Detailed Action
The communications received 06/04/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 34-65 are pending. Claims 56-65 are withdrawn.
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 Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…to associate, to said at least one embossing defect, at least one malfunction factor of the embossing device, constituting cause of the embossing defect…” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The limitation “one or more functional units of the embossing device” of claim 53 is understood to not trigger a 112(f) interpretation as the limitation is understood to be specifically meaning the parts of the embossing device that perform its function, not as a means to refer to functional equivalents.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 34-55, drawn to a device for embossing.
Group II, claim(s) 56-65, drawn to a method for embossing.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the device of claim 34, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Wening et al (US 2014/0174306) hereinafter WEN.
As for claim 34, WEN teaches an embossing device for producing an embossed web material including at least a first embossed cellulose ply (via stamping roller) [Abstract; 0005; 0016; 0078];
wherein the embossing device comprises:
a first embossing roller (stamping roller) [0076; Fig.1b #1; Fig. 3 #5] provided with a plurality of first embossing protuberances;
a first pressure roller that forms, with the first embossing roller, a first embossing nip, through which a first feed path [Fig. 1a-c #11] for feeding a first cellulose ply passes [Fig. 3 #51; 0078];
wherein a first actuator is adapted to press the first embossing roller and the first pressure roller against each other (by pressing the pressure rollers, it is understood that as the pressure rollers can be actuated that there must be an actuator performing the actuating) [0078];
an exit path for an embossed web material including the first embossed cellulose ply (the exit of the nip) [Fig. 3 after #5 and #51];
and a first vision unit arranged along the exit path for the embossed web material and comprising a first camera adapted to detect defects in the embossed web material [0034-35].
Therefore unity of invention is lacking a posteriori.
During a telephone conversation with Mary Breiner on 02/26/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 34-55. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 56-65 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 34-55 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.
Claims 34-35, 37, 39 recites the limitation "the first embossed cellulose ply". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is understood to mean “a first embossed cellulose ply” that is generated from the first cellulose ply. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claims 43, 45-47, and 49-52 recites the limitation "the web material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim/it is unclear whether this is supposed to refer to a new web material or is derivative of the embossed web material. This limitation is understood to be “a web material”. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
As for claim 53, there is the recitation of “the embossing defect” after a previous recitation of “at least one embossing defect”, it is unclear whether “the embossing defect” refers to a single or the complete set of the “at least one embossing defect” or to a new embossing defect. For purposes of examination this is understood to mean “the at least one embossing defect”. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
As for claim 53, there is the recitation of “the control” after a previous recitation of “at least one control”, it is unclear whether “the control” refers to a single or the complete set of the “at least one control” or to a new control. For purposes of examination this is understood to mean “the at least one control”. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
As for claim 53, there is the recitation of “a second embossing roller” after a previous recitation of “a second embossing roller”, it is unclear whether there is a new second embossing roller or it refers to the previous “a second embossing roller” for purposes of examination any subsequent second embossing rollers are understood to read “the second embossing roller”. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
As for claim 55, the claim recites there being two cameras which are used to comprise a single camera. It is unclear how a single camera can also comprise multiple cameras. For purposes of examination the cameras of the entirety of the claimset are understood to generally refer to a camera system composed of at least one camera.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 34-42 and 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wening et al (US 2014/0174306) hereinafter WEN.
As for claim 34, WEN teaches an embossing device for producing an embossed web material including at least a first embossed cellulose ply (via stamping roller) [Abstract; 0005; 0016; 0078];
wherein the embossing device comprises:
a first embossing roller (stamping roller) [0076; Fig.1b #1; Fig. 3 #5] provided with a plurality of first embossing protuberances;
a first pressure roller that forms, with the first embossing roller, a first embossing nip, through which a first feed path [Fig. 1a-c #11] for feeding a first cellulose ply passes [Fig. 3 #51; 0078];
wherein a first actuator is adapted to press the first embossing roller and the first pressure roller against each other (by pressing the pressure rollers, it is understood that as the pressure rollers can be actuated that there must be an actuator performing the actuating) [0078];
an exit path for an embossed web material including the first embossed cellulose ply (the exit of the nip) [Fig. 3 after #5 and #51];
and a first vision unit arranged along the exit path for the embossed web material and comprising a first camera adapted to detect defects in the embossed web material [0034-35].
As for claim 35, WEN teaches claim 34, there is a second feed path [Fig. 1b #21; Abstract; 0064] for feeding a second cellulose ply [Abstract], and a bonding arrangement for bonding first embossed cellulose ply and the second cellulose ply to each other [0065].
As for claim 36, WEN teaches claim 35, and wherein a second embossing roller provided with a plurality of second embossing protuberances [Fig. 3 #5 the embossing roller understood to also represent the embossing section of Fig. 1c #2; 0078-79];
and a second pressure roller that forms, with the second embossing roller, a second embossing nip, through which the second feed path passes [Fig. 3 #51 with #5];
wherein a second actuator is adapted to press the second embossing roller and the second pressure roller against each other (by pressing the pressure rollers, it is understood that as the pressure rollers can be actuated that there must be an actuator performing the actuating) [0078].
As for claim 37, WEN teaches claim 35 and the bonding arrangement comprises a functional fluid applicator (there must be some device that applies radiation-curable components such as a varnish) which is then used to bond the first to the second ply [0046], it is understood that the applicator would occur before the second stamping and therefore would co-act with the first embossing roller in the first embossing station [0046; 0079-80]. The lamination nip adapted to received the first embossed cellulose ply and second cellulose ply to bond them together is understood to be a manner of using any one of the pressure rollers of WEN that interact with the first embossed roller [Fig. 3 #51].
As for claim 38, WEN teaches claim 37 and wherein the lamination nip is formed between the first embossing roller and a lamination device comprising a lamination roller [Fig. 3 #5 with one of #51], and wherein the embossing device comprises a third actuator adapted to press the lamination device against the first embossing roller [0078].
As for claim 39, WEN teaches claim 34 and wherein the first vision unit is provided opposite the first embossed cellulose ply (on the opposite side of a line drawn from #1 to #41) to acquire images of the first embossed cellulose ply [Fig, 4a-4b #44; 0034; 0074].
As for claim 40, WEN teaches claim 34 and further comprising a second vision unit provided along a web material exit path on a side opposite the first vision unit;
Wherein the second vision unit comprises a second camera adapted to detect defects in the embossed web material (as it is understood that there can be another sensor camera before the first stamping, between the second and first stamping, and after the second stamping, therefore the second sensor can be on an opposite side defined by one side being the first stamping side and the opposite side being the second stamping side) [0034].
As for claim 41, WEN teaches claim 40 and as depicted it is understood that the sensor would face perpendicular to the direction of travel of the substrate, therefore it is understood that all the sensors would be parallel to each other thereby making the first camera and second camera axis coincide in parallel (as they correspond in both of their natures of being parallel) [Fig. 4z-4b; 0074].
As for claim 42, WEN teaches claim 35 and further comprising a vision unit provided along a web material exit path on a side opposite the first vision unit [see claim 40];
Wherein the second vision unit comprises a second camera, adapted to detect defects in the embossed web material [0034];
And wherein the first vision unit and the second vision unit are arranged downstream of the bonding arrangement between the first cellulosic ply and the second cellulosic ply (as they can be between the first embossing and the second embossing, and after the second embossing) [0034];
The first vision unit being adapted to detect images of the first cellulosic ply and the second vision unit being adapted to detect images of the second cellulosic ply (it is understood that as cameras they would be able to detect marks corresponding to both plies/the plies can use marks that are windows) [0034; 0074].
As for claim 53, WEB teaches claim 40 and further comprising at least one control unit (a regulating device) [0034] adapted to receive images from the first/second camera [0034-39] and then to use this information to generate a response/correction [0040-41; 0074; 0084].
As for claim 54, WEB teaches claim 53 and it is understood that the control can vary pressure exerted via the actuators acting on the first/second embossing roller and first/second pressure roller and lamination device [0074; 0078] as well as the angular phase and axial position of the rollers (via speed and positioning which changes the pressure) [0074; 0078; 0080; 0084].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 43-50 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEB in view of Valkonen (US 2021/0355637) hereinafter VAL.
As for claim 43, WEB teaches claim 34 and but does not teach a lighting unit.
VAL teaches that when monitoring a paper produced in a machine [Abstract] that one manner of aiding the camera in observing the features of the paper is via illuminating via a light fixture which allow for improving the quality of the measurements made by the camera [0006; 0020-29].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a light fixture to the camera system of WEB as taught by VAL in order to improve the quality of the measurements made by the camera of WEB. As both WEB and VAL pertain to obtaining image information from paper and pulp processes they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 44, WEB/VAL teach claim 43 and that multiple light fixtures can be provided to improve the quality of the measurements in order to best illuminate the area which the camera is measuring [VAL: 0020-29].
As for claim 45, WEB/VAL teaches claim 44 and it is understood that the lighting features are adjusted in order to achieve the best field of view for the selected camera [VAL: 0021].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the two lighting units such that they are inclined with respect to the web material and converge towards one another in an area arranged opposite the first camera (i.e. an area the camera is fixated on if there is a line drawn perpendicular to the camera’s line of sight right in front of the camera, the field of view would be on the opposite side of this line) in order to sufficiently light the field of view of the camera.
As for claim 46, WEB/VAL teach claim 44 and further that the lighting unit is a lighting bar (as depicted it is bar like) [VAL: Fig. 1 #19] the lighting arrangement is altered and adjusted according to the field of view of the camera [0021; 0025].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the bar light such that it is parallel to the web material and directed according to a feed direction of the web material in order to best adjust the lighting for the field of view of the camera.
As for claims 47-50, it is understood that these are claims 44-46 except directed to the second vision unit. It is understood that the teachings applied in WEB/VAL would apply equally to the first vision unit and the second vision unit.
As for claim 55, WEB teaches claim 40 but does not teach a multitude of cameras for each vision system.
VAL teaches that one manner of obtaining a larger amount of information of good measurement quality of a paper product surface is by utilizing a camera system composed of at least one central camera [Fig. 5 #41] and two cameras on each lateral side [Fig. 5 #42a-b; 0020-29; 0031-33].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the cameras of VAL to the vision units of WEB in order to improve the amount of information received about the paper product in a manner that obtains good measurement quality. As both WEB and VAL pertain to using camera systems to monitor paper products and their qualities, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEB in view of Ding (US 2006/0278353) hereinafter DIN.
As for claims 51-52, WEB teaches claims 34 and 40 but fails to teach that both the first and second vision units are contained in an opaque container with an inlet slot and outlet slot for the web material.
DIN teaches that when employing a camera for use in detecting features about a lignocellulosic product [Abstract; 0063] that one manner of ensuring that the camera is in the condition for operation as well as providing a space for other sensors useful in detecting quality of the lignocellulosic product is by enclosing the camera in an enclosure with in inlet slot and outlet slot for the lignocellulosic material [Fig. 3 #14; 0063]. As no transparency of the enclosure is mentioned, the enclosure is understood to have at least some opacity therefore opaque.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the camera enclosure of DIN to the camera vision systems of WEB in order to ensure that the camera is in the condition for operation as well as providing a space for other sensors useful in detecting quality of the lignocellulosic product. As both WEB and DIN pertain to using sensors to monitor aspects of a lignocellulosic product they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748