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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 130 and 132. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the said mount” should either be ---the mount-- or --said mount--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 14 not been further treated on the merits.
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 3, 5-7, 9, 10 and 16 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 claims 3, 5-7, 9 and 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the phrase "especially" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to Claim 5, “the measuring section” lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as depending from claim 3.
With respect to Claim 9, “the strain gauges”, “the electrical lines” and “the power rails” lack antecedent basis. Claim 5 has strain gauges and claim 7 has power rails as an optional limitation. For purposes of examination “the electrical lines” will be interpreted as --the electrical conductors-- from claim 1.
With respect to Claim 10, “the roll shells” lack antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, claim 10 will be interpreted as depending from claim 2.
With respect to Claims 10 and 16, “practically without gaps without touching each other” is unclear. If there’s no gaps, the shells will touch. It isn’t clear how large the gap can be while still reading on the limitation “practically without gaps”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefve et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0194925, hereinafter Grefve) in view of WO2010/028867, hereinafter WO.
With respect to Claim 1, Grefve discloses a force measuring device for measuring the web tensions of longitudinal strips [1; fig 4] of a longitudinally cut running material web that comprises a longitudinal direction defined by the running direction of the material web and a transverse direction, the force measuring device [2] comprising an axle [45] and, supported on the axle, a measuring roll [2] wrapped around by the material web [1; fig 4], in which
the measuring roll [2] is formed as a segmented measuring roll having a plurality of measuring segments [43],
the measuring segments [43] are arranged on the axle in a respective measuring position such that the longitudinal strips of the running material web wrap around in each case one or more measuring segments,
each measuring segment[43] includes a dedicated load cell [22] for determining a web tension fraction of the longitudinal strip wrapped around the measuring segment, the load cell providing a mount [44] with which the measuring segment sits on the axle,
the force measuring device further comprises an evaluation unit [FDU; para 42] to which the measuring segments are connected via electrical conductors [para 52 shows a channel connecting each zone sensor that transmit measured signals] and to which the measuring signals supplied by the load cells of the measuring segments are conductible, and
the evaluation unit comprises a web tension aggregation means that is arranged and adapted to determine, for each longitudinal strip, from the web tension fractions that are determined by the load cells of the measuring segments wrapped around by said longitudinal strip, the total web tension of the longitudinal strip [para 44 shows aggregating the measured values from each load cell 22 to make determinations of the entire strip.].
Grefve does not show a plurality of spaced apart strips or that each measuring segment is wrapped around by at most one longitudinal strip.
WO shows a similar force measuring device [see fig 1] that cuts the web [1] into a plurality of strips [via 3; see page 3, lines 1-17] and specifically has one sensor per strip [page 5, lines 4-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Grefve could be modified to analyze a plurality of strips by having at least one measuring section per strip for the benefit of being able simultaneously measure multiple strips cut from a larger web.
With respect to Claim 6, Grefve doesn’t discloses an axle [45] but not how the axle is formed.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
See MPEP 2113-I and 2113-II.
With respect to Claim 10, Grefve discloses that the measuring segments are arranged on the axle in such a way that their roll shells are adjacent practically without gaps without touching each other. See fig 3.
With respect to Claim 11, Grefve discloses that the web tension aggregation means [FDU 30] includes a means [para 80 and 81 describes aggregating force measurements from each sensor 22 ] for storing an assignment of longitudinal strips of a material web to be measured and the measuring segments of the segmented measuring roll, as well as a means for calculating [para 81, tension processing block], from the web tension fractions determined by the measuring segments and the stored assignment of the measuring segments to the longitudinal strips to be measured, the total web tension for each of the longitudinal strips to be measured.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefve and WO in further view of GB1169381, hereinafter GB.
With respect to Claim 2, Grefve shows that the measuring section [43] has a load cell [22], but gives no further details regarding the structure of the measuring section.
GB shows a similar force measuring device that has strain gauges [7a, 7b] connected to the axle via a roller bearing 6 and has roll shell 1; see figs 5 and 5a and page 3, left column lines 48-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Grefve such that the measuring segments comprise, in addition to the load cell, a roll shell and, supported by the load cell, a bearing for the roll shell as this is a common configuration for tension web measuring segments.
With respect to Claim 13, the combination of Grefve and WO disclose a method for measuring the web tensions of a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal strips of a longitudinally cut running material web with a force measuring device according to claim 1, in which the plurality of spaced apart longitudinal strips of the material web are guided over the segmented measuring roll of the force measuring device in such a way that the spaced apart longitudinal strips wrap around in each case one or more measuring segments, and each measuring segment is wrapped around by at most one longitudinal strip, the web tension fraction of the longitudinal strip wrapping around the respective measuring segment is determined with the load cells of the measuring segments, the measuring signals determined by the load cells are routed to the evaluation unit, and the total web tension of the longitudinal strip is determined for each longitudinal strip by the web tension aggregation means from the web tension fractions that were determined by the load cells of the measuring segments wrapped around by said longitudinal strip. Note, these method steps correspond directly to the limitations in claim 1.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefve and WO in further view of DE10118887, hereinafter DE.
With respect to Claim 3, Grefve does not disclose that the load cell comprises, in each case, an inner ring supported on the axle and providing the said mount, a concentric outer ring that is displaceable with respect to the inner ring and, connecting the inner ring and outer ring in a connecting region, a measuring section that is advantageously formed in the form of a double-bending beam.
DE shows a similar force measuring device with a web measuring section that has the load cell comprises, in each case, an inner ring [portion of 11 adjacent 17, connecting to outer concentric ring, which is the outer portion of 11 connected via a measuring section 15, which is a double bending beam] supported on the axle [17] and providing the said mount, a concentric outer ring that is displaceable with respect to the inner ring and, connecting the inner ring and outer ring in a connecting region, a measuring section that is advantageously formed in the form of a double-bending beam. See fig 1 and page 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace Grefve’s measuring section such that the load cell comprises, in each case, an inner ring supported on the axle and providing the said mount, a concentric outer ring that is displaceable with respect to the inner ring and, connecting the inner ring and outer ring in a connecting region, a measuring section that is advantageously formed in the form of a double-bending beam as this is an accurate and reliable way to measuring web tension.
With respect to Claim 4, DE further shows that the inner ring and the outer ring are arranged radially nested and are connected by the measuring section [15; fig 1] in a radial connecting region. Note that the combination of Grefve, WO and DE in the rejection of claim 3 already has this feature.
With respect to Claim 5, Grefve shows that the load cell is furnished with strain gauges for measuring the web tension.
Grefve does not disclose a measuring section connecting an inner ring and an outer ring.
DE shows a similar force measuring device with a web measuring section that has a measuring section connecting an inner ring and an outer ring [portion of 11 adjacent 17, connecting to outer concentric ring, which is the outer portion of 11 connected via a measuring section 15, which is a double bending beam; see fig 1 and page 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace Grefve’s measuring section such that the load cell comprises, in each case, an inner ring supported on the axle and providing the said mount, a concentric outer ring that is displaceable with respect to the inner ring and, connecting the inner ring and outer ring in a connecting region, a measuring section that is advantageously formed in the form of a double-bending beam as this is an accurate and reliable way to measuring web tension.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefve and WO in further view of Ishimoto (U.S. Patent No. 3,902,363, hereinafter Ishimoto).
With respect to Claim 7, Grefve discloses electrical conductors connecting each measuring section to the FDU but provides no details regarding how they are connected [para 52, channels 54].
Ishimoto shows a similar force measuring device for determining web tension and explicitly runs wires [24] through the axis. See figs 3 and 4 and column 5, lines 42-51.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to route Grefve’s electrical conductors through the axle, extending substantially in the axial direction across the entire width of the axle and are contactable axially at every position for the benefit of keeping the electrical conductors from wrapping around the measuring section.
With respect to Claim 8, Ishimoto discloses that that electrical conductors are provided in each case between adjacent measuring segments and in that only the outermost measuring segment or the outermost measuring segments are connected directly to the evaluation unit, such that the measuring signals are looped through to the evaluation unit via the conductors that connect the measuring segments. Note that Ishimoto’s electrical conductors [wires 24] run though each measuring section [16; fig 3] and would only connect via an outermost section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the combination of Grefve, WO and Ishimoto to have that that electrical conductors are provided in each case between adjacent measuring segments and in that only the outermost measuring segment or the outermost measuring segments are connected directly to the evaluation unit, such that the measuring signals are looped through to the evaluation unit via the conductors that connect the measuring segments because having the electrical conductors connecting to the evaluation unit from any interior measuring section would cause the conductor to wrap around and get tangled on the measuring section.
With respect to Claim 9, Grefve does not disclose that the measuring segments each include an electronics unit for feeding the strain gauges and for receiving, for preamplifying, and for passing the preamplified measuring signals to the electrical lines.
Ishimoto discloses connecting the load cells to amplifiers 103 [column 14, line 58- column 15, line 14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Grefve such that that the measuring segments each include an electronics unit for feeding the strain gauges and for receiving, for preamplifying, and for passing the preamplified measuring signals to the electrical lines for the benefit of having signals that are easier to analyze.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefve and WO in further view of WO9008089, hereinafter WO2.
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of Grefve and WO disclose a system for measuring the web tensions of a plurality of longitudinal strips of a longitudinally cut running material web that comprises a longitudinal direction defined by the running direction of the material web and a transverse direction and a force measuring device of claim 1. See rejection of claim 1.
Grefve does not disclose having two or more different material paths for guiding, in each case, one portion of the longitudinal strips of the cut material web in different planes to obtain multiple material subwebs having, in each case, a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal strips, and two or more force measuring devices according to claim 1 for measuring the web tensions of the plurality of spaced apart longitudinal strips of the material subwebs.
WO2 shows a system that measures web tension of multiple strips, 4a, 4b along multiple paths to force measuring devices 5a and 5b. See fig 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the force measuring devices of the combination of Grefve and WO for the benefit analyzing multiple webs simultaneously.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefve in view of Ishimoto.
With respect to Claim 15, Grefve discloses a force measuring device [see fig 3 unless otherwise noted] for measuring the tension profile of an uncut running material web [1; fig 4] that comprises a longitudinal direction defined by the running direction of the material web and a transverse direction, the force measuring device comprising an axle [45] and, supported on the axle, a measuring roll [2] wrapped around by the material web, in which the measuring roll is formed as a segmented measuring roll having a plurality of measuring segments [43], the measuring segments are arranged on the axle in a respective measuring position, each measuring segment includes a dedicated load cell [22] for determining a web tension fraction of the longitudinal section of the material web wrapped around the measuring segment, the load cell providing a mount [44] with which the measuring segment sits on the axle, the force measuring device further comprises an evaluation unit [Flatness determination unit 30; fig 4] to which the measuring segments are connected via electrical conductors [channels 54 connect each zone sensor; para 52] and to which the measuring signals supplied by the load cells of the measuring segments are conductible, electrical conductors being provided in each case between adjacent measuring segments.
Ishimoto discloses that that electrical conductors are provided in each case between adjacent measuring segments and in that only the outermost measuring segment or the outermost measuring segments are connected directly to the evaluation unit, such that the measuring signals are looped through to the evaluation unit via the conductors that connect the measuring segments. Note that Ishimoto’s electrical conductors [wires 24] run though each measuring section [16; fig 3] and would only connect via an outermost section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Grefve to have that electrical conductors are provided in each case between adjacent measuring segments and in that only the outermost measuring segment or the outermost measuring segments are connected directly to the evaluation unit, such that the measuring signals are looped through to the evaluation unit via the conductors that connect the measuring segments because having the electrical conductors connecting to the evaluation unit from any interior measuring section would cause the conductor to wrap around and get tangled on the measuring section.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefve and Ishimoto in further view of GB.
With respect to Claim 16, Grefve shows that the measuring section [43] has a load cell [22] and that the measuring segments are adjacent practically without gaps without touching each other [fig 3], but gives no further details regarding the structure of the measuring section.
GB shows a similar force measuring device that has strain gauges [7a, 7b] connected to the axle via a roller bearing 6 and has roll shell 1; see figs 5 and 5a and page 3, left column lines 48-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Grefve such that the measuring segments comprise, in addition to the load cell, a roll shell and, supported by the load cell, a bearing for the roll shell as this is a common configuration for tension web measuring segments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX T DEVITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7551. The examiner can normally be reached 12pm- 8 pm EST M-S.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/ALEX T DEVITO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights