DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/6/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are: “by means of” in claims 13-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the individual plies" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sleeve" in line 6 that can reference a new sleeve or “a exchangeable sleeve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner understands the phrase to read as “the exchangeable sleeve”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the support core" in line 6 that can reference a new support core or “an expandable support core”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner understands the phrase to read as “the expandable support core”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the application of pressure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first support core". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "hydraulic cylinder". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lateral surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the carriage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the roll nip”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the nip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the embossed engraving". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the laser". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner understands all "the laser" references to read "the laser referencing unit".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the step". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the sleeve-change carriage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner understands all "the sleeve-change carriage" references to read "the mobile sleeve-change carriage"
Regarding claim 4 and the use of the phrase “in particular”, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9 and the use of the phrase “in particular”, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14 and the use of the phrase “preferably”, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STEIGER (DE 102005040237 A1 ESPACENET MACHINE TRANSLATION).
For claim 1, STEIGER teaches an embossing calendar with sleeve for processing a planar material web [0001]. This teaches the limitation of “A sleeve-change calender for the rotary embossing of a multi-ply tissue web or for producing a ply bond between the individual plies of the multi-ply tissue web”. STEIGER also teaches the use of a frame around the rollers [0011]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sleeve-change calender has a roll frame with at least one roll mounted therein”. BELLANGER also teaches the sleeve has a support roller within (core) that has an adjustable center [0047]. This teaches the limitation of “with an expandable support core and a exchangeable sleeve mounted thereon, wherein the sleeve can be pushed onto the support core for assembly and can be fixed thereon with a friction fit”. STEIGER teaches the system has a pressure chamber [0012]. This teaches the limitation of “characterized in that the support core is designed with a multi- chamber system for the individual application of pressure on separate pressure zones”.
For claim 2, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the pressurize within the zones is controlled with a hydraulically adjustable element (piston) [0013] that can move in the axis of rotation (axially) or in other directions [0012]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pressure zones can each be subjected to an individually adjustable pressure in order to thereby produce different embossing zones in a selective and/or spatially resolved manner, wherein the pressure zones are divided along an axial direction of the roll”.
For claim 3, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the embossing sleeves can be displaced axially (diameter) by applying pressure to the pressure chamber [0012] that is pressurized by hydraulics [0013]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sleeve outer diameter (D) is partially adjustable in a pressure-controlled manner via differently adjustable hydraulic pressures in the individual pressure zones of the support core”.
For claim 4, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the fluid filled pressure chamber is between the carrier roll metallic core and the outer circumferential wall [0038]. The outer circumferential wall is adjustable to retain or remove the embossing sleeve [0013]. The examiner understands the connection between these compartments act as a passthrough. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the support core, in particular the first support core element, has at least one rotary feedthrough for the transmission of hydraulic oil”.
For claim 5, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 4, as above. STEIGER teaches the hydraulic working pistons are in working cylinders with inlets and outlets [0041]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pressure zones, or the hydraulic cylinders assigned to the pressure zones, can each be subjected to pressure via separate media channels connected to the at least one rotary feedthrough”.
For claim 6, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the steel core of the conical carrier roller is coated with an elastomer layer on the outer layer [0002]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the support core is conically ground on the lateral surface and/or coated with a highly wear-resistant material”.
For claim 7, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the steel core of the conical carrier roller is coated with an elastomer layer on the outer layer [0002]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sleeve is made of high-strength tool steel and/or has an engraved surface”.
For claim 12, STEIGER teach the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches an upper and lower roll (elements 5a and 5b) [Fig 1]. STEIGER also teaches their position is adjustable with the removal of the spindle [0040]. This teaches the limitation of “in which the at least one roll mounted in the roll frame has an upper roll and a lower roll, wherein the center offset of the upper roll to the lower roll is adjustable”.
For claim 13, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 12, as above. STEIGER teaches the assembly can adjust the distance of the coupled rollers by unscrewing the spindle that holds them [0040]. The examiner understands this active change is a selection to adjust the nip based on choice. This teaches the limitation of “which further comprises an active nip control, by means of which the adjustable pressure in the roll nip formed between the upper and lower rolls can be selectively controlled for the different pressure zones”.
For claim 14, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 13, as above. STEIGER teaches the assembly can adjust the distance of the coupled rollers by unscrewing the spindle that holds them [0040]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the nip between the upper and lower roll is adjustable by means of threaded spindles having fine threads, which preferably adjust adjustable wedges creating the nip”. The examiner notes the language of “preferable” is optional making the language that follows it optional.
For claim 15, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 13, as above. STEIGER teaches the assembly can adjust the distance of the coupled rollers by unscrewing the spindle that holds them [0040]. STEIGER teaches the displacement element (hydraulic cylinder) can be moved into and out of the pressure chambers by moving the threaded spindle into and carrier roller [0014]. There are two carrier rollers [0031]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the nip between the upper and lower roll is additionally adjustable by means of at least two single- or double-acting hydraulic cylinders for closing and opening the roll nip”.
For claim 18, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the frame is built as a box shape with internal supporting members [Fig 1]. STEIGER teaches the bearings are of rigid design [0011]. The examiner understands this to be vibration dampening. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the roll frame is designed in a closed construction and has side stands with cross members welded thereto and integrated vibration-damping components”.
For claim 19, STEIGER teaches an embodiment that uses the arrangement comprising a sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER also teaches a tool is used to push the sleeve on and off of the carrier [0012]. This teaches the limitation of “a sleeve-change carriage which is designed to push sleeves onto the support core or to push sleeves off the support core”.
For claim 20, STEIGER teaches a method for changing a sleeve on a sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the use of a movable (mobile) carrier roll to swap sleeves [0007]. STEIGER teaches the core is loosened from the embossing sleeve by loosening the spindle connecting them [0014]. STEIGER also teaches a tool is used to push the sleeve on and off of the carrier [0012]. This teaches the limitation of “comprising the steps of:- front-side positioning of a mobile sleeve-change carriage on the calender; - relaxing the support core; - pushing a sleeve to be dismantled from the support core onto the sleeve-change carriage; - pushing a sleeve to be mounted from the sleeve-change carriage onto the support core”.
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEIGER (DE 102005040237 A1 ESPACENET MACHINE TRANSLATION) in view of CLEMENT (US 10464276 B2).
For claim 8, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the support core (element 18) is attached the roll frame (element 19) by one solid connection around [Fig 3]. STEIGER does not specify the number of posts that make the connection. CLEMENT teaches a similar embossing roll assembly. CLEMENT also teaches a similar center to the roller that is connected by four points (element 23) [Fig 5]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the support core is mounted at three points in the roll frame”. CLEMENT teaches the advantage to the invention is the sleeve is more easily removable due to the fast cooling of the rotary equipment [column 6 line 63]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the core structure of STEIGER with the structure of CLEMENT to improve the assembly. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added advantage of the faster cooling of the rotary equipment making the sleeve removal faster as taught by CLEMENT.
For claim 9, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER teaches the use of multiple bearings in the holding the structure [0040]. STEIGER does not teach the bearings being tempered. CLEMENT teaches a similar embossing roll assembly. CLEMENT also teaches the mandrel is cooled quickly by fluid [column 5 line 30]. CLEMENT also teaches the mandrel uses multiple bearings [column 5 line 5]. When the mandrel is cooled the bearings are also cooled. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a support core bearing of the support core is tempered via a bearing cooling, in particular by cooling all support core bearing points”. CLEMENT teaches the advantage to the invention is the sleeve is more easily removable due to the fast cooling of the rotary equipment [column 6 line 63]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the core structure of STEIGER with the structure of CLEMENT to improve the assembly. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added advantage of the faster cooling of the rotary equipment making the sleeve removal faster as taught by CLEMENT.
For claim 10, STEIGER and CLEMENT teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 8, as above. CLEMENT teaches the bearings on the front (drive side) are held in the frame [column 5 line 4]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein drive-side bearings are firmly installed in the roll frame or in the carriage”.
For claim 11, STEIGER and CLEMENT teach the sleeve-change calender of claim 8, as above. STEIGER teaches the use of journal bearings that are removable with a sliding guide [0040]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein operator-side bearings are designed as folding bearings and/or the operator-side roll bearings can be opened and closed via linear guides and/or ball bushings”.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEIGER (DE 102005040237 A1 ESPACENET MACHINE TRANSLATION) in view of OSTERMAYER (US 5587051).
For claim 16, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 1, as above. STEIGER does not teach an embodiment with lasers to track sleeve positioning. OSTERMAYER teaches a similar forming fabric (sleeve) configuration on a papermachine [abstract]. OSTERMAYER teaches the position of the forming fabric is measured and tracked using a laser displacement meter with reference points [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “which has at least one laser referencing unit for detecting the sleeve position on the support core, wherein the detection of the sleeve position on the support core takes place by means of at least one detectable reference point arranged on the sleeve surface”. OSTERMAYER further teaches the advantage of the invention is the ability to actively monitor the dewatering efficiency of the forming section [column 4 line 3] based on positioning and alignment of the belts. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the forming section of STEIGER with the laser displacement of OSTERMAYER to improve the assembly. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added advantage of active position tracking to monitor the efficiency of the belts as taught by OSTERMAYER.
For claim 17, STEIGER teaches the sleeve-change calender of claim 16, as above. OSTERMAYER teaches the couch roll is grooved [column 4 line 49]. This would impart a pattern on the stock similar to an embossing roller. OSTERMAYER teaches the position is adjusted using a laser disposition system with reference points in the vertical and horizontal positions [column 3 lines 18 and 22]. The roll is attached to an adjustable base [column 3 line 11]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the embossed engravings of the upper and lower roll can be aligned with each other via the at least one laser referencing unit, wherein the reference points on the sleeve lateral surfaces can be detected via the laser and a corresponding axial and/or radial adjustment of the rolls relative to each other takes place via motor-driven axial adjustment and/or drive motor-induced radial adjustment of at least one of the support cores”. The examiner notes the language of “or” is optional making the language that follows it optional.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights