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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/22/2025 has been entered.
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 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), paper rolls are produced by transvers cutting of logs of paper material according to a predetermined cutting rate and 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;
immediately downstream of the cutting-off machine each paper roll is spaced by a preset value from the paper roll that follows it 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. However, Rasi discloses similar operating method with the use of same pusher to form the group and transferring the group, 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the latest filed amendment and made arguments that the applied art of Overley ‘015 uses different pushers for forming the group and another for transferring the group, not as amended to use a single pusher for both operations/steps. The Office as set forth above, believes that the newly applied art of Rasi ‘776 clearly suggests the use of a single pusher mechanism for both operations, see for example (Figs. 1 & 6; via 11 is dividing and conveying products 2 to the packaging machine 13).
Conclusion
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