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 Interpretation
The term “non-contact processing” (page 1 line 33 to page 2 line 3) is used to include a process in which processing which can occur without contact between the web-like article and the operating unit which carries out the processing and such processing can be carried out by supplying energy to the web article by light beam or ultrasound. While the whole description only refers to laser light beam, see in particular page 7, lines 31-32, without any further detail concerning use of ultrasound for energy provider, so for the purpose of examination, it is considered that claim 1 and 16 uses laser light and claim must be amended accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show item 100 apparatus, item #1 as described in the specification (page 13, line 11, and line 13) and suction device (6) as recited on page 15 line 5. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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
Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim is written poor, as such claim 1 must be amended as such each limitation must end with semicolon, and before the last limitation, including the term “and” and ending the last limitation of the claim with a period. Similar correction is required throughout the claims. The Examiner notes that claim 1 uses the term “ribbon-like” though discussed in the specification, may be amended to –ribbon-shaped--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not 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: “operating units configured to perform non-contact processing on the ribbon-like article” in claim 1-24 (structure defined on page 14 lines 1-10).
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.
Claims 1-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" 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 1 recites “the operating units” in line 9. Claim as written is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether applicant intend to refer to earlier said all of the “at least two operating units” or any other operating units.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" 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 2 recites “said first speed” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Furthermore, claim as written is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether for each instance of “said first speed” whether applicant is referring to at least one of the operating unit having a first speed.
Claim 4 recites “said first speed” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Furthermore, claim as written is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether for each instance of “said first speed” whether applicant is referring to at least one of the operating units of the two operating units having a first speed. Applicant is urged to clarify this in the next action.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the phrase "preferably" 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 12 and 22 recites “means of a light beam or by ultrasound” which raises clarity issue as it is unclear whether applicant intend to invoke 112 (f) means plus function. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner considers that applicant possibly intend to claim plain meaning such as using a light or ultrasound.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "preferably" 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). The dependent claims are also rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art D1 (JP H11 254176 A, JAPAN TOBACCO INC), and D2 (US 4,767,909 A), D3 (DE 43 01 575 A1) and D4 (WO 2015/064418 A1, KAO Corp). D1 teaches an apparatus for non-contact processing a ribbon-like article (Fig 3, item 15; [0025]-[0028]), and a corresponding method, from which of claims 1 and 11 differs in that the apparatus further comprises at least two operating units are configured to be movable along a loop path, said loop path comprising a processing portion (31) facing said connecting part (13) along which the operating units (2) can perform non-contact processing on the ribbon-like article (N), and further comprising a device for varying the speed of movement of said operating units, said variation device being configured in such a way to vary the speed of each of said operating units, individually, according to a position thereof of along said loop path (claim 1) and regarding claim 16, the method further comprises that said operating units being movable along a loop path comprising a processing portion along which said operating units are facing the ribbon-like article, and the step of increasing the speed of said at least one operating unit to a second speed, which is higher than said first speed when it has finished non-contact processing on the ribbon-like article, at a reset portion of said path. The present invention therefore be regarded to provide an apparatus for non-contact processing a ribbon-like article and a corresponding method with increased and efficient processing speed and higher precision.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0405706 A1 and US 5,318,600.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743