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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges claims to priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 121 for U.S. application 18429492 is a CON of 17/636,906 02/21/2022 PAT 11921454, which is a 371 of PCT/IB2020/058156 09/02/2020, which has PRO 62/896,013 09/05/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/06/2024 and 4/28/2024 were filed after the filing date of the application on 2/01/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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:
“motion assembly” as recited in claim 1 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “motion”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “motion” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the assembly, see paragraph 0176 of the publication).
“cutting subsystem” as recited in claim 1 (first, “subsystem” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the subsystem, see paragraph 0177 of the publication).
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treat (US 5286317) in view of Rietbergen (US 20170275113 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Treat teaches a system for producing a flexible substrate (col. 1 lines 48-61) having a periodic pattern (print, see Figure 2), the system comprising:
a motion assembly (31 and 30), which is configured to move the flexible substrate, along a moving direction;
an sensor (14/153);
a cutting subsystem (20), which is configured to cut the flexible substrate (see Figure 2); and
a processor (40), which is configured to receive the signal from the sensor (col. 3 lines 65-col. 4 line 5), and based on the signal, to determine a cutting position at which to cut the flexible substrate, and to control the cutting subsystem to cut the flexible substrate at the position (col. 3 lines 65-col. 4 line 5).
Treat fails to teach an optical assembly, which is configured to illuminate the flexible substrate with light, to detect the light from the flexible substrate and to derive from the detected light a signal indicative of the periodic pattern.
Rietbergen teaches a flexible substrate motion system (see Figure 4) with an optical assembly (assembly of 440 and 450), which is configured to illuminate the flexible substrate with light, to detect the light from the flexible substrate and to derive from the detected light a signal indicative of the periodic pattern (paragraphs 0007, 0009 and 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Treat to change the detecting system, as taught by Rietbergen, in order to better read the pattern on a flexible substrate to determine the location of the pattern with respect to the motion assembly (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Treat further teaches the periodic pattern comprises a plurality of repeating pattern units, wherein the signal comprises a plurality of pulses indicative of respective pattern units detected by the optical assembly, and wherein the processor is configured to count a number of pulses in the signal (as modified by Rietbergen, using the pattern detection system in Rietbergen, paragraphs 0007, 0009 and 0051 of Rietbergen), and to determine the cutting position in response to detecting that the number of pulses exceeds a preassigned value (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 3, modified Treat further teaches the processor is configured to control the motion assembly to move the flexible substrate at a first speed at a first time interval during which the processor counts the pulses and at a second speed at a second time interval during which the processor controls the cutting subsystem to cut the flexible substrate (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 4, modified Treat further teaches the flexible substrate comprises a fabric having first and second sets of fibers interleaved with one another in accordance with the periodic pattern, and wherein the optical assembly is configured to derive the signal indicative of the periodic pattern from light detected from the interleaved first and second sets of fibers (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 5, modified Treat further teaches the first and second sets of fibers are laid out orthogonally to one another in accordance with the periodic pattern, and wherein the optical assembly is configured to derive the signal indicative of the periodic pattern from light detected from the orthogonal layout of the first and second sets of fibers (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pules, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 6, modified Treat further teaches the first set of fibers is laid out orthogonally to the moving direction of the flexible substrate in accordance with the periodic pattern, and wherein the optical assembly is configured to derive the signal indicative of the periodic pattern from light detected from the first set of fibers (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 7, Treat teaches a method for producing a flexible substrate having a periodic pattern (See Figure 2), the method comprising:
moving the flexible substrate (via 31/30, see Figure 2), along a moving direction (see Figure 2), over a production surface (surface of 26);
detecting from the flexible substrate, and deriving from the detected a signal indicative of the periodic pattern (via 14 and 15, see Figure 2);
determining, based on the signal, a cutting position at which to cut the flexible substrate; and cutting the flexible substrate at the cutting position (via 40, col. 3 lines 65-col. 4 line 5).
Treat fails to teach illuminating the flexible substrate with light, detecting the light from the flexible substrate, and deriving from the detected light a signal indicative of the periodic pattern.
Rietbergen teaches a flexible substrate motion system (see Figure 4) with an optical assembly (assembly of 440 and 450), which is configured to illuminate the flexible substrate with light, to detect the light from the flexible substrate and to derive from the detected light a signal indicative of the periodic pattern (paragraphs 0007, 0009 and 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Treat to change the detecting system, as taught by Rietbergen, in order to better read the pattern on a flexible substrate to determine the location of the pattern with respect to the motion assembly (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, modified Treat further teaches the periodic pattern comprises a plurality of repeating pattern units, wherein the signal comprises a plurality of pulses indicative of respective detected pattern units (as modified by Rietbergen, using the pattern detection system in Rietbergen, paragraphs 0007, 0009 and 0051 of Rietbergen), and comprising counting a number of the pulses in the signal, and determining the cutting position in response to detecting that the number of pulses exceeds a preassigned value (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pules, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 9, modified Treat further teaches moving the flexible substrate at a first speed at a first time interval during which the processor counts the pulses and at a second speed at a second time interval during which the processor controls the cutting subsystem to cut the flexible substrate (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 10, modified Treat further teaches the flexible substrate comprises a fabric having first and second sets of fibers interleaved with one another in accordance with the periodic pattern, and wherein deriving the signal comprises deriving the signal indicative of the periodic pattern from light detected from the interleaved first and second sets of fibers (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 11, modified Treat further teaches the first and second sets of fibers are laid out orthogonally to one another in accordance with the periodic pattern, and wherein deriving the signal comprises deriving the signal indicative of the periodic pattern from light detected from the orthogonal layout of the first and second sets of fibers (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Regarding claim 12, modified Treat further teaches the first set of fibers is laid out orthogonally to the moving direction of the flexible substrate in accordance with the periodic pattern, and wherein deriving the signal comprises deriving the signal indicative of the periodic pattern from light detected from the first set of fibers (as modified by Rietbergen, cutting based on the detected pulses, see abstract and Figure 2 of Treat).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 12/19/2025