheets being swingable relative to the support shaft (Column 4, lines 19-23); and a first push member (34, Fig. 1) provided on the support shaft (18, Fig. 1), the first push member being configured to push the first ends of the plurality of support sheets in a substantially radial direction (Column 4, lines 19-23), to move the first ends towards the support shaft and move the second ends away from the support shaft (Column 5, lines 18-21), or to move the first ends away from the support shaft and move the second ends towards the support shaft (Column 5, lines 18-21), enabling a diameter of the roll surface to gradually vary from the first ends to the second ends (Column 5, lines 18-21), wherein the support shaft (18, Fig. 2) is provided with a positioning groove (groove in 22 where positioning portion 20 is located, Fig. 2), each of the plurality of support sheets (12, 14, Figs. 1 and 2) comprises a positioning portion (20, Fig. 2) extending into the positioning groove along the substantially radial direction (positioning portion 20 located in grooves on 22 of support shaft 18, Fig. 2).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedl et al., US5522785 in view of Zhou, US20150210497.
Regarding independent claim 18, Kedl et al. discloses a taper-adjustable roller (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a support shaft (18, Fig. 1); a plurality of support sheets arranged circumferentially around the support shaft (14, Fig. 1), circumferential surfaces of the plurality of support sheets at sides of the plurality of support sheets facing away from the support shaft being assembled to form a roll surface (12, Fig. 1), each of the plurality of support sheets having a first end and a second end in an axial direction of the support shaft (end of sheets 14 at 34, Fig. 1), and each of the plurality of support sheets being swingable relative to the support shaft (Column 4, lines 19-23); and a first push member (34, Fig. 1) provided on the support shaft (18, Fig. 1), the first push member being configured to push the first ends of the plurality of support sheets in a substantially radial direction (Column 4, lines 19-23), to move the first ends towards the support shaft and move the second ends away from the support shaft (Column 5, lines 18-21), or to move the first ends away from the support shaft and move the second ends towards the support shaft (Column 5, lines 18-21), enabling a diameter of the roll surface to gradually vary from the first ends to the second ends (Column 5, lines 18-21) and a converging member configured to press and/or tension the plurality of support sheets towards the support shaft (biasing members 42, 48, Figs. 3B-E), wherein the converging member comprises an elastic rubber sleeve arranged around the roll surface (48, Fig. 3B; Column 4, lines 43-46).
Kedl et al. does not disclose the converging member extending from the first ends of the plurality of support sheets to the second ends of the plurality of support sheets.
Zhou teaches a taper adjustable roller having a converging member (34, Fig. 1) extending from the first ends of the plurality of support sheets to the second ends of the plurality of support sheets (Paragraph [0023], lines 6-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the taper adjustable roller of Kedl et al. to add the converging member covering the roller from end to end as taught by Zhou in order “to provide a uniform surface along the spreader roller” (Paragraph [0023], lines 8-9; Zhou). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the covering sleeve 34 bridges any gap created by the slits 22” (Paragraph [0023], line 10) and would thus prevent debris from entering the roller, as well as ensure a smooth outer surface over which the web can travel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-16 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious the support shaft comprising a recess having an arc shape, and the swing support portion comprises a protrusion with a contact surface that contacts the recess and has an arc shape matching the arc shape of the recess. Kedl et al., US5522785 and Yang, Foreign Patent Document, CN110271896, close prior arts, teach a majority of the features of claim 1, but fail to teach the arc shaped recess in the support shaft with a matching arc shaped protrusion on the swing support portions. It would not have been obvious to modify Kedl et al. or Yang to have such an arc-shaped connection because such a modification would allow the support sheets to have a range of motion beyond what is advantageous for a taper adjustable roller.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 are allowed because they depend from allowable Claim 1 and are further limiting.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of Remarks, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on page 11 of Remarks, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to claim 17, it is noted that Kedl et al. does in fact disclose the claimed groove, and an extension of the support sleeve which extends into the groove as recited above: “the support shaft (18, Fig. 2) is provided with a positioning groove (groove in 22 where positioning portion 20 is located, Fig. 2), each of the plurality of support sheets (12, 14, Figs. 1 and 2) comprises a positioning portion (20, Fig. 2) extending into the positioning groove along the substantially radial direction (positioning portion 20 located in grooves on 22 of support shaft 18, Fig. 2)” (Kedl et al.).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 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. Examiner relies on Zhou to teach the amended feature of claim 18, namely that the converging member extends from one end to another of the support sheets.
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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights