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 A (Claims 2 and 8-12) in the reply filed on 5-10-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5-10-2026.
Claims 1-2 and 8-12 are examined in this action.
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 limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: gripping means in Claim 1; hooking means in Claim 1; cutting means in Claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and 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 § 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 1-2 and 8-12 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.
Applicant’s use of the term “it” throughout the claims is indefinite. it is unclear what “it” is referring to. The examiner suggests using the previously introduced limitation when further limiting the claims. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 8, “a blade (50) mounted on a mobile support (51)” is indefinite. Claim 8 depends from Claim 2 which previously introduced “a respective movable support (51).” As best understood, these structures are the same. The examiner requests using the same term for the same structure and using “the” or “said” after introduction of the limitation. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 9, “said rectilinear guide (2G) is arranged on the crosspiece (21)” is lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9 depends from Claim 1 and not Claim 8. A rectilinear guide was not introduced in Claim 1. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,255,602 to Mamberer in view of US 3,944,150 to Jennerjahn.
In re Claim 1, Mamberer teaches a guide system for handling of paper material webs (see Fig. 1) comprising:
- gripping means (1) configured to engage a web (W) of paper material to control its movement according to a predetermined advancement direction (see Fig. 6 40/41 – gripping means were interpreted as rollers)
- hooking means adapted to temporarily hook a lateral edge of the web (threading belt #13 includes Velcro hooks – see Col. 2, ll. 54 – Col. 3, ll. 6), said hooking means being arranged downstream of the gripping means with respect to the aforementioned advancement direction (see Fig 1 and Fig. 6);
characterized by the fact that
- said hooking means comprise a flexible member (the belt #13 flexes as it moves around the rollers) provided with tips ( the Velcro hooks are considered “tips”) adapted for engaging the lateral edge of the web while the same flexible member is moved along a path which has a first section (see Fig. 1, span between rollers #14; see also Col. 2, ll. 54 – Col. 3, ll. 6) and a second section (see Fig. 1 around bars #21/22/ and roller 26; see also Col. 3, ll. 6-23), the flexible member being mounted on a support that can be moved between a hooking position in which the first section overlaps a path followed by the lateral edge of the web and an inoperative position in which said first section is spaced from the path followed by the lateral edge of the web (see Fig. 4, #13 is being displaced by cylinder #20; see also Col. 3, ll. 7-36), and the second section of the path is a section along which the web moves away from the point where it is hooked (see Fig. 1, beyond roller #26)
Mamberer does not teach a structure (2) for supporting said gripping means (1).
However, Jennerjahn teaches that it is known in the art of web moving/cutting to provide supports for rollers (see Jennerjahn, Fig. 1-3, #26/28). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the support structures of Jennerjahn to support the rollers of Mamberer. Doing so places the rollers at the correct position for use.
In re Claim 2, modified Mamberer, in re Claim 1, teaches characterized by the fact that it comprises cutting means (see Fig. 1, cutter #9) adapted to transversely cut the web, arranged upstream of said hooking means with respect to the aforementioned direction of advancement (see Fig. 1, the position of cutter #9 is upstream) and being activated when the hooking means (4) engage the lateral edge (SW) of the web (W). Modified Mamberer, in re Claim 1 is silent as to said cutting means being constrained to a respective movable support which moves them transversely to the direction of advancement of the web (W).
Jennerjahn teaches that it is known in the web art to provide said cutting means being constrained to a respective movable support which moves them transversely to the direction of advancement of the web (see Jennerjahn , Fig. 2, #112/114; see also Col. 5, ll. 26-56).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide the structure supporting the slitting knife of Jennerjahn. Doing so allows the user to adjust the width of the cut and the depth of the cut, thereby providing an adjustability to the work product being produced.
In re Claim 8, modified Mamberer, in re Claim 1, teaches that said cutting means 5) comprise a blade (see Mamberer, Fig. 1, #9); however, modified Mamberer is silent as to the blade being mounted on a mobile support (51) which, in turn, is mounted on a rectilinear guide (2G) arranged on said structure (2) and is controlled by a respective actuator (52).
Jennerjahn teaches that it is known in the web art to provide a cutting blade mounted on a mobile support (see Figs. 1-2, #126 mounted on the assembly from #128 to #78; see also Fig. 7 showing cylinder #94) which, in turn, is mounted on a rectilinear guide (see Jennerjahn , Fig. 2, #112/114; see also Col. 5, ll. 26-56) arranged on said structure and is controlled by a respective actuator (see Fig. 7, #94).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide the structure supporting the slitting knife of Jennerjahn. Doing so allows the user to adjust the width of the cut and the depth of the cut, thereby providing an adjustability to the work product being produced.
In re Claim 9, modified Mamberer, in re Claim 1 teaches characterized in that said structure comprises two uprights (see Jennerjahn, Fig, 3, #28/26) joined at the top by a crosspiece (see Jennerjahn, Fig. 3, #78) and said rectilinear guide is arranged on the crosspiece (see Fig. 2, #78/112/114/116; see also Col. 5, ll. 26-56).
In re Claim 10, modified Mamberer, in re Claim 8, teaches the blade (see Jennerjahn, Fig. 2, #126) is mounted on a lever (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 7) controlled by a respective pneumatic actuator (see Fig. 2 and Fig. , #94) mounted on the mobile support (actuator #94 is connected to #78), and the actuator allows to move the blade to and from the gripping means (actuator #94 pivots the blade).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,255,602 to Mamberer in view of US 3,944,150 to Jannerjahn, and further in view of US 20120031251 to Momonaka.
In re Claim 11, modified Mamberer, in re Claim 8 is silent as to an end of the lever (5L) is hinged on the actuator (55) and the blade (50) is mounted on the other end of the lever (5L).
However, Momonaka teaches that it is known in the slitting art to provide a pivoting knife wherein the end of the lever is hinged on the actuator (see Momonaka, Fig. 1, showing lever #16 hinged on actuator #20) and the blade is mounted on the other end of the lever (see Momonaka, Fig. 1, blade #8 mounted on the other end of the lever #16).
In the same field of invention, slitters for web work pieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide individual cutters with individual cylinders as taught by Momonaka. Doing so provides for individual control of the slitters which allows for more functionality of the device. The slitters can be used or not used individually and cand cut different depths individually.
In re Claim 12, modified Mamberer, in re Claim 8, teaches characterized in that said structure comprises two uprights (see Jennerjahn, Fig. 3, #26/28) joined at the top by a crosspiece (see Jennerjahn, Fig. 3, #78) and said rectilinear guide is arranged on the crosspiece (see Jennerjahn, #112/114/116; see also Col. 5, ll. 36-55), the blade is mounted on a lever controlled by a respective pneumatic actuator (see Jennerjahn, Fig. 2, #120 and Fig. 7, #94) and the actuator allows to move the blade to and from the gripping means (cylinder #941),
Modified Mamberer, in re Claim 8 does not teach the cylinder mounted on the mobile support (51) an end of the lever is hinged on the actuator (55) and the blade (50) is mounted on the other end of the lever (5L) and the assembly formed by the blade (50), the actuator (55) and the lever (5L) is integral with an arm (54) rotatably constrained to the mobile support (51).
However, Momonaka teaches that it is known in the slitting art to provide a pivoting knife wherein the cylinder mounted on the mobile support an end of the lever is hinged on the actuator (see Momonaka, Fig. 1, showing lever #16 hinged on actuator #20) and the blade is mounted on the other end of the lever (see Momonaka, Fig. 1, blade #8 mounted on the other end of the lever #16) and the assembly formed by the blade, the actuator and the lever is integral with an arm rotatably constrained to the mobile support (see Momonaka, Fig 1).
In the same field of invention, slitters for web work pieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide individual cutters with individual cylinders as taught by Momonaka. Doing so provides for individual control of the slitters which allows for more functionality of the device. The slitters can be used or not used individually and cand cut different depths individually.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights