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 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) 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giancaterino (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0298436) in view of Rengo (JP. 2004148797).
Regarding claim 1: Giancaterino discloses a converting machine for producing flat-packed or folding of boxes1 from sheets, the converting machine being configured to transport the sheets in a direction of transportation and wherein the converting machine comprises:
a first printing module configured to print on one of a first side and a second side of the sheet, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via “the web 2 arriving from the printing unit”),
a die-cutting module comprising a counter-cylinder, and a tool-holder cylinder located vertically above the counter-cylinder and configured to connect to a first die-cutting tool provided with cutting edges to apply cut lines to the first side of the sheet, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via crease/cutting station 22 with tools 28/29 positioned in vertically aligned cylinders) and
a scoring module comprising a counter cylinder, and a tool-holder cylinder located vertically below the counter cylinder and configured to connect to a scoring tool provided with creasing edges, the scoring module being configured to apply crease lines on a second side of the sheet (Figs. 1-3; via creasing plate 31 and/or plate 27). In respect to the exact side on the web, of which a formed cut and/or crease is an indented use limitation, not given much patentable weight in the structural claimed apparatus.
Giancaterino does not disclose the claimed intended use limitations of forming a score line on a second side of the sheet while forming cut lines to the first side of the sheet. However, Rengo shows those claimed intended use of the creasing and cutting modules. Rengo discloses a web sheet being scored in one side while being punched and cut on the other side, see for example (Fig. 1 and abstract; via scoring tool 14 forming score line on one side of sheet S, while another punching/cutting tool via 30/33 “punching processes” forming further cutting operation on the other side of the sheet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Giancaterino’s converting machine, by forming the crease and/or cut lines in two different sides of the sheet, as suggested by Rengo, in order to appropriately form the crease and/or cuts with higher precision.
In respect to the exact claimed arrangements to have a cutting module configured to connect to a second die-cutting tool and the second die-cutting tool is configured to form all cuts and crease lines on the sheet from the die cutting module to the first side of the sheet, it would be nothing more than a design choice of rearranging parts and/or cutting-creasing application in respect to the sheet. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention ivnovles only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3: Giancaterino discloses that the die-cutting module is located downstream of the scoring module in the direction of transportation (via cutting tool 28 downstream of scoring/embossing tool 27).
Regarding claim 4: Giancaterino discloses that the scoring module comprises a structural frame having a first side frame portion and a second side frame portion, and wherein the side frames portions are configured to receive shafts of the tool- holder cylindea frame of the conversion station and can be fixed to the frame”, while those cassette are holding the cutting/creasing rolling tools 28, which inherently having a shaft mechanism).
Regarding claim 9: Giancaterino discloses that the scoring tool only comprises creasing edges (via 27 and/or 28).
Regarding claim 10: Giancaterino discloses the counter-cylinder of the scoring module is provided with a resilient surface material configured to contact the creasing edges of the scoring tool (it is inherent that a use of resilient and/or un-metal counter-rollers in the blank or web art is known to be used to avoid any possible damage of the web during the scoring operation).
Regarding claim 11: Giancaterino discloses the first printing module is a flexographic printing module (inherently used type of printing module) configured to print on bottom surface
Regarding claim 13: Giancaterino discloses the first printing module is an ink-jet printing module, (inherently a use of printing on the web will include “ink-jet” module).
Regarding claim 14: Giancaterino discloses that the converting machine further comprises a second printing module configured to print on a second side of the sheet, which is different from the side of the sheet printed by the first printing module, see for example (“printing units” and “one or more printer groups”).
Regarding claim 15: Giancaterino discloses the converting machine further comprises a third printing module, see for example (“printing units” and “one or more printer groups”; multiple printers); configured as an inkjet printing module, and which is preferably configured to print on a top surface of the sheet (intended use of the claimed printer module).
Regarding claim 17: Giancaterino discloses a system comprising:
a converting machine comprising a first printing module configured to print on one of a first side and a second side of a sheet, wherein the first side and second side are opposite sides of the sheet, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via “the web 2 arriving from the printing unit”), configured to print on one of a first side and a second side of sheet (intended use of the printing module),
a die-cutting module comprising a counter-cylinder and a tool-holder cylinder, wherein the tool-holder cylinder of the die-cutting module is located vertically above the counter-cylinder, (via 28/29 positioned on vertically arranged cylinders),
a scoring module comprising a counter cylinder and tool-holder cylinder (via 26/27),
a first die-cutting tool configured to connect to the tool-holder cylinde
a second die-cutting tool configured to connect to the tool-holder cylinder of the die-cutting module and wherein the second die-cutting tool is provided with cutting edges and creasing edges (via “creasing and cutting tool 28”), and
a first scoring tool configured to connect to the tool-holder cylinder of the scoring module and provided with creasing edges (via 27 and/or 28).
Giancaterino does not disclose the claimed intended use limitations of forming a score line on a second side of the sheet while forming cut lines to the first side of the sheet. However, Rengo shows those claimed intended use of the creasing and cutting modules. Rengo discloses a web sheet being scored in one side while being punched and cut on the other side, see for example (Fig. 1 and abstract; via scoring tool 14 forming score line on one side of sheet S, while another punching/cutting tool via 30/33 “punching processes” forming further cutting operation on the other side of the sheet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Giancaterino’s converting machine, by forming the crease and/or cut lines in two different sides of the sheet, as suggested by Rengo, in order to appropriately form the crease and/or cuts with higher precision.
In respect to the exact claimed arrangements to have a cutting module configured to connect to a second die-cutting tool and the second die-cutting tool is configured to form all cuts and crease lines on the sheet from the die cutting module to the first side of the sheet and/or second side of the sheet, it would be nothing more than a design choice of rearranging parts and/or cutting-creasing application in respect to the sheet. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 18: Giancaterino discloses the first printing module is configured to print on the first side of the sheet and wherein the system further comprises a second printing module configured to print on the second side of the sheet, see for example (“printing units” and “one or more printer groups”; multiple printers). In respect to the claimed specific prints in first and/or second side of the sheet, these are intended use limitations of the printing module, not given much patentable weight and only a matter of arranging of parts.
Regarding claim 20: Giancaterino discloses scoring tool (Fig. 1; via 14), what those scoring tools used for or to be configured to provide perforation lines on the second side of the sheet, the perforation lines being frangible lines that partially separate juxtaposed blanks on the sheet are nothing more than an intended use limitations of the actual claimed “scoring tool”.
Regarding claim 21: Giancaterino discloses die-cutting tool (via 30/33) and scoring tool (via 14), having those tool to be configured to apply crease lines to the first side and the second side of the sheet, respectively, such that a direction of folding of the sheet is selectable to arrange a printed motif on either an inside surface or an outside surface of a box formed from the sheet, would be nothing more than an intended use limitations of the actual claimed “cutting tool” and “scoring tool”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of the claimed system comprising among other features, the use of the first printing module and the second printing module is provided with high-resolution graphic anilox rolls having a first cell volume (Figs.4-5; via printing modules 16 & 17 and anilox cylinder 45), and the other of the first printing module and the second printing module is provided with anilox rolls having a second cell volume that is larger than the first cell volume (filed specification; “The converting machine 10 according to the present invention is configured such tiat it is possible to select which printing module 16, 17 will print on the outside or tie inside of the box. In such a way, the converting machine 10 can be provided with high resolution graphic anilox rolls (e.g. anilox rolls with small cell volumes) in one of the printing modules 16, 17 and a different anilox configuration (anilox with larger cell volume) in the other printing module 16,17.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection adjusted to address the newly added claims.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Rengo ‘797 does not suggest the claimed use of the cutting tool to cut the sheet in one side while scoring the sheet in the other side, pointing out that both shown tools 10 & 30 operate in the same side of the sheet.
The Office might agree with the applicant that both tools 10 & 30 of the applied art ‘797 operate on the conveyed sheet on one side, but tool 33 with the shown pins appears to be operating on the other side of the conveyed sheet “S”.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached on 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights