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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 03 April 2026. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending in the instant application where claims 1-7 and 9-15 have been amended, claims 16-20 are newly added, and claim 8 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and the claims have overcome all objections to the claims, some but not all objections to the drawings, and some but not all rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04 November 2025. Those objections and rejections overcome are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive, as they are directed to newly added limitations to the claims, namely “an upper set of sensors comprising at least a first upper sensor and a second upper sensor…” and “a lower set of sensors comprising at least a first lower sensor and a second lower sensor” within claim 1 and “calculating the web thickness using the difference between the predetermined distance of the sensors to each other and the sum of the first distance and the second distance” of claim 14. These and other newly added limitations are addressed in the rejection below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 contact body [being] mounted on its end faces of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, there is no representation of “end faces” . 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to for the following reason: the claim recites “…in relation to the direction of movement of the material web”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the previously claimed “material web” have been changed to “web”.
Claim 12 is objected to for the following reason: the claim recites “…can be adjusted transversely to a direction of movement of the material web”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the previously claimed “material web” have been changed to “web”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the following limitation: “a processor configured to calculate the web thickness”. The specification originally filed on 22 March 2024 does not disclose the elements recited in claim 20, specifically the structure of a processor (or computing device at all, configured to perform a calculation). Information contained in any one of the specification, claims, or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter. MPEP 2163.06, see also 35 U.S.C. 132 – No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11, 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.
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 1, 3-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H08233541 A by Yamada Kohei et al. (herein after “Kohei”), and further in view of JP 5280593 B1 by Tada Kenichiro et al. (herein after “Kenichiro”). 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 web having a web top, a web bottom, and a web thickness defined in relation to the web top and web bottom (Kohei [0008] discloses a means to measure the thickness of a deformable ceramic green sheet [web]; figs 1, 3, and 6 show the sheet 8 having a top, bottom, and [0003] a thickness in relation to sensor heads 21a/21b or laser sensor head 9a/9b, the sensor head 21 is further disclosed below), comprising:
a contact body, at least part of which comprises a cylinder or a section of a cylinder having a surface and a rotation axis (Kohei figs. 1-3 and [0017]-[0018] disclose a roller 4 [contact body], shown as being cylindrical [contact body comprises a cylinder], and comprise at least one slit 3/3a within the roller [section of a cylinder]; the “roller” has a rotation axis since [0020] the roller 4 rotates in accordance with the traveling speed of the sheet 8);
a sensor assembly for measuring the web thickness (Kohei [0017] and figs 1-3 disclose sensor heads 9a/9b [the sensor assembly comprising all sensors of Kohei’s device]), comprising
an upper sensor comprising at least a first upper sensor, having a detection region directed to the web top (Kohei [0017] and figs. 1-3 disclose sensor head 9a [first upper sensor] which has a detection region from above the web [a detection region directed to the web top]); and
a lower sensor comprising at least a first lower sensor, having a detection region directed to the web bottom (Kohei [0017] and figs. 1-3 disclose sensor head 9b [first lower sensor] which has a detection region from below the web [detection region directed to the web bottom]);
wherein the detection region of the first lower sensor is directed opposite from the detection region of the first upper sensor (Kohei figs. 1-3 disclose the sensor heads 9a and 9b being arranged opposite from one another [detection region of the first sensor is directed opposite from the detection region of the first upper sensor).
Kohei is silent to a sensor assembly for measuring web thickness, comprising an upper set of sensors comprising at least a first upper sensor and a second upper sensor, each having a detection region directed to the web bottom, and a lower set of sensors comprising at least a first lower sensor and a second lower sensor, each having a detection region; wherein the detection region of the second lower sensor is directed opposite from the detection region of the second upper sensor.
However, Kenichiro does address this limitation. Kohei and Kenichiro are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are sheet or web thickness measurement systems and methods of use.
Kenichiro discloses “a sensor assembly for measuring web thickness, comprising an upper set of sensors comprising at least a first upper sensor and a second upper sensor, each having a detection region directed to the web bottom, and a lower set of sensors comprising at least a first lower sensor and a second lower sensor, each having a detection region” (Kenichiro [0035] and figs. 3-4 disclose multiple sets of laser sensors, 21d, 21c, and 21w, where each set of laser sensors are above and below the material 3 [above and below the web, so directed to the web top and web bottom]; the first set of upper and lower sensors (already taught by Kohei) is considered 21d, where the second upper sensor and second lower sensor are considered the set 21c; the detection region for each are considered that region the laser sensor is investigating); wherein the detection region of the second lower sensor is directed opposite from the detection region of the second upper sensor (Kenichiro fig. 3 shows the laser sensors being arranged opposite from one another, so that the detection region for the second lower sensor is directed opposite from the detection region of the second upper sensor).
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 an upper set of sensors comprising at least a first upper sensor and a second upper sensor, each having a detection region directed to the web bottom, and a lower set of sensors comprising at least a first lower sensor and a second lower sensor, each having a detection region; wherein the detection region of the second lower sensor is directed opposite from the detection region of the second upper sensor as suggested by Kenichiro for the advantage of increasing the points at which thickness measurements can be made by at least doubling the amount of laser sensor sets (Kenichiro [0028]), thereby increasing the thickness measurement efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and Kohei further teaches wherein the detection region of the first lower sensor comprises a first underside of the contact body (Kohei fig. 3 shows the contact point between the roller 4 and the material web; fig. 1 shows sensor 9b [first lower 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, including an underside of the roller itself [detection region of first lower sensor comprises a first underside of the contact body]).
Kohei is silent to the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the detection region of the second lower sensor comprises a second underside of the contact body.
However, Kenichiro does address this limitation.
Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, “wherein the detection region of the second lower sensor comprises a second underside of the contact body” (the presence of a first set of upper and lower sensors and a second set of upper and lower sensors disclosed by Kenichiro combined with the arrangement of Kohei, wherein the lower sensor is below the contact body, renders obvious the detection region of the second lower sensor comprising a second underside of the contact body in light of Kohei’s disclosure regarding the first lower sensor above).
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 detection region of the second lower sensor comprises a second underside of the contact body as suggested by Kenichiro for the advantage of increasing the points at which thickness measurements can be made by at least doubling the amount of laser sensor sets (Kenichiro [0028]), thereby increasing the thickness measurement efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and Kohei further teaches the arrangement wherein the contact body has a cavity in which the lower set of sensors is received (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 first lower sensor is received]; examiner notes that the combination of Kohei and Kenichiro above has disclosed there being an additional lower sensor incorporated into the arrangement, comprising a “lower set of sensors”; that arrangement renders obvious the contact body having a cavity in which the second lower sensor is received as well).
Regarding claim 5, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and Kohei further teaches the arrangement wherein the contact body is formed in a sleeve-like form (Kohei 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 when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and Kohei further teaches the arrangement wherein the surface of the contact body defines at least part of the detection region of the first lower sensor (Kohei fig. 3 shows the contact point between the roller 4 and the material web; fig. 1 shows sensor 9b [first lower 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 first lower sensor], as depicted in fig. 1; [0009] also discloses the sheet being in contact with the surface of the roller when beam is irradiated from at least the first lower sensor to determine thickness [surface of contact body defines part of detection region]).
Regarding claim 7, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 6, and Kohei further teaches the arrangement wherein the detection region of the first lower sensor extends substantially tangentially to the surface of the contact body (Kohei fig. 2 shows the roller 4 [contact body] where the lower sensor detects the thickness of the sheet 8 through slits 3/3a which are shown to have a tangential width, along the radial direction, in addition to extending along the rotation axis of the roller; therefore, the detection region is bounded by the width of the slits 3/3a, and therefore extends tangentially to the surface of the contact body).
Regarding claim 9, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and Kohei further teaches the arrangement wherein the surface of the contact body further comprises a plurality of parallel spaced penetrations (Kohei fig. 2 and [0018] disclose a plurality of parallel spaced slits [penetrations which have openings]).
Regarding claim 11, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and Kohei further teaches the arrangement wherein at least the first lower sensor and the second lower 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 [including at least the first lower sensor] 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 (and corresponding sensor head 9b) along the slit opening; examiner notes that the combination of Kohei and Kenichiro above has disclosed there being an additional lower sensor incorporated into the arrangement, comprising a “lower set of sensors”; that arrangement renders obvious the second lower sensor being arranged stationary in relation to the direction of movement of the material web as well).
Regarding claim 12, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, and Kohei further teaches the arrangement wherein at least one of the upper set of sensors and the lower set of sensors can be adjusted transversely to a direction of movement of the material web (Kohei [0017] discloses that the first and second sensors 9a and 9b [and the additional pair of upper and lower sensors, comprising the upper and lower set of sensors respectively] 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 [this is also seen in Kenichiro]).
Kohei does not explicitly discloses the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the upper set of sensors and the lower set of sensors are attached to at least one linear guide.
However, Kohei does suggest this limitation.
Kohei discloses the arrangement of claim 1, “wherein the at least one of the upper set of sensors and the lower set of sensors are attached to at least one linear guide” (Kohei [0017] has disclosed the first upper sensor and first lower sensors [and the additional pair of upper and lower sensors, comprising the upper and lower set of sensors respectively] being movable along the axial direction of the roller – confined to an axial direction is indicative of a linear movement [as with the preceding paragraph, this is feature is also seen in Kenichiro]; while the structure of a linear guide is not explicitly disclosed, the at least one of the upper set of sensors or lower set of 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 at least one of the upper set of sensors and the lower set of 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.
Regarding claim 14, Kohei discloses a method for non-contact thickness measurement of a continuous web (Kohei [0008] discloses a means to measure the thickness of a deformable ceramic green sheet [web]; [0017] discloses the sheet 8 being formed by extrusion molding, known in the art to be continuous [continuous web]), the method comprising:
guiding a web having a web top, a web bottom, and a web thickness defined in relation to the web top and web bottom (Kohei figs 1, 3, and 6 show the sheet 8 rolled on a roller 4 having a top, bottom, and [0003] a thickness in relation to sensor heads 21a/21b or laser sensor head 9a/9b, the sensor head 21 is further disclosed below, and [0020] discloses the rotation of the roller in accordance with the traveling speed of the sheet [guiding the web]), over a contact body (Kohei [0020] and figs. 1, 3, and 6 disclose the sheet rolling over the roller 4 [over a contact body]), at least part of which comprises a cylinder or section of a cylinder having a surface and a rotation axis (Kohei figs. 1-3 and [0017]-[0018] disclose a roller 4 [contact body], shown as being cylindrical [contact body comprises a cylinder], and comprise at least one slit 3/3a within the roller [section of a cylinder]; the “roller” has a rotation axis since [0020] the roller 4 rotates in accordance with the traveling speed of the sheet 8);
simultaneously acquiring a first distance from a first sensor to the web top and acquiring a second distance from a second sensor to the web bottom; wherein the second sensor is located a predetermined distance from the first sensor, and the first sensor has a detection region directed to the web top and the second sensor has a detection region directed to the web bottom opposite the first sensor (Kohei [0017] and fig. 1 disclose two sensor heads 9a and 9b [first and second sensors] where the sensor 9a has a detection region directed to a material web top and the sensor 9b has a detection region directed opposite the first sensor head at a material web bottom; fig. 6 and [0003] disclose the means by which a thickness measurement is made for a single laser head 21, comprising a predetermined separation of the laser sensor to the surface of the roller L and the separation between the first sensor and the web top L1 [acquiring first distance from the first sensor to the web top] – [0007] discloses the use of the two-head laser sensor to perform the analogous measurement, and inherently the same principles are used to determine the thickness measurements with the pair of sensor heads 9a/21a and 9b/21b, such that the a second distance is acquired from the second sensor 9b to the web bottom (see fig. 1), and therefore the first sensor is inherently located at a predetermined distance from the first sensor; with regards to simultaneity, fig. 1 shows the measurements made from 9a and 9b along the same axis – the measurement must be made at the same time in order to accurately determine the thickness of the web at that point).
Kohei is silent to calculating the web thickness using the difference between the predetermined distance of the sensors to each other and the sum of the first distance and the second distance.
However, Kenichiro does address this limitation. Kohei and Kenichiro are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are sheet or web thickness measurement systems and methods of use.
Kenichiro discloses “calculating the web thickness using the difference between the predetermined distance of the sensors to each other and the sum of the first distance and the second distance” (Kenichiro [0035] and figs. 3-4 disclose multiple sets of laser sensors, 21d, 21c, and 21w, where each set of laser sensors are above and below the material 3 [above and below the web, so directed to the web top and web bottom]; [0029] discloses the calculation of the thickness by measuring the distance from upper and lower sensors to the material [first distance and second distance] and then calculating thickness from the distance between the sensors and the measured distance [this inherently requires a difference to be taken to get the thickness]; the sensors are arranged at a predetermined distance from one another; examiner notes that Kohei discloses essentially the same process with respect to the single sensor head, and discloses taking the difference between the various distances, but does not explicitly disclose this with respect to the two sensor head embodiment, though Kenichiro does).
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 calculating the web thickness using the difference between the predetermined distance of the sensors to each other and the sum of the first distance and the second distance as suggested by Kenichiro for the advantage of gaining the ability to either continously or intermittently measure the material thickness during line operation (Kenichiro [0029]), thereby increasing thickness measurement efficiency depending on the needs of the line operation.
Regarding claim 15, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the method of claim 14, and Kohei further teaches the method wherein the web is deflected by the contact body (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 [web deflected by the contact body]).
Regarding claim 19, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1. Kohei is silent to the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first upper sensor is located a predetermined distance from the first lower sensor, the first upper sensor is configured to measure a distance between itself and the web, and the first lower sensor is configured to measure a distance between itself and the web.
However, Kenichiro does address this limitation.
Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1, “wherein the first upper sensor is located a predetermined distance from the first lower sensor, the first upper sensor is configured to measure a distance between itself and the web, and the first lower sensor is configured to measure a distance between itself and the web” (Kenichiro [0029] discloses the means by which thickness of the material web is obtained, including measuring the distance between the upper sensor to the material top [first upper sensor configured to measure a distance between itself and the web], measuring the distance between the lower sensor and material bottom [first lower sensor configured to measure a distance between itself and the web], and calculating a thickness from the distance between the sensors [first upper sensor located a predetermined distance from the first lower sensor]).
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 first upper sensor is located a predetermined distance from the first lower sensor, the first upper sensor is configured to measure a distance between itself and the web, and the first lower sensor is configured to measure a distance between itself and the web as suggested by Kenichiro for the advantage of as suggested by Kenichiro for the advantage of increasing the points at which thickness measurements can be made by at least doubling the amount of laser sensor sets (Kenichiro [0028]), thereby increasing the thickness measurement efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 19. Kohei is silent to the arrangement of claim 19, further comprising a processor configured to calculate the web thickness.
However, Kenichiro does address this limitation.
Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 19, “further comprising a processor configured to calculate the web thickness” (Kenichiro [0023] discloses a control panel, [0026] discloses a circumstance under which the thickness measurement is acquired by the control panel 11, and [0027] discloses the calculation of correction values based on thickness measurements; while a processor is not explicitly disclosed, the ability for the control panel to acquire the thickness measurement and associated correction amounts inherently requires a processor or an equivalent).
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 a processor configured to calculate the web thickness as suggested by Kenichiro for the advantage of increasing the points at which thickness measurements can be made by at least doubling the amount of laser sensor sets (Kenichiro [0028]), thereby increasing the thickness measurement efficiency.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohei in view of Kenichiro, and further in view of US 2021/0078060 A1 by Sylvain Magne et al. (herein after “Magne”).
Regarding claim 2, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1. Kohei when modified by Kenichiro is silent to the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the lower set of sensors overlaps partially or entirely with a cross-sectional surface of the contact body and is arranged between the rotation axis and the surface of the contact body.
However, Magne does address this limitation. Kohei, Kenichiro, 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 of claim 1, “wherein the lower set of sensors overlaps partially or entirely with a cross-sectional surface of the contact body and is arranged between the rotation axis and the surface of the contact 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 [lower set of sensors overlaps partially or entirely with a cross-sectional surface of the contact body, the lower set of sensors disclosed by Kohei in view of Kenichiro], and the sensors are shown to be between the outer surface of the roller and the axis of rotation [lower set of sensors arranged between rotation axis and the surface of the contact body, again the lower set of sensors disclosed by Kohei in view of Kenichiro], 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 in view of Kenichiro to incorporate wherein the lower set of sensors overlaps partially or entirely with a cross-sectional surface of the contact body and is arranged between the rotation axis and the surface of the contact 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 when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1. Kohei when modified by Kenichiro is silent to the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the contact body is mounted on its end faces.
However, Magne does address this limitation.
Magne discloses the arrangement of claim 1, “wherein the contact body is mounted on its end faces” (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).
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 in view of Kenichiro to incorporate wherein the contact body is mounted on its end faces 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 Kenichiro, and further in view of US 6,158,256 A by Wolfgang Kurschatke et al. (herein after “Kurschatke”).
Regarding claim 10, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1. Kohei when modified by Kenichiro is silent to the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the surface of the cylindrical unwinding body has a screen structure.
However, Kurschatke does address this limitation. Kohei, Kenichiro, 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 of claim 1, “wherein the surface of the contact body has a screen structure” (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 in view of Kenichiro to incorporate wherein the surface of the contact 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 in view of Kenichiro and ensuring an accurate thickness measurement.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohei in view of Kenichiro, and further in view of US 2022/0082371 A1 by Xiaoyun Chen et al. (herein after “Chen”).
Regarding claim 16, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the method of claim 14. Kohei when modified by Kenichiro is silent to the method of claim 14 wherein the web is elastomeric.
However, Chen does address this limitation. Kohei, Kenichiro, and Chen are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are sheet or web thickness measurement systems and methods of use.
Chen discloses the method of claim 14, “wherein the web is elastomeric” (Chen [0024] discloses a method and apparatus for measuring the thickness of a material such as a film, sheet, etc.; [0027] discloses the web may be a polymeric material, and include at least one elastomeric modifier [web is elastomeric]).
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 in view of Kenichiro to incorporate wherein the web is elastomeric for the advantage of increasing the breadth of materials capable of being measured via the methods of Kohei in view of Kenichiro.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohei in view of Kenichiro, and further in view of US 2016/0009516 A1 by Maximillian Mark et al. (herein after “Mark”).
Regarding claim 17, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the method of claim 14. Kohei when modified by Kenichiro is silent to the method of claim 14 wherein at least one of the first sensor or second sensor is a light curtain.
However, Mark does address this limitation. Kohei, Kenichiro, and Mark are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are sheet or web thickness measurement systems and methods of use.
Mark discloses the method of claim 14 “wherein at least one of the first sensor or second sensor is a light curtain” (Mark [0057] and figs 1-2 disclose a material web 7 being rolled along rollers where light emitters 8 and 10 [first and/or second sensors] generate a light sensor beam curtain comprising beams 12 and 13, and are used to measure the thickness of the material web, and [0061] whose signals are received by receivers 9 and 11 [again, second or first sensors], and therefore the first sensor or second sensor is a light curtain).
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 in view of Kenichiro to incorporate wherein at least one of the first sensor or second sensor is a light curtain as suggested by Mark for the advantage of enabling a stationary arrangement (and method of use) of sensors units which takes into account the maximum width of the material web (via an elongated light curtain) (Mark [0013]).
Regarding claim 18, Kohei when modified by Kenichiro discloses the arrangement of claim 1. Kohei when modified by Kenichiro is silent to the arrangement of claim 1wherein at least one of the first upper sensor or first lower sensor is a light curtain.
However, Mark does address this limitation. Kohei, Kenichiro, and Mark are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are sheet or web thickness measurement systems and methods of use.
Mark discloses the arrangement of claim 1 “wherein at least one of the first upper sensor or first lower sensor is a light curtain” (Mark [0057] and figs 1-2 disclose a material web 7 being rolled along rollers where light emitters 8 and 10 [first upper or first lower sensors] generate a light sensor beam curtain comprising beams 12 and 13, and are used to measure the thickness of the material web, and [0061] whose signals are received by receivers 9 and 11 [again, first lower or first upper sensors], and therefore the first upper sensor or first lower sensor is a light curtain).
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 in view of Kenichiro to incorporate wherein at least one of the first upper sensor or first lower sensor is a light curtain as suggested by Mark for the advantage of enabling a stationary arrangement (and method of use) of sensors units which takes into account the maximum width of the material web (via an elongated light curtain) (Mark [0013]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights