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 .
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged. As such, claims 49 and 53 have been examined.
Applicant’s election of Group II Subgroup xii in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 49 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 49: Lines 2-3 state “and rotating blade device for processing a web material” should say “and a rotating blade device for processing the web material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• A “device” as recited in claim 49 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “adapted to combine a signal of the mutual contact senor and a signal of the angular position sensor and to provide… an indication…”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., there is no language defining the structure of the “device” in claim 49). Referring to the specification a “central control unit” in P. 0119 appears to be the structure of the device as it performs the stated function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 49 and 53 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 49, the claim states “a machine for converting a web material, comprising a feed path of a web material, and rotating blade device for processing a web material; wherein the rotating blade device comprises: a supporting structure;” in lines 1-4 of the claim. It is unclear what the bounds of the instant invention is as it is unclear from the preamble to which device is being claimed. Further, it is unclear if the “rotating blade device” is descripting the rotation of a blade device or if it is instead reciting “a rotating blade device”.
The claim also states “a device adapted to combine a signal of the mutual contact sensor and a signal of the angular position sensor and provide, for said each rotating blade, an indication of the presence or absence of the mutual contact between the rotating blade and the counter-blade in a plurality of points distributed along a longitudinal extension of a respective one of the rotating blade and of the counter- blade” in lines 28-35 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the “device” is the device is defined by the function it performs without providing sufficient structure for the device to perform the stated function.
Regarding claim 53, this claim is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency on claim 49.
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 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montagnani (WO 2019/239283 A1) in view of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (DE 4336955 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Montagnani teaches a machine for converting a web material (Montagnani; Figs. 1-14) of a web material (Montagnani; Fig. 1; N), and a rotating blade device (Montagnani; Figs. 1, 6, 11, and 13; 3, 201, and 202) for processing a web material, comprises:
a supporting structure (Montagnani; Figs. 1, 6, 11, and 13; 17, and 217);
a rotating blade-holder (Montagnani; Figs. 1, 6, 11, and 13; 15, 15B, 203, and 205), which rotates around a rotation axis and on which a set of rotating blades (Montagnani; Figs. 1, 6, 11, and 13; 19, 19B, 203A, and 205A) is arranged;
a counter-blade (Montagnani; Figs. 1, 6, 11, and 13; 21, 21B, 21C, 204, and 206) carried on said supporting structure and adapted to coact with said set of rotating blades (Montagnani; P. 00016); wherein each rotating blade of said set of rotating blades and the counter-blade are configured so that, during rotation of the rotating blade-holder said each rotating blade and the counter-blade have a point of mutual contact at a first end of the rotating blade and out of mutual contact at a second end of the rotating blade, the point of mutual contact between said each rotating blade and the counter-blade shifting gradually from the first end to the second end of the rotating blade along a longitudinal extension of the rotating blade (Montagnani; P. 0021); wherein the feed path of the web material (Montagnani; Fig. 1; N) passes between the rotating blade-holder and the counter-blade (Montagnani; Fig. 6; N, 15 and 21);
a mutual contact sensor (Montagnani; Figs. 1-2, 6, 11, and 13; 31, 104, 105, 107, 231, and 232) adapted to detect presence or absence of the mutual contact between said each rotating blade and the counter-blade (Montagnani; P. 0027);
Montagnani does not teach an angular position sensor, adapted to detect an angular position of the rotating blade-holder and a device adapted to combine a signal of the mutual contact sensor and a signal of the angular position sensor and provide, for said each rotating blade, an indication of the presence or absence of the mutual contact between the rotating blade and the counter-blade in a plurality of points distributed along a longitudinal extension of a respective one of the rotating blade and the counter- blade.
Heidelberger teaches an angular position sensor (Heidelberger; Figs. 1-4; 4), adapted to detect an angular position of the rotating blade-holder (Heidelberger; P. 0021), which is useful to monitor where the blades are co-acting (Heidelberger; P. 0021) and a device (Heidelberger; Fig. 4; 10) adapted to combine a signal of the mutual contact sensor and a signal of the angular position sensor and provide, for said each rotating blade, an indication of the presence or absence of the mutual contact between the rotating blade and the counter-blade in a plurality of points distributed along a longitudinal extension of a respective one of the rotating blade and the counter- blade (Heidelberger; P. 0023). This helps to extend the life of the blades while also reducing downtime due to readjustments (Heidelberger; P. 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the rotating blade device taught by Montagnani to include an angular position sensor as such sensors help monitor where the blades are co-acting and to include a device to combine signals from the sensors to monitor the perforating or cutting of a web as such monitoring helps to extend the life of the blades while also reducing downtime due to readjustments.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montagnani (WO 2019/239283 A1) in view of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (DE 4336955 A1) as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Vitiello et al. (US 2020/0369424 A1).
Regarding claim 53, Montagnani in view of Heidelberger teaches the machine of claim 49, wherein said machine (Montagnani; Figs. 1-14) operates at a constant speed (Montagnani; P. 0052); wherein the degree of interference between the set of rotating blades and the counter-blade of the rotating blade device is varied dependent on different variables (Montagnani; P. 0057-0058, 0074-0076, 85, 91); wherein the rotating blade device (Montagnani; Figs. 1, 6, 11, and 13; 3, 201, and 202) further comprises a control unit (33) which is adapted to automatically adjust mutual interaction between the set of rotating blades and the counter-blade (P. 0056-0057) and/or to generate a notification as a function of the signal provided by the mutual contact sensor (Montagnani; Figs. 1-2, 6, 11, and 13; 31, 104, 105, 107, 231, and 232; P. 0070).
Montagnani in view of Heidelberger does not teach wherein said machine operates at a variable speed; wherein the degree of interference between the set of rotating blades and the counter-blade of the rotating blade device varies as the speed varies.
Vitiello teaches a device (Vitiello; Figs. 1-4) with a set of rotating blades (Vitiello; Figs. 1 and 3-4; 9) and a counter-blade (Vitiello; Figs. 1-2; 13) that operates at a variable speed (Vitiello; P. 0010 and 0047). This is beneficial as it allows the device to continuously run without the need to stop and start to ensure precise cuts and to maximize line speed (Vitiello; P. 0004-0006). As Montagnani teaches that it is known to change the degree of interference between the set of rotating blades and the counter-blade of the rotating blade device is varied dependent on different variables it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Montagnani such that the device operated at a variable speed like the device taught by Vitiello as it allows the device to continuously run without the need to stop and start to ensure precise cuts and to maximize line speed and to modify the degree of interference between the blades and counter-blade according to a variable as taught by Montagnani to vary based on variable speed as Vitiello teaches speed as a variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights