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
The amendments filed 19 November 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 21 August 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 19 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 8 and their respective dependent claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “one surf ace” in line 6 should be “one surface” for further clarity.
Claim 8: “one surf ace” in line 6 should be “one surface” for further clarity.
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 1-10 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 1, “the distance” in lines 17 and 19 respectively are unclear as they both lack proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “the design value depth” in lines 17-18 and 19 respectively are unclear as they both lack proper antecedent basis. “the specifications” in line 18 is unclear as it lacks proper antecedent basis. Lastly, “the placement position” in line 17 is unclear as an arrangement position has already been mentioned previously. Is this limitation referring to the arrangement position mentioned previously or a different position? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the arrangement position mentioned previously.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, “the distance” in lines 17 and 19 respectively are unclear as they both lack proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “the design value depth” in lines 17-18 and 19 respectively are unclear as they both lack proper antecedent basis. “the specifications” in line 18 is unclear as it lacks proper antecedent basis. Lastly, “the placement position” in line 17 is unclear as an arrangement position has already been mentioned previously. Is this limitation referring to the arrangement position mentioned previously or a different position? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the arrangement position mentioned previously.
Claims 9 is rejected for its dependency on claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a defect detecting device for a corrugated cardboard sheet as claimed, the corrugated cardboard sheet including one surface formed with a recessed portion of a first score in a thickness direction and another surface formed with a recessed portion of a second score in the thickness direction, the recessed portion of the second score having a depth smaller than a depth of the recessed portion of the first score, the defect detecting device comprising: a measurement device disposed opposing the one surf ace or the other surface and being configured to measure a distance from an arrangement position to a front end of the corrugated cardboard sheet and a distance from the arrangement position to the recessed portion of the first score or the recessed portion of the second score to acquire a measured distance; and a determination device configured to perform comparison of the measured distance with a threshold value that is preset in a determination region that is predetermined and preset from the front end toward a back end of the corrugated cardboard sheet, specify a magnitude relationship between the measured distance and the threshold value by the comparison, and determine a front/rear surface defect of the corrugated cardboard sheet or a front/back side defect of the corrugated cardboard sheet by using the magnitude relationship, more specifically in combination with wherein the threshold value is preset based on the distance from the placement position to the design value depth of the recessed portion of the first score according to the specifications of the corrugated cardboard sheet, or the distance to the design value depth of the recessed portion of the second score according to the specifications of the corrugated cardboard sheet.
Claims 2-7 and 10 would be allowed for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a defect detecting method for a corrugated cardboard sheet as claimed, the corrugated cardboard sheet including one surface formed with a recessed portion of a first score in a thickness direction and another surface formed with a recessed portion of a second score in the thickness direction, the recessed portion of the second score having a depth smaller than a depth of the recessed portion of the first score, the defect detecting method comprising: measuring a distance from a predetermined position opposing the one surf ace or the other surface to a front end of the corrugated cardboard sheet and a distance from the predetermined position to the recessed portion of the first score or the recessed portion of the second score to acquire a measured distance; comparing the measured distance with a threshold value that is preset in a determination region that is predetermined and preset from the front end toward a back end of the corrugated cardboard sheet; and specifying a magnitude relationship between the measured distance and the threshold value and determining a front/rear surface defect of the corrugated cardboard sheet or a front/back side defect of the corrugated cardboard sheet by using the magnitude relationship, more specifically in combination with wherein the threshold value is preset based on the distance from the placement position to the design value depth of the recessed portion of the first score according to the specifications of the corrugated cardboard sheet, or the distance to the design value depth of the recessed portion of the second score according to the specifications of the corrugated cardboard sheet.
Claim 9 would be allowed for its dependency on claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878