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 § 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, 10, 13-15, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian (FR 2 814 681) in view of Ratzel et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,626,813), hereinafter “Ratzel”.
With respect to Claim 1, Sebastian, Figures 1-5, teaches a coiler device for winding a strip of cushioning material into a coil, comprising:
a working plate 2 having a working surface, a rotation axis and at least two holes 20 away from the rotation axis;
at least two winding pins 32 disposed through the at least two holes 20 respectively and protruding out of the working surface when winding the strip; and
a driving mechanism 31 configured to rotate the working plate,
a driven member 30,35,
wherein the at least two winding pins 32 are retractable from the working plate 2 through the at least two holes 20 respectively.
Sebastian teaches all the elements of the coiler device except for
a driven member configured to automatically retract the at least two winding pins.
However, Ratzel, Figure 12 and Column 16, lines 60-63, teaches that a complete coil of cushioning may be manually removed or ejected via an automatic ejection system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the manual ejection system of Sebastian with an automatic system, as taught by Ratzel, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 2, Sebastian further teaches a frame 10’ having a rotation axis as that of the working plate 2, wherein the at least two winding pins 32 are disposed on the frame 10’; and
a linear movement device 3 coupled to the frame to guide the frame along a direction parallel to the rotation axis.
With respect to Claim 3, Sebastian further teaches wherein the frame 10’ is disposed near one side of the working plate 2 opposite to the working surface.
With respect to Claim 4, Sebastian further teaches wherein the driven member 30,35 is configured to connect the frame 10’ and the linear movement device 3 and drive the pins 32 retracting as the frame is guided by the linear movement device 3.
With respect to Claim 10, Sebastian further teaches wherein at least one of the at least two winding pins 32 is bendable. Note that any material can be bent if enough force is placed on such material.
With respect to Claim 13, Sebastian, Figures 1-5, teaches a coiler device for winding a strip of cushioning material into a coil 4, comprising:
a main body 10’;
a working plate 2 having a working surface and a rotation axis;
at least two winding pins 32 protruding out of the working surface when winding the strip; and
a driving mechanism 31 configured to rotate the working plate 2 with respect to the rotation axis,
a driven member 30,35,
wherein at least one of the two winding pins 32 is retractable into the main body 10’.
Sebastian teaches all the elements of the coiler device except for
a driven member configured to automatically retract the at least two winding pins.
However, Ratzel, Figure 12 and Column 16, lines 60-63, teaches that a complete coil of cushioning may be manually removed or ejected via an automatic ejection system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the manual ejection system of Sebastian with an automatic system, as taught by Ratzel, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 14, Sebastian further teaches wherein: the working plate 2 includes at least one hole 20 away from the rotation axis; and
the at least one of the two winding pins 32 is disposed through the at least one hole 20 to be retractable into the main body through the at least one hole.
With respect to Claim 15, Sebastian further teaches wherein the working plate 2 does not rotate when the at least one of the two winding pins 32 is retracted into the main body 10’.
With respect to Claim 20, Sebastian further teaches wherein the working plate includes two holes 20 away from the rotation axis, and the at least two winding pins 32 are disposed through the at least two holes 20 respectively and protruding out of the working surface when winding the strip.
With respect to Claim 21, Sebastian further teaches wherein the at least two winding pins 32 are disposed on a frame having a rotation axis as that of the working plate.
With respect to Claim 22, Sebastian further teaches a linear movement device 3 coupled to the frame to guide the frame along a direction parallel to the rotation axis.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian in view of Ratzel as applied to Claims 1-4, 10, 13-15, and 20-22 above.
With respect to Claim 8, Sebastian is advanced above.
Sebastian teaches all the elements of the coiler device except for wherein the working plate is facing upward.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining what position would be best in order to coil material depending on the surface where a coiling operation may be needed to be performed. Note that frame 10 of the coiler of Sebastian could be rested on a horizontal surface in order to carry out a coiling operation.
With respect to Claim 9, Sebastian further teaches wherein an angle of a predetermined degree occurs between the working plate and a horizontal level.
Claim(s) 11-12, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian in view of Ratzel as applied to Claims 1-4, 10, 13-15, and 20-22 above, and further in view of Schalk (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0040953).
With respect to Claims 11 and 19, Sebastian is advanced above.
Sebastian teaches all the elements of the coiler device except for wherein the at least two winding pins are made of flexible materials or have hinging portions protruding out of the working surface respectively.
However, Schalk, Figures 1-5 and Paragraph [0081], lines 1-9, teaches a pin 37 having a hinge portion protruding out of the working surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sebastian with a hinge portion, as taught by Schalk, for the purpose of pushing the cushioning reel against the support surface.
With respect to Claim 12, Sebastian is advanced above.
Sebastian teaches all the elements of the coiler device except for wherein a second detection sensor is disposed on the working surface, and the second detection sensor is configured to detect whether the strip of cushioning material is in a winding process.
However, Schalk, Figures 1-17 and Paragraph [0065], lines 1-13, teaches the use of a sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sebastian with a sensor, as taught by Schalk, for the purpose of determining the disposition of the coil of material.
With respect to Claim 16, Sebastian is advanced above.
Sebastian teaches all the elements of the coiler device except for a visual scale disposed on the working surface for indicating a diameter of the coil of the cushioning material, wherein the driving mechanism stops rotating the working plate when the coil of the cushioning material is winded to a set diameter.
However, Schalk, Figures 1-17 and Paragraph [0065], lines 1-13, teaches the use of a camera and the driving mechanism stops rotating the working plate when the coiled cushioning material is winded to a set diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sebastian with a visual scale and the driving mechanism stops rotating the working plate when the coiled cushioning material is winded to a set diameter, as taught by Schalk, for the purpose of determining the disposition of the coil of material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 5 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the coiler device set forth including
the driven member including a trapezoidal lead screw or an actuator shaft disposed along the rotation axis, and the frame is rotatable around the trapezoidal lead screw or the actuator shaft.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the driving member includes a trapezoidal lead screw or an actuator shaft disposed along the rotation axis, and the frame is rotatable around the trapezoidal lead screw or the actuator shaft as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the coiler device in the manner required by the claims.
Claim 17 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the coiler device set forth including
at least one bearing or track guider member, wherein: the working plate has an U or V shaped profile at the outer edge thereof; and the at least one bearing or track guider member is guided by the U or V shaped profile so that the working plate is kept from radial and axial movements.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest at least one bearing or track guider member, wherein: the working plate has an U or V shaped profile at the outer edge thereof; and the at least one bearing or track guider member is guides by the U or V shaped profile so that the working plate is kept from radial and axial movements as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the coiler device in the manner required by the claims.
Claim 18 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the coiler device set forth including a working plate having a working surface and a rotation axis; at least two winding pins disposed away from the rotation axis and protruding out of the working surface when winding the strip, wherein at least one of the at least two winding pins are at least partially formed from a flexible material or hinged adjacent to the working plate to allow bending or pivotable movement of the at least one of the at least two winding pins.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest a working plate having a working surface and a rotation axis; at least two winding pins disposed away from the rotation axis and protruding out of the working surface when winding the strip, wherein at least one of the at least two winding pins are at least partially formed from a flexible material or hinged adjacent to the working plate to allow bending or pivotable movement of the at least one of the at least two winding pins as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the coiler device in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654