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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al (U.S. Patent No. 4,300,714), hereinafter “Dahl” in view of Cornell et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0239699), hereinafter “Cornell”, and Oechsle et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0010852), hereinafter “Oechsle”.
With respect to Claim 1, Dahl, Figures 1-4, teaches a spreading device 5 for multiple material sheet strips 7 cut from a material sheet by a material sheet cutting device 9,
wherein the material sheet strips 7 are fed to the spreading device along a transport path in a feed plane and leave the spreading device in a discharge plane (See Figure 2) in order to be subsequently transported, offset parallel to one another, to a winding shaft arrangement 10 and to be wound onto a common winding shaft,
wherein the spreading device comprises two deflection elements 12,13, which each extend transversely to the transport path and are configured and arranged such that a strip spacing between two material sheet strips 7 guided adjacent to one another along a transport path in succession over the first 12 and second 13 deflection elements is greater in the discharge plane than in the feed plane,
wherein the deflection elements 12,13 are arranged to be non-rotatable, and in that each deflection element comprises a number of openings 17 in a transport contact area of a deflection sheath surface of the deflection elements covered by the material sheet strips transported thereover, through which compressed air can be blown in order to create a friction-reducing air layer between the material sheet strips and the deflection sheath surfaces of the deflection elements in the transport contact area,
wherein:
- the two deflection elements 12,13 are arranged and configured such that the feed plane and the discharge plane are offset parallel to each other (See Figure 2), and
- the deflection elements are configured such that the material sheet strips are transported between the two deflection elements 12,13 at least approximately at an angle relative to the feed plane and the discharge plane;
a deflection sheath surface of each deflection element 12,13 has a deflection curvature along the transport path of a material sheet strip 7 and, transversely to the transport path, a deflection curvature extending over all material sheet strips.
Dahl teaches all the elements of the spreading device except for the two deflection elements being at a right angle relative to the feed plane and discharge plane.
However, Cornell, Figure 4A, teaches that it is known to have deflection elements at a right angle (See as).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the deflection elements at a right angle, as taught by Cornell, because the lack of angular constraint on the receiver media allows the receiver media to spread laterally to enable the flattening of the web.
Dahl in view of Cornell teach all the elements of the spreading device except for the deflection sheath surfaces or the transport contact surfaces of the deflection elements are made of a porous and air-permeable material.
However, Oechsle, Figures 1-7, teaches a deflection sheath surfaces or the transport contact surfaces of the deflection elements 10 are made of a porous and air-permeable material 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dahl with porous material, as taught by Oechsle, for the purpose of forming an air pad between the guide surface and the moving material web via the air flowing through this porous material; and the high pressure loss and the porous material produce a very uniform air pad, so that the material web is guided reliably at a relatively small distance from the surface thereby providing a crease-free run.
With respect to Claim 3, Dahl further teaches the deflection sheath surfaces or the transport contact surfaces of the deflection elements 12,13 are made from a perforated sheet metal or from a perforated thin-walled material layer.
With respect to Claim 5, Dahl further teaches the two deflection elements 12,13 are arranged and configured such that the feed plane and the discharge plane are offset parallel to one another.
With respect to Claim 6, Dahl further teaches the deflection elements 12,13 are configured in the shape of a segment of a circle in a cross-sectional area extending along the transport path.
With respect to Claim 8, Dahl further teaches the spreading curvature of a deflection element 12,13 which extends over all material sheet strips 7 is formed by subsequent reshaping of a deflection element blank that is not initially curved in a spreading direction.
With respect to Claim 9, Dahl further teaches the deflection sheath surfaces 12 of the two deflection elements 12,13 form a wrap-around section of the same size for each material sheet strip 7 along the transport path.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl in view of Cornell as applied to Claims 1, 3, and 5-6, and 8-9 above.
With respect to Claim 4, Dahl is advanced above.
Dahl teaches all the elements of the spreading device but is silent as to the dimensions of the holes being a diameter of less than 0.5 mm, preferably less than 0.2 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, to dimension the holes of Dahl in view of Cornell as specified in Claim 4 because one of ordinary skill would have been expected to have routinely experimented to determine the optimum dimensions for a particular use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 6, last paragraph, regarding the combination of Dahl and Cornell and Oechsle, it is the applicant’s position that Dahl is directed to a “method and apparatus for silencing of webs”.
In the instant case, the examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated in the primary reference. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). The Dahl reference fairly suggests deflection elements that handle strips. The Cornell reference fairly suggests that it is known to have deflection elements at an angle of 90 degrees. The Oechsle reference fairly suggests that it is known for a deflection element to have deflection sheath surfaces. As such, it is the examiner’s position that the claim reads on these references for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 7, regarding the second point and the Oechsle reference, it is the applicant’s position that “The specific spreading curvature of previous claim 7, now recited by claim 1, requires the continuous air film provided only by the porous material to allow the strips to glide and spread without friction-induced wrinkles. As such, Applicant submits that the claim is non-obvious.” In the instant case, it is the examiner’s position that the Oechsle reference still reads on the claim as set forth because Oechsle does teach the sheath; the sheath does have a deflection curvature since it is covering the roller and a portion of the web strips would travel over the roller; and does have a spreading curvature since the roller is covered by the sheath. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these references for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicant’s final remarks on Page 7, last paragraph, it is the applicant’s position that “one of skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Dahl based on Cornell as proposed by the Office to just the "right angle" transport. Cornell is directed to wide-format inkjet printing and utilizes air shoes specifically to provide lateral constraint and prevent drifting. Claim 1 has the opposite objective: facilitating lateral movement/spreading of multiple strips. Incorporating a 90 degree wrap angle from a constraint-focused printing guide into a strip-spreading device is not a simple matter of design choice, and the Office has provided no explanation as to how one of skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification”. In the instant case, the Cornell reference does provide the motivation in Paragraph [0055]. As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor. The fact that the applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights