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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “geometry of the center roller is modified” of claim 21, and “the geometry of the support element is modified” of claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification lacks antecedent basis for the limitation “such that a geometry of the center roller is modified when pressure applied to the center roller is greater on one side” of claim 21 and “such that a geometry of the support element is modified when pressure applied to the support element is greater on one side” of claim 22. The specification states that the roller including the fins, and the fin attached to the support element have modified geometry to compensate for disequilibrium in web tension, however this is accomplished through the mechanical link connection between the center roller/support element and the fin, and is not a modification of the geometry of the center roller/support element (Page 7, line 29-Page 8, line 4). For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intends to mean “such that a geometry of the roller is modified when pressure applied to the roller is greater on one side” for claim 21, and “such that a geometry of the system is modified when pressure applied to the system or at least one fin is greater on one side” for claim 22. Claims 21 and 22 are being interpreted as such for the purpose of Examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang, Foreign Patent Document, WO2023093434.
Regarding independent claim 1, Yang discloses a roller system for conveying a web (Paragraph [0067]) comprising: a center roller (1, Fig. 2) for rotation about a longitudinal axis of the center roller (longitudinal axis of 1, Fig. 2), and a set of fins (2, Fig. 2), arranged around the longitudinal axis each fin having two opposed lateral portions (lateral portion from 21 to 111, opposing portion from 111 to 22, Fig. 6) and an outer surface (3, Fig. 3), wherein each lateral portion of each fin is movable when a force or pressure is applied to the outer surface of the fin such that a first distance between one lateral portion and the longitudinal axis is less or higher than a second distance between the opposed lateral portion and the longitudinal axis (Paragraph [0007]; fins movable to vary distance between each lateral portion and central roller as shown in Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the outer surface of each fin supports the web (3, Fig. 2, 5), the outer surface delimiting a first lateral portion of the fin and a second lateral portion of the fin separated from the first lateral portion by a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (3 delimits first lateral portion, 21 to 111, Fig. 6 and second lateral portion 111 to 22 separated by a plane through 111 orthogonal to 1, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 2, and wherein each fin being movable relative to the longitudinal axis between at least two positions: a first position wherein a first distance between the first lateral portion and the longitudinal axis is less than a second distance between the second lateral portion and the longitudinal axis (position shown in Figure 6), and a second position wherein the second distance is less than the first distance (position shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 3, and the fin being arranged to move from the first position (Fig. 6) to the second position (Fig. 5), under the effect of a total force exerted by the web is higher on the second lateral portion of the surface (Paragraph [0070], lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 3, and wherein the first lateral portion and/or the second lateral portion of each fin is designed to bend between the first position to the second position (designed to move between positions of Figs. 5 and 6, thus bending).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 4, and wherein each fin is mechanically connected to the center roller by a mechanical link (11, 111, Fig. 6) and each fin is configured to tilt around the mechanical link to move from the first position to at least the second position (fins 2 tilt about 11, 111, Figs. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 6, wherein the mechanical link comprises a pivot connection (11, 111, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 7, and wherein the pivot connection is an axial pivot connection between the fin and the center roller (11, 111 axial pivot connection between fin 2 and center roller 1, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 7, and wherein the mechanical link (11, 111, Fig. 6) between a fin and the center roller comprises a junction comprising at least one tapered portion (11, 111 are tapered portions, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 9, and wherein the junction between the center roller and the fin comprises: a thin central portion (111, Fig. 6); a first tapered portion having a thickness decreasing from the fin to the thin central portion (23, Fig. 6), and a second tapered portion having a thickness decreasing from the center roller to the thin central portion (1 to 111, 11, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 9, and wherein, in the first position or in the second position, a second axis perpendicular to the outer surface and passing through the mechanical connection is tilted with respect to the longitudinal axis by an angle strictly inferior to 90° (See annotated Figs. 5, 6 of Yang below).
PNG
media_image1.png
884
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 5 and 6 of Yang
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 3, and wherein each fin is movable relative to the longitudinal axis between at least the first position (Fig. 6), the second position (Fig. 5), and a third position wherein the profile of the outer surface is symmetric with respect to the plane (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a conveyor system comprising a plurality of rollers to transport a web along a predefined path and at least one roller system (Paragraph [0003]-[0007], [0067]).
Regarding claim 20, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 18 and a conveyor system (Paragraph [0038]), a method for conveying a web (Paragraph [0070]), and a web (Paragraph [0003]), wherein the roller system is used to move the web along its predefined path (Paragraph [0019], lines 4-6) and to automatically correct web misalignment (Paragraph [0077], lines 10-11; Paragraph [0086], lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 21, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the set of fins are mechanically connected to the center roller via at least one mechanical link (11, 111, Fig. 6) such that a geometry of the roller (see interpretation under 112(a) above) is modified when pressure applied to the roller is greater on one side (Paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohnishi, US9962970.
Regarding independent claim 15, Ohnishi discloses a system for conveying a web (10, Fig. 1) comprising: a support element (45, Fig. 3) having a first face (45, 41A, Fig. 3), and at least one fin (43, Fig. 3), arranged on the first face (fin 43 arranged on 45, 41A, Fig. ) and having two opposed lateral portions (left and right halves of fin 43 divided at 44, Fig. 3) and an outer surface ( outer surface of fin 43 in contact with web, Fig. 3) characterized such that each lateral portion of the fin is movable when a force or pressure is applied to the outer surface of the fin (Column 2, lines 27-40) such that a first distance between said respective lateral portion and the first face is less or higher than a second distance between the opposed lateral portion and the first face (shown with direction Y, in Fig. 3, 4B).
Regarding claim 16, Ohnishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 15, and the at least one fin (43, Fig. 3) being movable between three positions: a first position, wherein the profile of the outer surface is symmetric with respect to the first face (position of fin 43 in Fig. 3); a second position wherein a first distance between the first lateral portion and the first face is less than a second distance between the second lateral portion and the first face (Position of fin 43 in Figure 4B); a third position wherein the second distance is less than the first distance between (position shown by moving fin in Y directions of Fig. 3, in opposite direction of Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 17, Ohnishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 16, and the fin being arranged to move from the first position to the second position or the third position, under the effect of a total force exerted by the web is higher on respectively the first lateral portion or the second lateral portion of the surface (shown in Figure 4A, tension is higher on right side, which pushes fin down to position of Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 19, Ohnishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 15, and a conveyor system comprising a plurality of rollers to transport a web along a predefined path (10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Ohnishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 15, and wherein the at least one fin is mechanically connected to the support element via at least one mechanical link (43 connected to 45 via 44, 41A, Fig. 4B) such that a geometry of the system (see interpretation under 112(a) above) is modified when pressure applied to the system or fin is greater on one side (Column 2, lines 27-40; Fig. 4B shows modification of the geometry of the system).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Foreign Patent Document, WO2023093434, in view of Kistner et al., US6554223.
Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 2, and a set of fins. However Yang does not disclose the profile of the outer surface comprises a concave profile. Kistner et al. teaches a roller system having a roller with a concave profile (RI, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fin of Yang to have a convex profile to align the web during processing (Column 1, lines 10-16). One would have been motivated to make this modification to minimize defects in the web during processing.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Foreign Patent Document, WO2023093434, in view of Gruber-Nadlinger et al., US7789818.
Regarding claim 14, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 2, and a set of fins. However Yang does not disclose the profile of the outer surface comprises a convex profile. Gruber-Nadlinger et al. teaches a roller system having a roller with a concave profile (Fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fin of Yang to have a convex profile to “prevent fold formation or sagging on moving material webs” (Column 1, lines 16-18). One would have been motivated to make this modification to minimize defects in the web during processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 that Yang does not anticipate all the features of claim 1, it is noted that Yang does indeed disclose that “the taper of the roller surface of the adjustable taper roller can be adjusted according to the tension of the two sides of the strip” (Paragraph [0007], lines 2-3; Yang). Yang is therefore a roller with adaptive geometry as claimed in claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fins “held on to” the central sleeve by a mechanical connection; the center roller/support element “holds” the set of fins to the center roller/support element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 of Remarks filed 5/28/2026, that Ohnishi does not disclose “at least one fin”, it is noted that Ohnishi does indeed disclose a fin (43, Fig. 4B). Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 16-18 of Remarks, filed 5/28/2026, that Kistner and Gruber-Nadlinger fail to disclose the amended features of claims 1 and 15, it is noted that applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's argument on page 19 of Remarks, filed 5/28/2026, that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fins “held onto the central sleeve by a mechanical link”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, both Yang and Ohnishi disclose the features of new claims 21 and 22, namely the alteration of the geometry of the roller of claim 1 and the system of claim 15 as outlined in the 102 rejections of claims 21 and 22 above. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights