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 .
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 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. The latest filed amendments to claim 1 is referring to “pusher engaging exclusively the rear vertical base of the last roll of the group while the front vertical base and lateral surfaces of the rolls remain unconstrained”, something not fully supported not suggested by the filed specification.
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 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, last two lines; “pusher engaging exclusively the rear vertical base of the last roll of the group while the front vertical base and lateral surfaces of the rolls remain unconstrained” is vague and indefinite as it is not clear how applicants the step of pushing will take place while having the front bse and lateral surfaces of the rolls remain “unconstrained”!
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) 1-4 the best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,309,015) in view of Rasi (U.S. Patent No. 10,112,776).
Regarding claim 1: Overley discloses an operating method for packaging groups of paper rolls, wherein each group is made by a predetermined number of rolls obtained by a same log and arranged one behind the other if said predetermined number is higher than one (Figs. 1-2; via the shown log of sawed rolls 16), the method comprising the following steps:
using a cutting-off machine, having a predetermined number of channels (Fig. 1; via the shown different channels of rollers 16), wherein paper rolls are produced by transvers cutting of logs of paper material according to a predetermined cutting rate, wherein the rolls of paper thus produced come out of the cutting machine along several parallel exit lines, see for example (Figs. 1-2 and 4; via the cut determining the formation of a rear base and a front base for each roll, said rear and front “cutting a long log” into rolls); bases oriented orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of the rolls;
spacing each paper roll, immediately downstream of the cutting-off machine by a preset value, from a subsequent paper roll that follows said each paper roll in the respective exit line (Figs. 7A-7C; via the shown spaced set of rolls as being pushed into 24).
Overley does not suggest the use of a same pusher on each exit line groups and to form each group by exerting a thrust on the last roll of the group, and transfer the formed group to a packaging machine by a conveyor, “the pusher engaging exclusively the rear vertical base of the last roll of the group while the front vertical base and lateral surfaces of the rolls remain unconstrained”. However, Rasi discloses similar operating method with the use of same pusher to form the group and transferring the group, wherein, “the pusher engaging exclusively the rear vertical base of the last roll of the group while the front vertical base and lateral surfaces of the rolls remain unconstrained”, see for example (Fig. 6; via 11 on track 6 separating products 2 in channel 1 while transferring them further to the packing station 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Overley’s use of two different pushers for forming the group and another for transferring the group, by using single pusher mechanism for both operations, as suggested by Rasi, in order to reduce the machine’s components and to have a safer and faster machine and process (column 2, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 2: Overley discloses that, on each exit line there is never an accumulation of rolls in a number greater than the number of rolls making up a corresponding group, see for example (Figs. 4-6; via the shown formed and pushed groups of rollers into the transfer section 18 are only the once to be packed).
Regarding claim 3: Overley disclosed that the cutting machine is fed with trimmed logs (inherently such logs are capable of being provided as trimmed logs, see for example the filed specification referring to “A system for producing rolls with already trimmed logs is described in EP1539440”).
Regarding claim 4: Overley may not specifically suggest the claimed an intermittent movement of the logs in the cutting machine and, "Tt" is the time that elapses between two subsequent cuts normally carried out by the cutting unit of the cutting machine, and "Ts" is the time required to stop the movement of the logs, is: Ts<Tt. However, Overley suggests some type of relationship between the cutting saw mechanism of the log and the fed number of rolls as desired; see for example (“Thus, for example, as shown in Fig. 2, the first displacement device 20 can lower and push a predetermined number of rolled products in each lane, such as 2-10 rolls (the number is determined by the eventual package size desired), from the effectively endless stream of rolled product coming form the log saw operation, onto transfer section 18.” and/or Fig. 1; inherently those formed and cut rolls 16 are stopping momentarily at 14 while stacking them after being out of the saw mechanism and prior to pushing them into conveying mechanism 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Overley’s method by having the steps of stopping the movement of the logs to be Ts (time required to stop the movement of the logs) less than the Tt (time that elapses between two subsequent cuts carried out by the cutting unit), in order to improve the lining operation of the rolled product output from one unit operation, such as the cutting unit, (column 1, lines 55-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied arts in combination do not suggest the amended filed claims.
The Office as set forth above believes that the filed amendments referring to “conveyor, the pusher engaging exclusively the rear vertical base of the last roll of the group while the front vertical base and lateral surfaces of the rolls remain unconstrained” raises more confusion and not fully supported by the filed specification.
Being that said, it is believed that the main applied art of Overley ‘015 shows a pusher engaging exclusively the rear of the grouped rollers while having the front and lateral surfaces of the rolls remain “unconstrained”, see for example (Fig. 7C; via pushers 30 and/or 30A).
Further, applicant argues that bring in the isolated single pusher of Rasi ‘776 into the Overley ‘015 device would amount to improperly picking and choosing features from different references without regard to the teachings of the references as a whole. While the required evidence of motivation to combine need not come from the applied references themselves, the evidence must come from somewhere within the record. In this case, there is nothing in the record supporting the Office Action's proposed modification of Overley.
The Office believes that both applied arts of ‘015 and ‘776 suggest pushing mechanisms to push log of rolls in different directions using force applied toward the last roll, which make it obvious to use one’s teaching to modify the others. In respect to a specific direction of the moved rolls, that appears to be only a matter of arranging of parts. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the disclosure of the present Application explicitly states that the object of the claimed invention is a space-saving, highly compact layout. The claimed invention removes the massive multi-lane accumulation buffers traditionally required between log saws and packaging units. The system uses grouping blades/pushers (43) that act directly on the vertical rear base of the last roll of a group. Crucially, the same blade (43) forms the group and continues its forward sweep to transfer that formed group seamlessly onto a downstream conveyor (6) without intermediate re-orienting or lateral shuffling. The disclosure confirms that the log-feeding mechanism (belts 34 and pushers 31) can abruptly halt rolls advancement to skip a cut or alter configurations without stopping the continuous rotation of the main orbit cutting blade (36). The physical capability to achieve Ts < Tt prevents the cutting blade from colliding with or damaging a slow-moving or partially positioned log face.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights