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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims and specification received on February 12th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 12-13 have been amended. Objections to the specification and claims filed on November 14th, 2025 have been withdrawn. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections filed on November 14th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Muto (US 4,848,691 A) does not teach or suggest the order of a tensioning device located between a joining device and a broke handling device. It should be noted that the claim term “between’ is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (see MPEP § 2111). The term does not require direct adjacency or the absence of intervening elements unless explicitly stated in the specification. The cited reference discloses the tensioning device positioned intermediate relative to the joining device and the broke handling device, thereby satisfying the “between” limitation. Applicant’s argument relies on an unduly narrow interpretation of the claim term and is not persuasive.
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muto (US 4,848,691 A) .
Regarding claim 1, Muto discloses an unwinding section for unwinding a fiber web from a parent roll, which unwinding section comprises at least one unwinder for unwinding the fiber web from the parent roll (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 20-34, bobbins B1, B2 corresponding to unwinders) and a joining device configured to join a trailing end of a running-out parent roll to a beginning end of a next, new parent roll to be unwound in a parent roll change (Col. 3, Ln. 10-19, gripper rollers 1, 1’ corresponding to a joining device & reels R1, R2 corresponding to parent and new parent rolls), and which unwinding section comprising a broke handling device configured to handle broke (Figs. 7-8; Col. 5, Ln. 35-43, recess 48 & bottom guide 49 corresponding to broke handling device), which unwinding section further comprises a tensioning device configured to tension and straighten the fiber web to be joined between the tensioning device and the next, new parent roll before joining of the end of the fiber web from the running-out parent roll and the end of the fiber web from the next parent roll to be unwound (Fig. 6; Col. 5, Ln. 3-13, tension lever 33 corresponding to tensioning device), the tensioning device being located between the joining device and the broke handling device the tensioning device being configured to guide the cut beginning end of the fiber web from the next parent roll to be unwound after the joining of the ends of the fiber webs in the parent roll change to the broke handling device (Col. 4, Ln. 5-68; Col. 5, Ln. 1-66).
Regarding claim 2, Muto discloses the unwinding section being located on a maintenance level (Col. 6, Ln. 25-40 describes an instance in which an operator may take control which gives the understanding of the unwinding section being located on a maintenance level) and comprising an opening for removal of broke fiber web to the broke handling device (best depicted in Figs. 7-8, tip P’) and that the tensioning device is located above the opening and downstream in running direction of the fiber web running from the next parent roll to be unwound from the joining device (best depicted in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Muto discloses the tensioning device being configured to guide the beginning end of the fiber web from the next parent roll to be unwound towards the opening and the broke handling device (Figs. 6-8; Col. 5, Ln. 2-36).
Regarding claim 4, Muto discloses the unwinding section comprising a counter roll for the tensioning device, and the counter roll being configured to provide a tensioning effect with the tensioning device and the fiber web from the next parent roll to be unwound being configured to be guided between the counter roll and the tensioning device (Fig. 6; Col. 3, Ln. 35-49, tension rollers 34, 35 corresponding to counter rolls).
Regarding claim 5, Muto discloses the tensioning device being movable between a resting position and a tensioning position (Col. 3, Ln. 34-49; Col. 4, Ln. 14-15 describing the tension lever 33 being pivotally movable corresponding to having multiple positions such as a resting position).
Regarding claim 6, Muto discloses the tensioning device comprising a continuous belt loop running (Fig. 6; Col. 5, Ln. 2-13, belt 41) and supported by at least two rolls located inside the belt loop (Fig. 6; Col. 4, Ln.53-57, rollers 42).
Regarding claim 9, Muto discloses the unwinding section being an unwinding section of a slitter-winder (Col. 3, Ln. 2-9, cutter 10).
Regarding claim 10, Muto discloses a method for joining ends of fiber webs in a parent roll change of an unwinding section (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 20-34, bobbins B1, B2) located in vicinity of a broke handling device configured to handle broke (Figs. 7-8; Col. 5, Ln. 35-43, recess 48 & bottom guide 49), in which method the ends of the fiber webs are configured to be joined by a joining device, in which method the fiber web running from a next parent roll to be unwound (Col. 3, Ln. 10-19, gripper rollers 1, 1’ & reels R1, R2) is tensioned and straightened by a tensioning device before joining of the end of the fiber web from the running-out parent roll and the end of the fiber web from the next parent roll to be unwound, the tensioning device being located between the joining device and the broke handling device, a beginning end of the fiber web from the next parent roll to be unwound after the joining of the ends of the fiber webs in the parent roll change being guided to the broke handling device (Fig. 6; Col. 4, Ln. 5-68; Col. 5, Ln. 1-66, tension lever 33).
Regarding claim 11, Muto discloses the fiber web running from the next parent roll to be unwound being tensioned and straightened by the tensioning device above a maintenance level (best depicted in Fig. 1 & Col. 6, Ln. 25-40).
Regarding claim 12, Muto discloses the fiber web running from the next parent roll to be unwound being further tensioned and straightened by the tensioning device simultaneously and after joining of the end of the fiber web from the running-out parent roll and the end of the fiber web from the next parent roll to be unwound (Col. 5, Ln. 3-66 describes the joining process wherein tension is maintained in order to guide the web to the following station).
Regarding claim 13, Muto discloses the ends of the fiber webs being configured to be joined by the joining device comprising a tool element and a counter element, and the trailing end of the fiber web from the running-out parent roll and the beginning end of a new fiber web from the next parent roll being guided to an overlapping position between the tool element and the counter element for joining, and the beginning end of the fiber web running from the next parent roll to be unwound being tensioned between the joining device and the tensioning device (Col 7, Ln. 25-41; Col. 8, Ln.43-60, parts 57, 57’ corresponding to tool and counter elements).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto (US 4,848,691 A) in view of Klimek (US 6,079,661 A).
Regarding claim 7, Muto discloses the unwinding section comprising two unwinders (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 20-34, bobbins B1, B2), but fails to disclose movable tool and stationary counter elements. However, Klimek teaches the joining device comprising a movable tool element and a stationary counter element (Col. 7, Ln. 14-28, holding assembly 220 corresponding to a movable tool element & idler roll 208 corresponding to a stationary counter element). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated movable tool and stationary counter elements to the unwinding section in order to provide a means of ensuring the web material is properly placed and pressed for splicing.
Regarding claim 8, Muto fails to discloses only one winder. However, Klimek teaches the unwinding section comprising only one unwinder (Fig. l; Col. 3, Ln. 39-48 depicting one unwinder) and the joining device comprising a stationary tool element and a movable counter element (Col. 7, Ln. 14-28, holding assembly 220 & idler roll 208). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated one unwinder to the unwinding section so as to prevent misalignment or entanglement as opposed to having two unwinders moving together.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto (US 4,848,691 A) in view of Kinnunen (US 6,464,163 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Muto fails to discloses the unwinding section being run at a crawling speed. However, Kinnunen the unwinding section being run at a crawling speed during the joining of the ends of the fiber webs (Col. 6, Ln. 33-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a crawling speed to the joining process as it would ensure minimal error occurs when joining the end of the reel to the new parent.
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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654