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 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 7-9 and 14 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.
With regards to claims 7 and 10, the claim states “wherein, within the model, an X-axis lies in a passage direction of the wire or strip material, and a Y-axis and a Z-axis lie perpendicular to one another and to the X-axis”, this renders the claim indefinite since it appears as if the claim is setting forth the model to be a tangible element (i.e. physical element that has axes) however based on the claim the model appears to be related to calculations and processing. It is further noted that the claim later states “three sensors arranged spaced apart from one another along the X-axis”, which would imply the X-axis is associated with the straightening device, however given the claim language of “within the model” the X-, Y- and Z-axes are not associated with the straightening device.
The claim states “measuring a deflection of the wire or strip material, after passing though the nondriven aligning rollers, in a Y-direction and in a Z-direction, wherein the deflection is measured by three sensors arranged spaced apart from one another along the X-axis and values of the measured deflection from the three sensors are input into the model”, this renders the claim indefinite since the claim previously recites the model is “ascertained from data representative of achieved straightness of the wire or strip material after passing through the nondriven aligning rollers”. Therefore it is unclear the correlation between the straightness data and the measured deflection values, i.e. is the measured deflection values the same as the straightness data or is the measure deflection values used to calculate the straightness data. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claims 7-9 and 14 because “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art” [see MPEP 2173.06.II].
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.
1. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupoli (WO 2020/174507).
In reference to claim 10, Rupoli discloses a device for straightening a strip material, the device comprising
a straightening device having two rolls of aligning rollers (4) arranged longitudinally offset in relation to one another [see figure 1], which engage in operation on the strip material passing between the two rows in order to straighten the strip material,
wherein some aligning rollers are settable onto the strip material automatically controlled in dependence on a model ascertained from data representative of achieved straightness of the strip material after passing through the aligning rollers, wherein, within the model, an X axis lies in the passage direction of the material, and a Y axis and a Z axis lie perpendicular to one another and to the X axis [it is noted that these limitations are being interpreted as an intended function given the use of the term “settable”],
wherein three sensors (30; plurality of sensor devices are housed within the detecting device 3) spaced apart from one another along the X direction to measure the deflection of the strip material in a z direction [see figure 4] and in a Y direction are arranged after the straightening device (4) viewed in the movement direction of the material [see figure 2; paragraphs 43-45, 53], wherein values of the measured deflection from the three sensors are input into the model (processor 500) [see paragraphs 53 & 74].
Rupoli further discloses that the strip material is fed along the feeding direction A separately from the straightening device (4), assembly (3) for detecting and the cutting assembly (6) [see paragraph 37].
Rupoli discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the aligning rollers are nondriven aligning rollers. It is considered to be well known that the aligning rollers can be driven or nondriven aligning rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aligning rollers to be nondriven aligning rollers, since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
In reference to claim 11, Rupoli further discloses a wire cutter (6) is arranged after the third sensor viewed in the passage direction [see figures 1 & 2; paragraphs 39-40].
2. Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupoli in view of College et al (US 5,676,010).
In reference to claims 12 and 13, Rupoli et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the wire passes through two straightening devices wherein one has horizontally arranged rollers and the other has vertically arranged rollers.
However, College et al teaches of a wire straightening device comprising of two straightening devices arranged in succession to one another, wherein one has vertically arranged rollers (72) and the other (74) has horizontally arranged rollers [see figure 3] for the purpose to providing a deflection in different planes with respect to the wire to ensure a straight wire [see col. 3 lines 14-30].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rupoli et al to include the horizontally and vertically arranged roller straightening devices, as taught by College et al, in order to straighten the wire in both planes to ensure the outcome of a straight wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to the 102 rejection based on Chang have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Inherency argument, see pages 9--10, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an obviousness rejection based on Rupoli.
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 Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights