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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 2/12/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claims 1-10 have been amended in a preliminary amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines in the drawings are blurry and of poor resolution. Lines in the drawings should be solid, dark, and continuous. Furthermore, the labels in Fig. 1 are not legible. 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.
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 lower structural joint (3.1.11), the eleven blocks of 1020 steel, the four 1020 steel blocks, and the sheets of claim 6 and the anti-wear caps consisting of two crescents of claim 8 (note only one crescent is shown in a cap) 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 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 2-10 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “the upper rollers” in line 6, “the lower sliding sheets” in line 7, and “the material” in lines 7-8 each lack sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitations have been interpreted as providing the initial antecedence.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a cutting table for serving as support for the sheets that make up the cutting table, allowing firmness when making cuts in the material. flexible.” is indefinite for several reasons. The limitation “a cutting table” is indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is referring to a new cutting table of the cutting table already recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is not clear how the table can serve as support for sheets that are already elements of the cutting table. How can the table support itself? Finally, the meaning of “flexible.” is not understood. In order to further prosecution, the cutting table has been interpreted as referring to the cutting table of claim 1, the sheets are interpreted to not be elements of the cutting table, and the “flexible.” is interpreted to be a typo that should not be in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “the outer tray structure” in lines 1-2, “the plastic sheet” in line 2, and “each roller” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the first two limitations have been interpreted to recite “an outer tray structure” and “a plastic sheet” respectively. The limitation “each roller” has been interpreted to be referring to any roller.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “to receive the axles that are already without available sheet” is indefinite because “the axles” lack sufficient antecedent basis and the general meaning is unclear due to the improper grammar. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to mean that axles without a sheet may be accessed.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the two sides” in line 3 lacks sufficient basis. The limitation “a lower structural joint (3.1.11) is indefinite because it cites element 3.1.11 of the drawings but no such label is provided in the drawings. The limitation “some joints made up of sheets for covering the joints” is indefinite because it is not clear how joints can cover themselves. The limitation “the upper part” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In this case, no interpretation is being made to further prosecution, because it is not clear from the written description or the drawings how these limitations should be reasonable interpreted.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a safety support for rollers (1003)” is indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is referring to a new safety support or the safety support recited in claim 1. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to be referring to the safety support recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a safety support for rollers made of 60 mm X 60 mm square carbon steel tube and are welded together with each of the supports with bushings” is indefinite because it is not clear how a safety support can be welded to itself. Furthermore, the poor grammar further makes the claim language not readily understandable. In this case, no interpretation is being made to further prosecution because it is not clear from the drawings or the specification how this should be reasonably interpreted.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “an axis support with caps” is indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is reciting a new limitation or the axis support recited in claim 1. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to be referring to the axis support recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the sheet” in lines 2-3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “a sheet.”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “made of plastic engineering (Nylon Moly)” is indefinite because the meaning of plastic engineering in this context is not clear. Plastic engineering is a field of engineering and it is not clear how caps can be made of a field of engineering. Furthermore, it is not clear if Nylon Moly is being claimed as the material of the caps or simply an example of one material of which the caps may be made. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to mean that the caps are made of Nylon Moly.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation a stainless-steel heat gun support is indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is referring to a new heat gun support or the heat gun support recited in claim 1. Furthermore, there is not antecedent basis for a “stainless-steel” heat gun support. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to be referring to the heat gun support recited in claim 1 with the heat gun being made of stainless steel.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the side of the cutting table” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “a side of the cutting table.”
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “a stainless-steel hammer support” in both lines 2 and 5 are indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations are referring to a new hammer support or the hammer support recited in claim 1. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to be referring to the support recited in claim 1.
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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch (US 11034471 B1) in view of Parviainen (US 5657608).
Regarding claim 1, Frisch discloses a device compact roll stand for coils comprising: a main structure system (see annotated Fig. 10); a bumper system (see annotated Fig. 10); a safety support for rollers (see annotated Fig. 3); a sliding sheet system (see annotated Fig. 10); a cutting table (see annotated Fig. 10; note that although Frisch discloses a cutting device at 22, 25 – Fig. 5, the portion pointed to in annotated Fig. 10 is nevertheless interpreted as a cutting table because a sheet is capable of being placed upon it and cut which may occur for example if a wrapped product needs to be accessed after wrapping); a threading roller system (see annotated Fig. 10); a fixed axle support (see annotated Fig. 10); a shaft support with caps (see annotated Fig. 10); a heat gun support (see annotated Fig. 10; note that the element pointed to in the annotated Fig. is fully capable of supporting a heat gun by placing a heat gun on top on it); and a hammer holder (see annotated Fig. 10; note that the element pointed to in the annotated Fig. is fully capable of holding a hammer by placing a hammer on top of it).
However, Frisch does not disclose a crash protection rubber.
Parviainen teaches a similar device wherein potential contact surfaces are coated with a crash protection rubber (col. 3, lines 55-58; note that although crash protection is not the primary reasoning in Parviainen, the rubber is nevertheless being interpreted as crash protection rubber since it still functions to soften the force of any contact). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Parviainen would have recognized that coating potential contact surfaces with rubber provides the benefit of softening the force of any contact, thereby providing the benefit of improving the life of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Frisch such that potential contact surfaces are coated with a crash protection rubber as taught by Parviainen in order to improve the life of the device.
Annotated Fig. 10
PNG
media_image1.png
686
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
628
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Frisch, as modified by Parviainen, further teaches (note that citations are to Frisch unless otherwise noted):
Claim 2, the main structure is divided into three parts; a lateral reinforcement (see annotated Fig. 2) responsible for preventing the structure from overturning on it left side due to overloads or lateral impacts (the structure pointed to in annotated Fig. 2 is lateral to the center of device and can withstand a vertical load, hence it is capable of preventing overturning from overloads); a lateral structure (see annotated Fig. 2) responsible for supporting the vertical loads exerted by the rollers (it is capable of withstanding a vertical loading since it is a vertical beam); an upper horizontal structure (see annotated Fig. 2) to prevent the loads of the upper rollers from opening the structure (it is attached to 2 vertical beams, hence it will apply a reaction force to any lateral forces on the vertical beams); a lower horizontal structure (see annotated Fig. 2) that supports the lower sliding sheets, preventing the sinking of these sheets when the material passes (any sheet that slides over this structure will not sink below the structure because the structure will support the sheet).
Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
668
863
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3, the cutting table (see annotated Fig. 10 above) is capable as serving as support for sheets, allowing firmness when making cuts in material (since objects may be placed on top of and supported by the cutting table, it is capable as serving as support for sheets and providing firmness).
Claim 4, an outer tray structure (the right 3 – Fig. 4) prevents the plastic sheet from coming into contact with the ground, before and after sheets of rollers are joined in the cutting table (any sheets placed on top before or after being placed on the cutting table will rest on the structure and thus prevent them from coming into contact with the ground).
Claim 9, the stainless-steel heat gun support (see annotated claim 10 above, note that in addition to being capable of supporting a heat gun) is located on a side of the cutting table (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 10 above, the heat gun support is to the left of the cutting table).
However, Frisch, as modified Parviainen, does not expressly teach that the support is without paint or any flammable agent.
In this case, Frisch does not disclose that the heat gun support includes paint or any flammable agent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have provided a heat gun support without paint or any flammable agent since Frisch does not disclose that the heat gun support includes these elements and it would be obvious to not include something that is not disclosed or necessary for the functioning of the support.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch (US 11034471 B1) in view of Parviainen (US 5657608) and Tebeck (US 2013/0133290 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Frisch, as modified by Parviainen, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Frisch, as modified by Parviainen, does not expressly teach a ladder.
Tebeck teaches a similar device comprising a ladder (para. 0026) to allow an operator to climb to a required height without a harness. One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Tebeck would have recognized that a ladder is a low cost feature for providing access to high components of a device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Frisch further to include a ladder as taught by Tebeck in order to provide a low cost way to provide access to high components of the device for maintenance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch (US 11034471 B1) in view of Parviainen (US 5657608) and Zhao (US D862822 S).
Regarding claim 10, Frisch, as modified by Parviainen, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Frisch, as modified by Parviainen, does not expressly teach that the hammer support has perforations.
Zhao teaches a tool support (the right-most vertical rectangular container – Fig. 1) having a bottom with a perforation (as can be seen in Fig. 7, there are holes interpreted to be perforations at the bottom of the container), wherein when carrying out maintenance tasks, water or liquid may fall into the support, drain through the perforation (the holes allow water to flow through). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Zhao, would have recognized that any tool, including a stainless-steel hammer may be placed in the tool support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Frisch and Parviainen to include the tool support of Zhao since it would provide a convenient place for any workmen to place their tools, thereby improving the safety around the device by reducing clutter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 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 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
11/14/2025