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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/15/25 has been entered.
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 3, 4, and 13 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.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 13, it is unclear whether the coupling/uncoupling device is a single device or two separate devices- a coupling device, and an uncoupling device- as claim 1 requires a coupling/uncoupling device i.e. a single device while claims 3, 4, and 13 refer to either a coupling device or an uncoupling device, implying they are separate devices. For the purpose of examination, the claims are considered to require a single device that both couples and uncouples.
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) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Byrne et al.
Byrne et al. discloses a device for splicing in second web to a first web at production speed.[0004] Byrne et al. discloses the splicer has a two different guides for two different webs(rolls to left and right of rolls 100,200) and an activatable converging station for converging the two webs.[0017]
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 10-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al.(US Publication 2017/0087900) in view of Byrne et al.
Mark et al. discloses a splicing device for splicing a printed web to a corrugated cardboard production assembly to use the printed web as a lamination web.[0045] While it does not explicitly state it has a device for uncoupling the printed web from the corrugated cardboard production assembly. However, it states there are times the print web is not used[0040], and a splicer is able to connect web A(printed web) to web B(lamination B) and the opposite. Mark et al. does not disclose the specifics of the splicing device. Byrne et al. discloses a device for splicing in second web to a first web at production speed to reduce impact on the process.[0004] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the splicer of Byrne et al. in the corrugator of Mark et al. since Mark et al. is silent as to the splicer used and since the splicer of Byrne et al. allows the splicing of the new web at production speed reducing impact on the process.[0004] Byrne et al. discloses the splicer has a two different guides for two different webs(rolls to left and right of rolls 100,200) and an activatable converging station for converging the two webs.[0017]
Regarding claim 2, Byrne et al. discloses operating using an automated system.[0042]
Regarding claim 3, the coupling of the printed web to the lamination web can occur during operation of the assembly.(Figure 1, [0069])
Regarding claim 4, the device of Byrne et al. is capable of cutting the printed web while joining a different lamination web to it.(Figures 2-8) This would uncouple the printing device from the corrugator.
Regarding claim 8, Byrne et al. shows two different guide rollers for the two different webs which guide the webs separately.(rolls to left and right of 100, 200)
Regarding claim 10, Byrne et al. teaches a pair of converging elements which are displaceable relative to one another.[0017]
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Byrne et al. discloses the splicer contains an adhesive tape applicator.(400),[0008]
Regarding claim 12, Byrne et al. discloses there is a controller which controls the process though it does not explicitly state it activate converging of the nip rolls or application of the adhesive.[0059] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the controller control the converging of the nip rolls and application of the adhesive since the reference discloses the controller receives data input about these locations and one in the art would appreciate a controller would also control the locations of the pieces of equipment as that is the purpose of a controller.[0059]
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Byrne et al. discloses cutters for both webs.(700, 750)
Regarding claim 15, Byrne et al. discloses a removable counter drive unit which applies tape to the webs.(400) It interacts with an element which applies the adhesive tape to the counter drive unit.[0039] It is noted the claim does not require the removable unit interact with an adhesive tape applicator, only an adhesive tape element.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Byrne et al. shows the splicing occurs during operation.[0004]
Regarding claim 18, since the process has an apparatus controller, one in the art would appreciate it could be operated completely automated.[0059]
Regarding claims 19-22, Byrne et al. discloses the cutters can be upstream or downstream of the joining location for either web and downstream of the tape applicator.(600, 650, 700, 750)
Regarding claim 23, the device allows changing on one web for the other, which would allow changing between a printed web and a lamination web.
Regarding claim 24, the webs are part of the material worked upon and do not affect the structure of the apparatus. As such, the webs can be different.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments, filed 8/15/25, with respect to the 112, 1st and 2nd issues have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mark et al. in view of Byrne et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746