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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 3-15 in the reply filed on 02/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/06/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“allow a strip” in line 2 should read “allow the strip”.
“upstream side” in line 3 should read “upstream side of the conveyance guide” (to make clear an upstream side of what structure is being referred to).
“the film” in line 3 should read “the strip plastic film”.
“and thus guiding” in line 5 should read “and guiding”.
“downstream side” in line 5 should read “downstream side of the conveyance guide” (to make clear a downstream side of what structure is being referred to).
“thereon the strip plastic film in at least a central region” in lines 8-9 should read “thereon at least a central region of the strip plastic film”.
“the film;” in line 9 should read “the strip plastic film;”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the movement” in line 3 should read “the moving” (because claim 3 recites “moving” not “movement”).
“the rotation” in line 6 should read “the rotating” (because claim 3 recites “rotating” not “rotation”).
“member, and” in line 8 should read “member, or” (because claim 3 recites “moving, rotating, or tilting” not “moving, rotating, and tilting”).
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“includes” in line 2 should read “includes:”.
“in the width direction of the strip plastic film” in line 5 should read “of the strip plastic film in the width direction”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: “3 wherein” in line 2 should read “3, wherein”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: “the plastic” in line 3 should read “the strip plastic”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“portion in” in line 2 should read “portion of the guide roll in”.
“end portions” in lines 6-7 should read “an end portion of the guide roll” (because the roll diameter of each reduced-diameter portion gradually decreases in a direction from the maximum-diameter portion toward one of the end portions of the guide roll).
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: “parallel with the axial” in line 7 should read “parallel to the rotary axial”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: “be not” in line 4 should read “not be”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: “a mover” in line 2 should read “a respective mover”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 13, and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the guide member includes a pair of rods arranged on at least one of an upstream side of the guide member, a downstream side of the guide member, and a lateral side at a position nearest the guide member" in lines 2-4. It is unclear from this limitation how the pair of rods can possibly be on an upstream side of the guide member, a downstream side of the guide member, or a lateral side when the pair of rods are part of the guide member. It is further unclear from this limitation how the pair of rods can simultaneously be arranged on an upstream side of the guide member and on a downstream side of the guide member. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the conveyance guide includes a pair of rods arranged on an upstream side of the guide member, on a downstream side of the guide member, or on lateral sides of the guide member at positions nearest the guide member”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the sliding contact region" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the held region”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "each boundary corner portion" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation would have proper antecedent basis if claim 13 depended from claim 12 instead of claim 11. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if claim 13 depends from claim 12 instead of claim 11 and as if the limitation instead reads “one of the boundary corner portions” (because the recess portion of each reduced-diameter portion is between only one of the boundary corner portions and only one of the end edge corner portions).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "each end edge corner portion," in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation would have proper antecedent basis if claim 13 depended from claim 12 instead of claim 11. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if claim 13 depends from claim 12 instead of claim 11 and as if the limitation instead reads “one of the end edge corner portions,” (because the recess portion of each reduced-diameter portion is between only one of the boundary corner portions and only one of the end edge corner portions).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sub-guide" in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the plurality of sub-guides mentioned in claim 14 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “each sub-guide”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dojo et al. (JP 2004292078 A), hereinafter Dojo.
Regarding claim 3, Dojo discloses a conveyance guide (1 in Figure 3) for a strip plastic film (S in Figure 1), the conveyance guide (1) being adapted to allow a strip plastic film (S) conveyed from an upstream side (side to the left of 1 in Figures 3 and 2) to be folded at a desired position in a width direction of the film (S) (as shown in Figure 9) while allowing the strip plastic film (S) to be stretched on an outer surface (outer surface of 5 in Figures 2-9) of the conveyance guide (1) and thus guiding the strip plastic film (S) to a downstream side (side to the right of 1 in Figures 3 and 2) (clear when Figures 2, 3, 5, and 9 are viewed in relation to one another, Page 2 lines 37-44, Page 3 lines 40-51, and Page 4 lines 23-31 of Machine Translation of JP 2004292078 A), the conveyance guide (1) comprising:
a guide member (5 in Figures 3-9) adapted to have stretched thereon the strip plastic film (S) in at least a central region in the width direction of the film (as shown in Figures 9 and 5, Page 2 lines 37-44, Page 3 lines 40-51, and Page 4 lines 23-28 of Machine Translation of JP 2004292078 A);
a base (4 in Figures 2-7) connected to the guide member (5) (Page 2 lines 21-30 and Page 3 lines 40-42 of Machine Translation of JP 2004292078 A); and
a mover (44, 45, or 62 in Figures 3-7) for moving, rotating, or tilting the guide member (5) via the base (4) with the strip plastic film (S) stretched on the guide member (5) (Page 2 lines 35-39, or Page 2 lines 39-44, or Page 2 lines 48-59 of Machine Translation of JP 2004292078 A), thereby allowing the strip plastic film (S) to slide along an outer surface of the guide member (5), and thus changing a conveyance path for the strip plastic film (S) (clear when Figures 5, 6, and 9 and Page 2 lines 35-39 / Page 2 lines 39-44 / Page 2 lines 48-59 of Machine Translation of JP 2004292078 A are considered together).
Regarding claim 4, Dojo discloses that the tilting of the guide member (5) is a tilting of the guide member (5) in a direction orthogonal to the width direction of the strip plastic film (S) (clear when Figures 5, 6, and 9 and Page 2 lines 33-39 / Page 2 lines 39-44 / Page 2 lines 48-59 of Machine Translation of JP 2004292078 A are considered together).
Regarding claim 9, Dojo discloses that the guide member (5) is a guide roll (5) that is rotatably held via a bearing (one of the two “bearings” shown in an annotated version of Figure 4 of Dojo, hereinafter Figure 4x, below, which “bearings” are mounted on shaft 50) (clear when Page 2 line 30 of Machine Translation of JP 2004292078 A and Figure 4x are considered together), and includes a rotary axial core (the inner cylindrical portion of 5 shown bubbled and labeled “rotary axial core” in Figure 4x below) lying along the width direction of the plastic film (S) (apparent from Figure 4x below).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4x: an annotated version of Figure 4 of Dojo
Regarding claim 11, Dojo discloses that the guide roll (5) includes a maximum-diameter portion (middle third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) at a central portion in a width direction of the guide roll (apparent from Figure 5), and reduced-diameter portions (the left third of 5 and the right third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) connected to opposite sides of the maximum-diameter portion (middle third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) (apparent from Figure 5), the maximum-diameter portion (middle third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) having a maximum roll diameter (the diameter of the center of 5) (apparent from Figure 5), and the reduced-diameter portions (the left third of 5 and the right third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) each having a roll diameter that gradually decreases in a direction from the maximum-diameter portion (middle third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) toward end portions (left and right ends of 5 in Figure 4) in the width direction of the guide roll (5) (apparent from Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Dojo discloses that the guide roll (5) includes sub-guides (the left third of 5 and the right third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) at opposite end portions in a width direction of a roll body (middle third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) of the guide roll (apparent from Figure 4), the sub-guides (the left third of 5 and the right third of 5 along the horizontal direction in Figure 4) being adapted to rotate while being in contact with the strip plastic film (S) (clear when Figure 4 and Page 2 lines 30-32 are considered together).
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 of this title, 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dojo.
Regarding claim 10, Dojo discloses that the guide roll (5) includes a roll body (the body of 5 excluding the “bearings” in Figure 4x above) (apparent from Figure 4x above).
However, Dojo does not disclose: the roll body has a constant roll diameter across a width direction of the guide roll.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have changed the shape of the guide roll of Dojo so that the roll body has a constant roll diameter across a width direction of the guide roll, since it has been held that changing the shape of an object involves only routine skill in the art and since doing so would allow the guide roll to stretch the strip plastic film and change the conveyance path of the strip plastic film equally well. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in Paragraphs 0018 and 0075 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 12 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.
Claims 8, 13, and 15 (assuming claim 13 depends from claim 12 instead of claim 11, see 112(b) rejections of claim 13 above) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8, 12, and 15, the closest prior art reference, Haag (see 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 3, 11, and 14 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it depends from claim 6 which is allowable as explained above.
Regarding claim 13, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it is being interpreted to depend from claim 12 (see 112(b) rejections of claim 13 above) which is allowable as explained above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley 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 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights