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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 22 March 2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cylindrical unwinding body mounted on its end faces via thin ring bearings of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The label ‘5’ is missing from the first sensor in figure 3 though it does appear within fig 2b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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
Claims 1-15 are objected to because the claims should begin with an article, either definite or indefinite. For claims 1-13 i.e. “An arrangement for non-contact…” and “The arrangement according to…”, instead of just “Arrangement for non-contact…” and “Arrangement according to…”. For claim 14, the same principle applies for “A method for non-contact” vs “Method for non-contact”. Claim 15 should begin with “The method according to claim 14 instead of “A method according to claim 14”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“surface of a underside” on lines 2-3 should read “surface of an underside”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality:
“arrangement according to any one of claims 1” should read “arrangement according to claim 1”
Claim 14 is objected to due to the inconsistent grammar within the claim, and a lack of a clear translational phrase. A selection of the claim appears:
“a method for measurement [of a] material web with the steps:
guide a material web…;
simultaneous detection of a material web top…;
determine the web thickness…”
A consistent representation of the verbs’ participles within the method should be presented; for example, “guiding a material web”, “simultaneously detecting a material web top”, “determining the web thickness”. Examiner also suggests the translational phrase “the method comprising:”
Before the final method step, an “and” is required – i.e. “and determine the web thickness…”
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the material web thickness” on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a thickness of the web of material has not been introduced. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any material web thickness will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical unwinding body” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the cylindrical unwinding body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical unwinding body will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. Examiner notes that a surface of the contact body specifically has been given antecedence in claim 1, but not the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any surface of any cylindrical unwinding body will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the detection region” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any detection region will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical rolling body” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the cylindrical rolling body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical rolling body will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical unwinding body” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the cylindrical unwinding body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical unwinding body will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical unwinding body” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the cylindrical unwinding body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical unwinding body will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical rolling body” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the cylindrical rolling body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical rolling body will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the detection region” on line3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any detection region will read on the claim.
The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner’s best interpretation of the claim is that the surface of the contact body (being a cylindrical rolling body) constitutes at least one detection region of the second sensor.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the breakthrough” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the claim such that any breakthrough will read on the limitation.
The claim recites the limitation “the surface of the cylindrical rolling body” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that a surface of the contact body specifically has been given antecedence in claim 1 and 6, but not the surface of the cylindrical rolling body. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any surface of any cylindrical rolling body will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the entire circumference” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any entire circumference will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical unwinding body” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical unwinding body will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the surface of the cylindrical rolling body on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim; as with certain preceding claims, if the cylindrical rolling body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner notes that a surface of the contact body specifically has been given antecedence in claim 1, but not the surface of the cylindrical rolling body. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any surface of any cylindrical rolling body will read on the claim.
The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner’s best interpretation is that “the surface of the cylindrical rolling body has a plurality of parallel spaced penetrations”, where “the openings” amount to the parallel spaced penetrations.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the surface of the cylindrical rolling body on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim; as with certain preceding claims, if the cylindrical rolling body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner notes that a surface of the contact body specifically has been given antecedence in claim 1, but not the surface of the cylindrical rolling body. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any surface of any cylindrical rolling body will read on the claim
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “the sensors” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes either the “sensor assembly” or “the first and second sensors” is/are intended, and will interpret the limitation accordingly.
The claim recites the limitation “the direction of movement” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any direction of movement will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the sensors” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes either the “sensor assembly” or “the first and second sensors” are intended, and will interpret the limitation accordingly.
The claim recites the limitation the direction of movement” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any direction of movement will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical unwinding body” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the cylindrical unwinding body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical unwinding body will read on the claim
The term “thin” within the phrase “thin ring bearings” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither the claim nor specification provides a metric by which the ring bearings are compared against to determine whether they are “thin” ring bearings. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any ring bearings will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the web thickness” on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any web thickness will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the acquired sensor values” on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any acquired sensor values will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “the cylindrical unwinding body” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the cylindrical unwinding body is intended as the contact body, this must be made explicit. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any cylindrical unwinding body will read on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H08233541 A by Yamada Kohei et al. (“Kohei”). Examiner notes the reference Kohei was cited in the IDS filed 22 March 2024.
Regarding claim 1, Kohei discloses an arrangement for non-contact thickness measurement of a continuous, in particular flexible, elastic and/or coated, material web (Kohei [0008] discloses a means to measure the thickness of a deformable ceramic green sheet [flexible, elastic, and/or coated sheet]; additionally, [0006] discloses the ceramic green sheet is flexible and plastic; fig. 1 shows sheet 8 seen as continuous in the figure; though Kohei discloses a flexible, elastic, and/or coated sheet, examiner notes that the phrase “in particular” is interpreted here as being illustrative within the claim, rather than limiting; for a limitation “in particular” to be limiting, a positive recitation of said limitation should be included; additionally, “in particular” appears within other claims below, and will also be treated as being illustrative rather than limiting), comprising:
a web of material guided over a surface of a contact body, in particular at least in sections cylindrical (Kohei [0008]; the thickness of a deformable sheet 8 [material sheet 8 being the web of material]; fig. 1 the sheet is shown guided over a roller 4 [contact body], shown in fig. 2 as being cylindrical [at least in sections cylindrical]; additionally, [0018] and figs. 2-3 disclose a slit 3/3a within the roller which are interpreted as sections cylindrical);
a sensor assembly for measuring the material web thickness, wherein at least on first sensor is directed to a material web top and at least one second sensor is directed opposite the first sensor to a material web bottom (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei [0017] and fig. 1 disclose two sensor heads 9a and 9b [first and second sensors] where the sensor 9a is directed to a material web top and the sensor 9b is directed opposite the first sensor head at a material web bottom);
characterized in that the second sensor is arranged at least in sections below the contact area between the material web and the contact body (Kohei fig. 1 shows the sensor head 9b being below the contact area where roller 4 meets the bottom of the material web; a zoomed image of the contact point is seen in fig 3, where sensor 9b is arranged; each slit 3/3a seen in figs. 2-3 allow for detection of the material web [second sensor is arranged in sections below the contact area]).
Regarding claim 3, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the detection region of the second sensor at least in sections comprises an underside of the contact body, in particular an inner surface of the cylindrical rolling body (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei fig. 3 shows the contact point between the roller 4 and the material web; fig. 1 shows sensor 9b [second sensor] appearing below the contact area between the web and the contact body; the point of measurement by the second sensor is between the sensor and the underside of the material web [which includes both an underside of the contact body and the inner surface of the contact body [cylindrical rolling body]).
Regarding claim 4, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the cylindrical unwinding body has a cavity in which the second sensor is received (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei fig. 1 shows the second sensor 9b directing light through the roller, and fig. 3 shows a cavity 6 within which the light from the second sensor 9b is directed [cavity in which the second sensor is received]).
Regarding claim 5, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the cylindrical unwinding body is formed in a sleeve-like form (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; fig. 3 depicts the roller with a cylindrical sleeve-like form around the circumference of the roller, comprising the cavities 6 and openings, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sleeve-like form”).
Regarding claim 6, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the surface of the contact body, in particular of the cylindrical rolling body at least one at least in sections in the detection region of the second sensor lying through has (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei fig. 3 shows the contact point between the roller 4 and the material web; fig. 1 shows sensor 9b [second sensor] emitting a measurement beam and detecting the underside of the material web at the boundary between the web and the surface of the roller [detection region of the second sensor], as depicted in fig. 1 [roller here being the contact body/cylindrical rolling body]; therefore, the surface of the contact body constitutes at least one detection region of the second sensor, consistent with the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 7, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 6, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the breakthrough extends substantially tangentially along the surface of the cylindrical rolling body (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei fig. 2 shows the roller [contact body, cylindrical rolling body] where slits 3/3a [breakthroughs] are depicted; the slits extend substantially tangentially along the surface of the roller due to their slit widths).
Regarding claim 8, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 6, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the breakthrough with at least one interruption extends around the entire circumference of the cylindrical unwinding body (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei figs. 2-3 disclose a plurality of slits 3/3a; the slits [breakthroughs] within the roller coupled with the body of the roller [at least one interruption in the slits] amount to the breakthroughs extending around the entire circumference of the roller [cylindrical unwinding body]).
Regarding claim 9, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the surface of the cylindrical rolling body a plurality of parallel spaced penetrations has openings (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei fig. 2 and [0018] disclose a plurality of parallel spaced slits [penetrations which have openings]).
Regarding claim 11, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the sensors are arranged stationary in relation to the direction of movement of the material web (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei [0017] discloses that the sensors 9a and 9b are configured to be movable in the axial direction of the roller, and do not move along the direction of travel of the sheet; fig. 2 shows a direction of travel of the sheet 8, which is different than the arrow indicating the axial movement capability of the sensor head 9a, along the slit opening).
Regarding claim 14, Kohei discloses a method for non-contact thickness measurement of a continuous, in particular flexible, elastic and/or coated, material web (Kohei [0008] discloses a method to measure the thickness of a deformable ceramic green sheet [flexible, elastic, and/or coated sheet]; additionally, [0006] discloses the ceramic green sheet is flexible and plastic; fig. 1 shows sheet 8 seen as continuous in the figure; though Kohei discloses a flexible, elastic, and/or coated sheet, examiner notes that the phrase “in particular” is interpreted here as being illustrative within the claim, rather than limiting; for a limitation “in particular” to be limiting, a positive recitation of said limitation should be included), with the steps:
guide a material web over a contact body, in particular at least in sections cylindrical (Kohei [0008]; the thickness of a deformable sheet 8 [material sheet 8 being the web of material]; fig. 1 the sheet is shown guided over a roller 4 [contact body], shown in fig. 2 as being cylindrical [at least in sections cylindrical]; additionally, [0018] and figs. 2-3 disclose a slit 3/3a within the roller which are interpreted as sections cylindrical);
simultaneous detection of a material web top by means of a first sensor and a material web bottom by means of a second sensor, wherein the detection areas of both sensors are aligned with each other (Kohei [0017] and fig. 1 disclose two sensor heads 9a and 9b [first and second sensors] where the sensor 9a is directed to a material web top and the sensor 9b is directed opposite the first sensor head at a material web bottom; the sensor pair is adjustable along the roller axis, and are aligned with each other in figs 1-3 and 6-7);
wherein the second sensor is arranged at least in sections below the contact area between the material web and the contact body (Kohei fig. 1 shows the sensor head 9b being below the contact area where roller 4 meets the bottom of the material web; a zoomed image of the contact point is seen in fig 3, where sensor 9b is arranged; each slit 3/3a seen in figs. 2-3 allow for detection of the material web [second sensor is arranged in sections below the contact area]);
determine the web thickness using the acquired sensor values of the first and second sensors (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei [0021] discloses a calculation of the thickness of the sheet 8 from data garnered from each of the sensor heads 9a and 9b [acquired values from the first and second sensors]).
Regarding claim 15, Kohei discloses the method according to claim 14, and further teaches the method wherein the material web is deflected by the cylindrical unwinding body (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei fig 1 shows the contact point between the sheet 8 [material web] and the roller 4 [cylindrical unwinding body]; a bulge appears at the contact point due to the sheet 8 being deflected by the roller 4 [material web deflected by the cylindrical unwinding body]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H08233541 A by Yamada Kohei et al. (“Kohei”) in view of US 2021/0078060 A1 by Sylvain Magne et al. (“Magne”).
Regarding claim 2, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1. Kohei is silent to the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the second sensor overlaps at least in sections with a cross-sectional surface of the cylindrical unwinding body and is arranged between a rotation axis and the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body.
However, Magne does address this limitation. Kohei and Magne are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are directed towards measuring the physical characteristics of a sheet of material being rolled along a cylindrical body.
Magne discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, “wherein the second sensor overlaps at least in sections with a cross-sectional surface of the cylindrical unwinding body and is arranged between a rotation axis and the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Magne figs 3 and 6a-6b show the cross section of a roller; fig. 6a shows the cross section of the roller with a sheet of material 10 making contact with the outer surface of the roller; [0054] the roller comprises a body 20, sensors 22, and two end devices 23; fig. 3 shows the sensors within the cross sectional surface of the roller [second sensor overlaps with a cross-sectional surface of the cylindrical unwinding body], and the sensors are shown to be between the outer surface of the roller and the axis of rotation [second sensor arranged between rotation axis and surface of the cylindrical unwinding body], seen clearly in fig. 6a-6b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kohei to incorporate wherein the second sensor overlaps at least in sections with a cross-sectional surface of the cylindrical unwinding body and is arranged between a rotation axis and the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body as suggested by Magne for the advantage of enabling physical characteristic detection with improved sensitivity using the roller of Magne (Magne [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1. Kohei is silent to the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the cylindrical unwinding body is mounted on its end faces via thin ring bearings.
However, Magne does address this limitation.
Magne discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the cylindrical unwinding body is mounted on its end faces via thin ring bearings (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Magne [0054] discloses a roller comprised of a body 20, sensors 22, and two end devices 23; [0127] discloses that each lateral device 23 (i.e. an end device) comprises a flange 56 and a bearing 58, and the end devices 23 are seen in fig. 2; while Magne does not explicitly disclose a ring bearing, under MPEP 2131.02 (III), a genus group anticipates a species within the genus – here, the species is a ring bearing, and the genus disclosed by Magne is a bearing which therefore anticipates the ring bearing claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kohei to incorporate wherein the cylindrical unwinding body is mounted on its end faces via thin ring bearings as suggested by Magne for the advantage of enabling physical characteristic detection with improved sensitivity using the roller of Magne (Magne [0024]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohei in view of US 6,158,256 A by Wolfgang Kurschatke et al. (“Kurschatke”).
Regarding claim 10, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1. Kohei is silent to the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body has a screen structure.
However, Kurschatke does address this limitation. Kohei and Kurschatke are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they comprise sheet materials (or material webs) rolling over specialized roller devices.
Kurschatke discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, “wherein the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body has a screen structure” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kurschatke fig. 3 shows a roller with a plurality of patterns formed on the surface, including perforations 62 and a lattice 65 [the lattice structure here is considered as analogous to a screen structure]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kohei to incorporate wherein the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body has a screen structure as suggested by Kurschatke for the advantage of more fully supporting the material web as the material web passes over the surface of the material web as it passes over the cylindrical unwinding body, preventing any sagging in the web passing over the slits seen in Kohei and ensuring an accurate thickness measurement.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohei.
Regarding claim 12, Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, and further teaches the arrangement wherein the sensors can be adjusted transversely to the direction of movement of the material web (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kohei [0017] discloses that the first and second sensors 9a and 9b are configured to be movable in the axial direction of the roller, the roller axial direction being transverse to the direction of movement of the material web).
Kohei does not explicitly discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the sensors are attached to at least one linear guide.
However, Kohei does suggest this limitation.
Kohei discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, “wherein the sensors are attached to at least one linear guide” (Kohei [0017] has disclosed the first and second sensors being movable along the axial direction of the roller – confined to an axial direction is indicative of a linear movement; while the structure of a linear guide is not explicitly disclosed, the sensors must be attached to some structure to aid in their axial movement [attached to at least one linear guide]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret Kohei such that Kohei discloses wherein the sensors are attached to at least one linear guide for the advantage of providing a stable structure for the first and second sensors to be mounted upon, thereby ensuring a consistent and accurate angle of illumination and detection by the first and second sensors while their axial location is changed.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 2018/0356209 A1 by Derrick Baker
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877