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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Please note the following:
The IDS filed 02/26/2024 listed JP “2018-25512” and JP “2013-92532”, where it appears that both the references were missing a “0” and have been corrected on the IDS to be “2018025512” and “2013092532” respectively.
The IDS filed 10/23/2024 listed JP “406255635”, where this appears to have incorrectly cited the reference where “4” should be “h”. Therefore, the IDS has been corrected to be “H06255635”.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “The sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1” where this should be amended to recite “according to claim 1” as claim 5 is only dependent on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “The sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1” where this should be amended to recite “according to claim 1” as claim 7 is only dependent on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “The sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1” where this should be amended to recite “according to claim 1” as claim 8 is only dependent on claim 1.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “where the leading end portion of the cover film protrudes from a cut position of the cutter for a predetermined length” on lines 16-17, where it is unclear if this predetermined length is the same or different from the predetermined length described on line 4.
Line 4 describes that the cutter cuts the cover film into a predetermined length, where it would appear that the predetermined length of lines 16-17 would be the same predetermined length because the leading end extending a certain distance from the cut position and is then cut would make the cut section of the film.
For examination it will be interpreted that the predetermined lengths of lines 4 and 16-17 are the same.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 3 recites “wherein a pair of the first sensors” where it is unclear if this pair of first sensors is in addition to the first sensor described in claim 1, or if the pair includes the first sensor of claim 1.
Page 13 beginning on line 391 describes “first sensors 64” that are best seen in Figure 3, where in Figure 3 there are two first sensors 64 labeled. Therefore, for examination it will be interpreted that the pair of first sensors includes the first sensor described in claim 1. In other words, there is a total of two first sensors described in claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda (US-2004/0100708-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Noda teaches a sealing apparatus (film supply device 3) comprising ([0022], Figure 2):
a mounting portion (turret arm 10) to which a cover film (PVA film 6) wound around a holder is mounted via the holder ([0023] see turret arm 10 holding the first and second film rolls 6a and 6b, Figure 2);
a cutter (film cutter 13) configured to cut the cover film (6) into a predetermined length ([0024], Figure 2);
a sealing unit (heat sealer 14) ([0024], Figure 2);
feed rollers (feed roller pairs 11) that are provided between the mounting portion (10) and the cutter (13), and are capable of feeding the cover film (6), drawn from the holder, forward ([0024], see Figure 2 where there is a total of five pairs of feed rollers seen, where there are two pairs of feed rollers seen within the film containing section 7 that will be between the turret arm 10 and the cutter 13);
a first sensor (edge sensor 12) capable of detecting a leading end portion of the cover film (6) on a downstream side of the feed rollers ([0024] see edge sensor 12 detects the passage of front and rear end points of the PVA film, further see Figure 2 where the sensor 12 is downstream of the two pairs of feed rollers 11 that are in the film containing section 7); and
a control unit (controller 15) configured to drivingly control the feed rollers (11) and the cutter (13) ([0026] see controller 15 controls the film connecting section 8, the film containing section 7, and the reservoir 9, further see Figure 2 where it can be seen that the controller 15 is connected to the feed rollers 11 and the cutter 13), wherein
when during initial positioning for the cover film (6), the cover film (6) is drawn toward the downstream side of the feed rollers (11), and the first sensor (12) detects the leading end portion of the cover film (6), the control unit (15) performs control of driving, based on position information on the leading end portion of the cover film (6) from the first sensor (12), the feed rollers (11) to feed the cover film (6) forward or backward, to draw the cover film (6) to a position where the leading end portion of the cover film (6) protrudes from a cut position of the cutter (13) for a predetermined length ([0026] see “When the edge sensor 12 detects the edge of the PVA film 6, the predetermined length of the PVA film 6 is transported, and thereafter the controller 15 stops transporting the film so as to make a positioning of the end portion of the PVA film 6 to the film cutter 13”), and
then driving the cutter (13) to cut the cover film (6) ([0026]).
The limitation “a sealing unit configured to stick the cover film cut into the predetermined length on a specimen disposed on a slide glass to seal the specimen” and “feed rollers that are provided between the mounting portion and the cutter, and are capable of feeding the cover film, drawn from the holder, forward and backward” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Noda and the apparatus of Noda is capable of sticking a cover film on a specimen disposed on a slide glass to seal the specimen and is capable of feeding the cover film forward and backward. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Noda (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the specimen nor the slide glass have been positively recited in the claim, and are therefore not a part of the claimed sealing apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, Noda teaches the sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1. Noda further teaches wherein a first falling portion through which a cover film piece cut off from the cover film (6) during the initial positioning for the cover film falls, is provided on the downstream side of and adjacent to the cut position of the cutter (13), as a gap having a predetermined length (Figure 2 where it is seen that there is a space between the cutter 13 and a pair of rollers 11 moving from left to right, [0026] see the removed end portion is guided by a branching guide (not shown) and recovered into a trash box 24).
Regarding claim 8, Noda teaches the sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1. Noda further teaches further comprising a motor (feed motor 6) as a drive unit configured to drive the feed rollers (11), wherein the control unit (15) drivingly controls the feed rollers (11) by controlling rotation speed or rotation angle and a rotation direction of the motor (6) ([0024] see feed roller pairs 11 are driven and rotated by a feed motor 16, [0034] see controller 15 drives and controls the feed motor 16 so as to rotate and stop the feed roller pairs 11, Figure 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US-2004/0100708-A1) in view of translated Washizaki (KR-2007/0053618-A).
Regarding claim 3, Noda teaches the sealing apparatus according to claim 1. While Noda teaches that the edge sensor 12 includes a light projector 12a and light receiver 12b, Noda does not teach wherein a pair of the first sensors are disposed on a plane orthogonal to a feed direction of the cover film on the downstream side of the feed rollers, to have the cover film provided in between.
In the same problem solving area of film detection, Washizaki teaches a single-fiber film inspection device that detects the position of the film being transported and is equipped with film detection sensors (Washizaki; page 22-23).
Specifically, Washizaki teaches where there are film detection sensors 18a, 18b, 19a, 19b, 20a, and 20b spaced apart from a sending roller and receiving roller, and as seen in Figure 1 for sensors 18a and 18b they can be seen to be on opposing sides of the sheet 2 (Washizaki; page 22-23, Figure 1).
Examiner finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a film supply device) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., edge sensor with a light projector 12a and light receiver 12b) with other component(s) (i.e., film detection sensors), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., the edge sensor for the film detection sensors), and the results of the substitution (i.e., detection of the film) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the edge sensor of reference Noda with the film detection sensors of reference Washizaki, since the result would have been predictable.
Therefore, the first sensor will now be the film detection sensors of Washizaki where sensor 18a will be on one side of the film and sensor 18b will be on the opposite side of the film opposing each other and on a plane orthogonal to a feed direction.
Regarding claim 7, Noda teaches the sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1. Noda does not teach further comprising a second sensor capable of detecting insertion of the cover film between the feed rollers, wherein
when during the initial positioning for the cover film, the cover film is inserted between the feed rollers and the second sensor detects the insertion of the cover film between the feed rollers, the control unit performs control of
driving the feed rollers to feed the cover film forward to draw the cover film to a position where the first sensor detects the leading end portion of the cover film.
In the same problem solving area of film detection, Washizaki teaches a single-fiber film inspection device that detects the position of the film being transported and is equipped with film detection sensors (Washizaki; page 22-23).
Specifically, Washizaki teaches where there are film detection sensors 18a, 18b, 19a, 19b, 20a, and 20b spaced apart from a sending roller and receiving roller (Washizaki; page 22-23, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the film supply device of modified Noda such that it further includes the film detection sensors of Washizaki because Washizaki teaches that these sensors are effective for sensing a film as it enters a deliver roller and passes to a receiving roller.
The first pair of film detection sensors of Washizaki will be placed before the first pair of feed rollers 11 in the film containing section 7 and the second pair of film detection sensors will be placed between the two pairs of feed rollers 11 in the film containing section 7 similar to how they are before and between the sending and receiving rollers seen in Figure 1 of Washizaki. One skilled in the art would find it obvious to modify the controller such that once the film is detected by both sensors that this would indicate the film has been inserted in the feed rollers and thus the steps of sensing the leading edge, advancing the film to the cutter, and cutting the film can commence.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US-2004/0100708-A1) in view of Stormby (US-4455188-A).
Regarding claim 4, Noda teaches the sealing apparatus according to claim 1. Noda does teach a film cutter 13, however Noda does not teach the specific structure of the film cuter and therefore does not teach:
wherein the cutter has a notched part that prevents attachment of a cover film piece cut off from the cover film during the initial positioning for the cover film, the notched part being provided by notching a cut surface of the cutter.
In the same problem solving area of severing lengths of a cover-slip material, Stormby teaches a severing means (Stormby; abstract, column 5 line 3).
Specifically, Stormby teaches where a severing means 13 for cutting a ribbon of cover-slip material into suitable lengths, where the severing means comprises a movable knife blade 72 pivoted at 73 and adapted to cooperate with a fixed blade 74 to sever the ribbon (Stormby; column 2 lines 43-46, column 5 lines 3-5, Figures 1, 6a). As seen in Figure 6, the severing means will have a movable blade and a fixed blade, where these blades are seen in Figure 6 to be beveled.
Noda is silent with regards to the specific structure of the film cutter, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional cutters used for cutting ribbons of material. Stormby provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a movable blade and a fixed blade that have bevels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the cutter of Noda the movable blade and fixed blade with bevels as taught by Stormby because Stormby teaches that this structure is effective for cutting ribbons of material that are then placed and sealed on slides.
The bevel is understood to be a notch as it is a cut on the bottom edge of the blade.
Please note the limitation “a notched part that prevents attachment of a cover film piece cut off from the cover film during the initial positioning for the cover film” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Stormby and the beveled blades of Stormby are capable of preventing attachment of a cover film piece cut off from the cover film during the initial positioning for the cover film. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Stormby (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 6, Noda teaches the sealing apparatus according to claim 5. Noda does not teach further comprising a support lane member that is provided between the mounting portion and the sealing unit, and is configured to support the cover film drawn from the holder, wherein
the support lane member is split, at a portion where the cutter is disposed, into a first support lane member on an upstream side and a second support lane member on the downstream side, with a gap of a predetermined interval in between,
the gap between the first support lane member and the second support lane member serves as the first falling portion, and
a second falling portion is further provided to the second support lane member by notching a splitting surface of the second support lane member on the downstream side.
In the same problem solving area of advancing a film using rollers, Stormby teaches a guide (Stormby; abstract, column 4 lines 61-62).
Specifically, Stormby teaches where the rotation of rollers 58a and 58 advance a specific length of ribbon 11 through a guide 62 and the ribbon severing means 13 (Stormby; column 4 lines 53-62). It is seen in Figure 6 that the guide 62 extends between rollers 58a and 58 to the severing means 13, and that there is a portion of the guide seen to be between the severing means 13 and rollers 63 and 64. Therefore, the guide 62 is split where severing means 13 is located into a left portion and a right portion. As seen in Figure 6, the right portion has a widening portion.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the film supply device of Noda such that it includes the guide as taught by Stormby because Stormby teaches that the guide guides the ribbon from rollers to the severing means (Stormby; column 4 lines 61-62).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., adding the guide of Stormby to the film supply device of Noda between the feed rollers in the film containing section 7 and after the film cutter 13), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., feeding the cover film from the feed rollers to the cutter and then past the cutter, and guiding the cover film), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the film supply device of Noda with the guide of reference Stormby, since the result would have been predictable.
As seen in Figure 6 of Stormby, there will be a gap between the right portion and left portion of the guide 62 that will serve as the first falling portion, where the widening of the right portion of the guide 62 is a notch of a splitting surface and is a second falling portion.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US-2009/0098646-A1) in view of Noda (US-2004/0100708-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takizawa teaches a sealing apparatus (sticking device 12) comprising ([0048], Figure 1):
a mounting portion (film setting section 32) to which a cover film wound around a holder is mounted via the holder ([0064] see film setting section 32 for setting a roll of a long cover film, Figure 5);
a cutter (cutter 104) configured to cut the cover film into a predetermined length ([0104], [0105], Figure 9);
a sealing unit (sticking roller 106) configured to stick the cover film cut into the predetermined length on a specimen disposed on a slide glass to seal the specimen ([0104] see cover film piece 105 (formed from a cut piece of cover film) is pressed and stuck on glass slide 25 by sticking roller 106, Figure 9);
feed rollers (feed rollers 98) that are provided between the mounting portion (32) and the cutter (104), and are capable of feeding the cover film, drawn from the holder, forward ([0104], [0105], Figure 9);
a control unit (sticking control unit 12A) configured to drivingly control the feed rollers (98) and the cutter (104) ([0130] see sticking condition data is sent to the sticking control unit 12A and the cover film pieces are stuck on the stained specimens. Therefore one skilled in the art would find it obvious that in order to draw out the cover film and cut the film in order to stick the cover film pieces on the stained specimens, there would need to be control of the feed rollers 98 and cutter 104), wherein
The limitation “feed rollers that are provided between the mounting portion and the cutter, and are capable of feeding the cover film, drawn from the holder, forward and backward” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Takizawa and the apparatus of Takizawa is capable of feeding the cover film forward and backward. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Takizawa (see MPEP §2114).
Please note that the specimen nor slide glass have been positively recited in the claim, and are therefore not a part of the claimed sealing apparatus, however please note Takizawa does teach a specimen on a glass slide as described in [0001].
While Takizawa does describe where the cutter 104 is synchronously driven with the feeding action of feed rollers 98 from the start of the feeding action so that the cover film pieces 105 having the prescribed length can be formed (Takizawa; [0105]), Takizawa does not teach:
a first sensor capable of detecting a leading end portion of the cover film on a downstream side of the feed rollers; and
when during initial positioning for the cover film, the cover film is drawn toward the downstream side of the feed rollers, and the first sensor detects the leading end portion of the cover film, the control unit performs control of driving, based on position information on the leading end portion of the cover film from the first sensor, the feed rollers to feed the cover film forward or backward, to draw the cover film to a position where the leading end portion of the cover film protrudes from a cut position of the cutter for a predetermined length, and
then driving the cutter to cut the cover film.
In the same problem solving area of cutting a film, Noda teaches an edge sensor (Noda; [0026]).
Specifically, Noda teaches where when the edge sensor 12 detects the edge of a PVA film 6, a predetermined length of PVA film is transported, and then a controller 15 stops transporting the film so as to make a positioning of the end portion of the PVA film 6 to a film cutter 13, where the leading end portion is then cut off (Noda; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the sticking device of Takizawa such that it includes the edge sensor as taught by Noda because Noda teaches that by detecting the edge of the film it allows the film to be properly positioned at the cutter (Noda; [0026]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., adding the edge sensor to the sticking device), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., advance the film by a predetermined amount to obtain a cut film of predetermined length, and sensing the edge of the film), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the sticking device of reference Takizawa with the edge sensor of reference Noda, since the result would have been predictable.
As a result of the combination of Takizawa and Noda, the edge of the cover film will be detected where the sticking control unit 12A will then advance the cover film a prescribed distance to the cutter 104 in order to obtain a cover film piece with the prescribed length and then the sticking control unit 12A will cut the cover film.
Regarding claim 5, modified Takizawa teaches the sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1. Takizawa further teaches wherein a first falling portion through which a cover film piece cut off from the cover film during the initial positioning for the cover film falls, is provided on the downstream side of and adjacent to the cut position of the cutter, as a gap having a predetermined length (Takizawa; see Figure 9 where there is a gap where cover film piece 105 is located and is between the cutter 104 and cover rollers 102).
Regarding claim 8, modified Takizawa teaches the sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1. Takizawa does not teach further comprising a motor as a drive unit configured to drive the feed rollers, wherein the control unit drivingly controls the feed rollers by controlling rotation speed or rotation angle and a rotation direction of the motor.
In the same problem solving area of advancing a film, Noda teaches where feed roller pairs are driven and rotated by a feed motor (Noda; [0024], Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the feed rollers of Takizawa such that they are driven by a feed motor as taught by Noda because Noda teaches that a feed motor is an effective way to drive feed rollers (Noda; [0024]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US-2009/0098646-A1) and Noda (US-2004/0100708-A1), and in further view of Kalra (US-2010/0209298-A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Takizawa teaches the sealing apparatus according to claim 1. Takizawa further teaches further comprising a notification unit (display monitor 14), wherein ([0048], Figure 1).
[0050] of Takizawa describes where the display monitor 14 displays staining condition data and sticking condition data and the history data of the staining works and sticking works. [0050] of Takizawa describes an input section for inputting staining condition data and sticking condition data, where [0049] describes that staining control unit 10A and sticking control unit 12A are interconnected and communicate with each other. [0120] of Takizawa describes where sticking condition data can include the length of the cover film piece which can be adjusted by controlling the cutter 104.
Takizawa has been modified with Noda such that it includes the edge sensor where as described above, the edge sensor will be detected and then the film will be advanced a prescribed distance to the cutter 104 in order to obtain the cover film piece with the prescribed length and then the cutter will cut the cover film.
One skilled in the art would find it obvious that in response to the sticking condition data input by the user (which dictates length of the cover film) that the feed rollers will be driven a certain amount based on the edge sensor detection to the cutter to obtain the desired length of cover film.
However, Takizawa does not teach that the display is configured to issue a notification indicating detection of the leading end portion of the cover film to a user
making the notification unit issue the notification, when during the initial positioning for the cover film, the cover film is drawn toward the downstream side of the feed rollers, and the first sensor detects the leading end portion of the cover film,
In the analogous art of systems for handling and processing chemical and/or biological samples, Kalra teaches a sample processing system that has cover placement and removal capabilities (Kalra; [0002], [0039]).
Specifically, Kalra teaches a robotic device 640 that includes a cover handling device 606 adapted to dispense covers of one or more sizes on reservoirs to form MicroChambers 602, where a controller 608 executes logic instructions that control operations of the cover handling device 606 (Kalra; [0042], [0047]). [0145] of Kalra further describes that the controller 608 can generate a user interface that allows an operator to preview an entire protocol and edit selected portions of the protocol before starting the process, further a slide map may be displayed showing real-time protocols, processing, and progress, further providing run-time and time to completion.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the display monitor and staining and sticking control units of Takizawa such that they display real-time protocols, processing, and progress as taught by Kalra because Kalra teaches that this allows an operator to preview an entire protocol, and because Kalra teaches that it is desirable to show the real-time protocols, processing, and progress and that the controller is effective for generating a user interface that allows this to be shown (Kalra; [0145]).
One skilled in the art would find it obvious that detection of the leading end portion by the edge sensor is part of the protocol, process, and progress of the overall system of Takizawa. Therefore, the operator will be notified of the detection of the leading end.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US-2009/0098646-A1) and Noda (US-2004/0100708-A1), and in further view of Stormby (US-4455188-A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Takizawa teaches the sealing apparatus according to claim 1. While Takizawa does teach a cutter 104, Takizawa does not teach the specific structure of the cutter and therefore does not teach:
wherein the cutter has a notched part that prevents attachment of a cover film piece cut off from the cover film during the initial positioning for the cover film, the notched part being provided by notching a cut surface of the cutter.
In the analogous art of automatically applying cover slips to slides carrying specimens, Stormby teaches a severing means (Stormby; abstract, column 5 line 3).
Specifically, Stormby teaches where a severing means 13 for cutting a ribbon of cover-slip material into suitable lengths, where the severing means comprises a movable knife blade 72 pivoted at 73 and adapted to cooperate with a fixed blade 74 to sever the ribbon (Stormby; column 2 lines 43-46, column 5 lines 3-5, Figures 1, 6a). As seen in Figure 6, the severing means will have a movable blade and a fixed blade, where these blades are seen in Figure 6 to be beveled.
Takizawa is silent with regards to the specific structure of the cutter, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional cutters used for cutting ribbons of material. Stormby provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a movable blade and a fixed blade that have bevels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the cutter of Takizawa the movable blade and fixed blade with bevels as taught by Stormby because Stormby teaches that this structure is effective for cutting ribbons of material that are then placed and sealed on slides.
The bevel is understood to be a notch as it is a cut on the bottom edge of the blade.
Please note the limitation “a notched part that prevents attachment of a cover film piece cut off from the cover film during the initial positioning for the cover film” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Stormby and the beveled blades of Stormby are capable of preventing attachment of a cover film piece cut off from the cover film during the initial positioning for the cover film. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Stormby (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 6, modified Takizawa teaches the sealing apparatus according to claim 5. Takizawa does not teach further comprising a support lane member that is provided between the mounting portion and the sealing unit, and is configured to support the cover film drawn from the holder, wherein
the support lane member is split, at a portion where the cutter is disposed, into a first support lane member on an upstream side and a second support lane member on the downstream side, with a gap of a predetermined interval in between,
the gap between the first support lane member and the second support lane member serves as the first falling portion, and
a second falling portion is further provided to the second support lane member by notching a splitting surface of the second support lane member on the downstream side.
In the analogous art of automatically applying cover slips to slides carrying specimens, Stormby teaches a guide (Stormby; abstract, column 4 lines 61-62).
Specifically, Stormby teaches where the rotation of rollers 58a and 58 advance a specific length of ribbon 11 through a guide 62 and the ribbon severing means 13 (Stormby; column 4 lines 53-62). It is seen in Figure 6 that the guide 62 extends between rollers 58a and 58 to the severing means 13, and that there is a portion between the severing means 13 and rollers 63 and 64. Therefore, the guide 62 is split where severing means 13 is located into a left portion and a right portion. As seen in Figure 6, the right portion has a widening portion.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the sticking device of Takizawa such that it includes the guide as taught by Stormby because Stormby teaches that the guide guides the ribbon from rollers to the severing means (Stormby; column 4 lines 61-62).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., adding the guide of Stormby to the sticking device of Takizawa between the feed rollers 98 and the cover rollers 102), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., feeding the cover film from the feed rollers to the cutter and then to the cover rollers, and guiding the cover film), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the sticking device of reference Takizawa with the guide of reference Stormby, since the result would have been predictable.
As seen in Figure 6 of Stormby, there will be a gap between the right portion and left portion of the guide 62 that will serve as the first falling portion, where the widening of the right portion of the guide 62 is a notch of a splitting surface and is a second falling portion.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US-2009/0098646-A1) and Noda (US-2004/0100708-A1), and in further view of translated Washizaki (KR-2007/0053618-A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Takizawa teaches the sealing apparatus according to any one of claims 1. Takizawa does not teach further comprising a second sensor capable of detecting insertion of the cover film between the feed rollers,
wherein when during the initial positioning for the cover film, the cover film is inserted between the feed rollers and the second sensor detects the insertion of the cover film between the feed rollers, the control unit performs control of
driving the feed rollers to feed the cover film forward to draw the cover film to a position where the first sensor detects the leading end portion of the cover film.
In the same problem solving area of film detection, Washizaki teaches a single-fiber film inspection device that detects the position of the film being transported and is equipped with film detection sensors (Washizaki; page 22-23).
Specifically, Washizaki teaches where there are film detection sensors 18a, 18b, 19a, 19b, 20a, and 20b spaced apart from a sending roller and receiving roller (Washizaki; page 22-23, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the sticking device of modified Takizawa such that it further includes the film detection sensors of Washizaki because Washizaki teaches that these sensors are effective for sensing a film as it enters a deliver roller and passes to a receiving roller.
The film detection sensors of Washizaki will be placed before the feed rollers 98 and between feed rollers 98 and carrier rollers 102 similar to how they are before and between the sending and receiving rollers seen in Figure 1 of Washizaki. One skilled in the art would find it obvious to modify the controller such that once the film is detected by both sensors that this would indicate the film has been inserted in the feed rollers and thus the steps of sensing the leading edge, advancing the film to the cutter, and cutting the film can commence.
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Translated Kazuyoshi (JP-2007/261187-A), foreign document provided for IDS filed 08/27/2025, English translation is provided. Kazuyoshi teaches a rotation speed detection sensor 55 that detects rotation speed of the detection roller 54 and a tip detection sensor 56 that detects the tip of the film 3 drawn from film roll 6, where both of these sensors allows the control unit 50 to calculate the transport position of the film 3 (Kazuyoshi; [0039]).
Translated Nagaoka (JPH-06255635-A1), foreign document provided for IDS filed 10/23/2024, English translation is provided. Nagaoka teaches sensor S2 for sensing a leading edge of the film and serves as the detection of the cutting position detection marks, and sensor S3 detects that the transported film and document have passed sealing unit B5 (Nagoka; [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights