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 do use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first means for moving” in line 5 of claim 3.
“means for holding” in line 6 of claim 3.
“second means configured for moving” in lines 2 of claim 6 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second means for moving" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Priester (FR3010397A1).
Regarding claim 1, Priester discloses a method for automatically splicing a first article (2; Figure 1b) unwound from a first reel (page 2, lines 1-4, feed reel mandrel) with a second article (1) wound around a second reel (page 2, lines 1-4, replacement web reel mandrel), the first and the second articles (2, 1) being flexible and in a form of webs or strips, wherein the method comprises: positioning an adhesive tape (7; 8) on an end that is to be spliced belonging to the second article (1); automatically moving a portion of the first article (2) to a cutting plane (P3) situated facing the end that is to be spliced belonging to the second article (1); holding the portion of the first article (2) downstream of the cutting plane (P3) with respect to a motion of the first reel (Figure 1d); cutting the first article (2; Figure 1e) transversally; automatically moving the end that is to be spliced belonging to the second article (1) to the cutting plane (P3; Figure 1h); and pressing a cut end of the first article (2) held at the cutting plane against the end that is to be spliced belonging to the second article (1) to stick them together with the adhesive tape (7; 8).
Regarding claim 3, Priester discloses a module for automatically splicing a first article (2; Figure 1b) unwound from a first reel (page 2, lines 1-4, feed reel mandrel) with a second article (1) wound around a second reel (page 2, lines 1-4, replacement web reel mandrel), the first and the second articles (2, 1) being flexible and in a form of webs or strips, the module comprising: first means (17a, 16) for moving a portion of the first article (2) to a cutting plane (P3); means (18) for holding the first article (2) downstream of the cutting plane (P3) with respect to a motion of the first reel; a cutting carriage (11, 12, 14) which is movable transversally in the cutting plane (P3; Figures 1d-1e); two support means (9a, 10a) which are movable in the direction of one another each other to press, on either side of the cutting plane (P3), the first and second articles (2, 1) together that are to be spliced, the two support means (9a, 10a) comprising attachment means (9d) of for an end that is to be spliced belonging to the second article (1) and/or for an adhesive tape (7); and the adhesive tape (7) positioned on an end that is to be spliced belonging to the second article (1).
Regarding claim 4, Priester discloses wherein the means (18) for holding the first article (2) downstream of the cutting plane (P3) are in a form of a clamp.
Regarding claim 5, Priester discloses wherein the attachment means (9d) are in the form of suction means (page 5, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 6, Priester discloses second means (15) configured for moving, in the cutting plane (P3), a portion of the second article (1) unwound from the second reel.
Regarding claim 8, Priester discloses wherein the cutting carriage (11, 12, 14) is movable longitudinally in the cutting plane (P3; Figures 1b-1c).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priester in view of Chognard (FR2796929A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Priester discloses the above method, but fails to teach wherein, when the first article is cut transversally, the first reel of the first article is discharged automatically and replaced (“supplying” claim 9) automatically by a first full reel, and in concurrent operation time with respect to an unwinding of the second reel.
Chognard teaches a similar method and further teaches wherein, when the first article (1 of R1; Figure 3) is cut transversally, the first reel (R1) of the first article (1 of R1) is discharged automatically and replaced (“supplying” claim 9) automatically by a first full reel (new R1), and in concurrent operation time with respect to an unwinding of the second reel (R2; page 3, lines 5-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Priester to include the automatic discharge and replacement of the first reel in concurrent operation time with the second reel as taught by Chognard in order to prevent stopping of operation to reduce downtime and increase productivity.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priester in view of Alaimo (FR2750968A1).
Regarding claim 7, Priester discloses the above method and further teaches wherein the first means (17a, 16) for moving are in the form of a workflow roll (17a), but fails to teach wherein the workflow roll is movable in the cutting plane.
Alaimo teaches a similar method and further teaches wherein the workflow roll (39; Figures 2-3) is movable in the cutting plane (vertical dashed line). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module of Priester to include the movable workflow roll as taught by Alaimo in order to frictionlessly guide the web and prevent the web from making contact with sharp corners or edges of the support and/or attachment means.
Regarding claim 10, Priester discloses the above method, but fails to teach wherein the two support means and the attachment means form a sliding assembly mounted to the module, the sliding assembly configured to slide with respect to the module in a direction offset from the module.
Alaimo teaches a similar method and further teaches wherein the two support means (16, 17; Figure 2) and the attachment means (47, 49) form a sliding assembly (16, 47; 17, 49) mounted to the module (27, 16, 47; 28, 17, 49) the sliding assembly (16, 47; 17, 49) configured to slide with respect to the module (fixed frame portion 27; 28) in a direction offset from the module (sliding assembly 16, 47; 17, 49 slides laterally offset from the fixed frame portion 27; 28; Figures 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module of Priester to include the sliding assembly as taught by Alaimo in order to provide a compact assembly to reduce the size and space of the module.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights