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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14, lines 3-4, “the device” should be read –the machine--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I.
Claim 15 limitation “processing members for processing the web material” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Because it uses a generic placeholder “members” coupled with functional languages “for processing the web material” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. See MPEP. 2181. Section A.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 15 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and or 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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Formon et al (US 2003/0172785 A1, also publish as WO 01/85407, Art of Record) hereinafter Formon in view of Strong (US 2015/0374558 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Formon shows a device (Figure 1) with at least one rotating blade (see lower blades in Figure 4) for processing a web material (see Abstract), comprising:
a support structure (see the Abstract “the machine frame”, it is also inherent limitation because the apparatus 10, Figure 1 must be mounted in the machine);
a rotating blade-holder (see a body of a lower roll 20), which rotates around a rotation axis and on which a rotating blade arrangement comprising the at least one blade is arranged (Figure 4);
an anvil blade (45) comprising a first side surface, a second side surface and a cutting edge therebetween (see the blade 45 including 2 lateral sides and a cutting edge, Figure 4),
wherein the anvil blade is mounted in a seat (41) of a beam (43, Figure 5) supported by said support structure and adapted to co-act with said rotating blade arrangement (Figure 4);
wherein each of the at least one rotating blade and the anvil blade are configured that, during rotation of the rotating blade-holder, each of the at least one rotating blade and the anvil blade start contact at a first end of the each of the at least one rotating blade, and terminate the contact at a second end of the each of the at least one rotating blade, a point of contact between the each of the at least one rotating blade and the anvil blade gradually moving from the first end to the second end of the each of the at least one rotating blade (see Figure 1, the blades 21 is slightly spiral or helical pattern arrangement as discussed in Paras. 34, 47);
a sensor (61, 60, 73, 70, Figures 2-3) adapted to detect a parameter indicative of a mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade generating a signal of mutual interaction between the at least one blade and the anvil blade, said signal lasting for the time frame of interaction between the rotating blade and the anvil blade during the movement of the point of the contact from said first end to said second end (see the abstract “An electrical conductor is coupled to the anvil blade for supplying an electric current to the anvil blade from a current source….”);
wherein said sensor arranged under the anvil blade and between the anvil blade and said seat of the beam (see Figure 3), and
wherein the sensor is positioned between the first side surface of the anvil blade and the seat (see Figure 3).
However, Formon silently discusses that the sensor comprises at least load sensor .
Strong shows at least one load sensor (a strain gauge 360) positioned between a first side surface of a blade 320 and a seat (a channel, Figure 4). See the strain gauge in Paras. 34-35 “…The strain gauge may be any suitable strain gauge enabled to calculate the cutting force…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Formon to have at least one load sensor (strain gauge), as taught by Strong, in order to allow determining any deviation in a cut force overtime versus a standard cutting profile determined for the specific material (see the Abstract of Strong).
If one still argues that the Formon’s system does not have a support structure (a machine frame), see Strong’s Figure 2, the frames 314, 312, in order to allow supporting an anvil and a cutting roll.
Regarding claims 2-3, the modified device of Formon shows the load sensor comprises a matrix of load cells ( see Strong’s Figures 2 and 4, each blade 320 has one strain gauge 360) or a sensor adapted to detect an electrical parameter associated with each rotating blade and with the anvil blade (see the sensor in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Formon shows that the electrical parameter is a voltage applied between the anvil blade and the rotating blade arrangement; and wherein a reference voltage is applied to the anvil blade and the rotating blade-holder is connected to a ground potential, or a reference voltage is applied to the rotating blade-holder and the anvil blade is connected to a ground potential (see Para. 48 of Formon).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Formon shows that the anvil blade is fixed with respect to the support structure (see the blade 45 in Figure 1 of Formon).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Formon shows that the rotating blade arrangement comprises a plurality of the at least one rotating blade arranged at constant angular pitch around the rotation axis (see Figure 1 of Formon).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Formon shows that each of the at least one rotating blade arranged on the rotating blade-holder with a cutting edge thereof developing according to a helical line and the anvil blade has a rectilinear edge (Figures 1 of Strong and see claim 1 above for a helical rotating blade arrangement).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Formon shows that each of the at least one rotating blade and the anvil blade are arranged that for each angle of rotation of the rotating blade-holder there is only one point of contact between only one of the at least one rotating blade and the anvil blade (this is inherently limitation since the rotating blade is helical as seen in the modification above; the helical blade is only contacted the anvil blade at a time).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Formon shows a control unit configured to analyze a signal given by the sensor (Para. 46 of Formon “a computer 90…a microprocessor 91”),
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Formon shows that the control unit is adapted to generate an alert according to the signal given by the sensor (Para. 44 of Formon “When contact is interrupted as a result of a broken or dull perforating blade, or an out of position anvil blade” and see Para. 46 of Formon “ Alternatively, the signal could activate a flashing light or other visual indicators. It is contemplated that the machine can be automatically stopped when an anomaly is detected so that the minimum possible amount of unperforated product is produced.”).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Formon shows that the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade are configured to generate perforation lines along the web material (see Figure 1 of Formon).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Formon shows that the seat (42 as a whole, Figure 7 of Formon) for the anvil blade comprises a stepped surface with a first surface portion and a second surface portion (there are many stepped surfaces on the holder 42), the first surface portion being recessed with respect to the second surface portion (see the groove 44 in Figure 7 of Formon),
wherein the anvil blade (45) is locked between the second surface portion and a locking bar (47), the first side surface of the anvil blade being in contact with the second surface portion of the seat and the second side surface of the anvil blade being in contact with the locking bar (see Figures 5 and 7 of Formon);
wherein the anvil blade projects cantileverly from the second surface portion and the locking bar above the first surface portion (see Figure 5 of Formon), the sensor being interposed between the cantileverly projecting portion of the anvil blade and the first surface portion of the seat (see Figure 4 of Strong).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Formon shows all of the limitations of a machine (see the discussion “the device”) in claims above, especially in claim 1 having a feed path (see Figure 1 of Formon) between the anvil and the cutting roll for feeding the web (12) therebetween.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Formon shows processing members for processing the web material downstream of the cutting device (as it is written, it is unclear what processing members are and their functions, thus, Para. 29 of Strong “The web 12 can be of any material that is capable of being perforated, especially, materials such as paper or a plastic film that can be wound onto a core with each successive piece being able to be torn off for use.” That means after perforated, the web can be wound onto a core…and meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Formon shows that said machine is a rewinder (Para. 29 of Strong “a rewinder”).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Formon teaches a method for processing a continuous web material (see claims 1 and 16 above) comprising the steps of:
feeding the continuous web material along a feed path between a blade-holder comprising a rotating blade arrangement comprising a plurality of rotating blades and an anvil blade supported in a seat of a beam whereon the anvil blade is mounted (see the discussion in claim 1 above);
acting on the web material through co-action between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade (see the discussions of all claims above); wherein the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade act on the web material with a cut, so that each rotating blade and the anvil blade co-act with each other in a point that translates, during rotation of the rotating blade, from a first end of the rotating blade to a second end of the rotating blade (see claim 1 above);
detecting at least one parameter indicative of a mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade, through a sensor generating a signal of mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement blades and the anvil blade, said signal lasting for the time frame of interaction between the at least one rotating blade and the anvil blade during the movement of the point of contact from said first end to said second end (see the modification in claim 1 above);
wherein said sensor comprises at least one load sensor arranged under the anvil blade, between the anvil blade and said seat of the beam (see the modification above); and wherein said at least one parameter is a reaction force generated on the anvil blade and caused by the interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and anvil blade (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Formon teaches the step of detecting a further parameter, said further parameter comprising: an electrical parameter associated with the anvil blade and with the rotating blades (see the discussion in claim 1 above for the an electric sensor for detecting cutting forces between the rotating blade and the anvil blade).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Formon teaches that the rotating blade arrangement comprises a plurality of rotating blades arranged at constant angular pitch, and wherein the rotating blades and the anvil blade are so arranged that during the rotation of the blade-holder only one rotating blade is in contact with the anvil blade (see the helical blade of the modified cutting device as stated in claim 1 above; the helical blade is allowed only one point contact between the anvil blade and the rotating blade at a time).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Formon teaches that acting on the web material through the co-action of the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade comprises perforating the web material (see claim 12 above).
Claims 10-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Formon et al (US 20030172785 A1, also publish as WO 01/85407, Art of Record) hereinafter Formon in view of Strong (US 2015/0374558 A1) and Manfred (DE 102007058819 and Translation, Art of record).
Regarding claims 10-11, the modified device of Formon shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the adjust automatically the mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade.
Manfred discusses “a control device…control the adjustment device depending on signals…sensor devices…”(Para. 25 of Manfred), where the automatic adjustment of the mutual interaction between a rotating blade arrangement and an anvil blade (see Para. 25 of Manfred and Figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Formon to have automatic adjustment of the mutual interaction between a rotating blade arrangement and an anvil blade, as taught by Manfred, in order to allow adjusting position of the cutting element (blade) while the blade is premature wear (Para. 23 of Manfred).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Formon teaches that automatically adjusting the mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade (see the discussion in claims 10-11 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the new ground rejections above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights