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 § 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 5 and 7 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 5, it is unclear what is meant by the locking means being constrained to the movement of the rotary member. Does this mean they are attached to the member that rotates or prevented from acting somehow do to the rotation? Based on the drawings, for the purposes of examination, this is considered to mean they are connected to the rotating means.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what elements are requires as the claims recites an “elastic return means” but has no structure described which performs this function. As examiner has no idea what structure is required, no rejection can be made.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires separate retaining members and joining means. This claim indicates they are the same element which broadens the scope of the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The locking means of claim 1 are considered to be two elements which work together to hold the sheet between them and all equivalents thereof, and the joining means of claim 1 are considered to be elements which press the two sheets together and all equivalents thereof.
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pasqualoni(US Publication 2007/0113984).
Pasqualoni teaches a device for splicing webs comprising a head with two slots(spaces between the rolls 16 and the member 14) configured for passage of the two webs, a splicing device having locking means(24) and joining means[0059] which pass from a non-operating position to an operating position, the locking means holding the materials during operation and the joining means joining during operation, two cutting members for cutting the two webs(24), and two retaining members for retaining the webs(20) which are configured to vary their orientation from a first configuration oriented towards the head(Figure 3) and a second configuration oriented to position the webs to confront each other.(Figure 4; [0040]-[0059])
Regarding claim 2, the retaining members have a chamber which exerts a vacuum(18) via openings(20).
Regarding claim 4, the retaining members rotate about a rotary member.(Figure 3 and 4)
Regarding claim 5, the locking members rotate with the rotating means.(Figure 3)
Regarding claim 9, since the adhesive tape is located on the vacuum surface(18) one in the art would understand the two retaining surfaces would have to be brought together as otherwise bonding would not occur.
Regarding claim 11, the device includes two unwinding stations(A, B) and an accumulation location.(F)
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) 3, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqualoni.
Regarding claim 3, Pasqualoni discloses the vacuum chamber is split up into a number of compartments which allows selective creation of suction.[0040] While this does not explicitly state that an element prevents suction through part of the retaining surface, one in the art would appreciate there is no reason for multiple suction compartments unless some of them are intended to be turned off in some manner, and that this manner requires an element of some sort to separate the ones suction is occurring in from those it is not. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use an element to deactivate some of the suction compartments since Pasqualoni discloses the suction can be applied selectively, i.e. only in certain locations.
Regarding claim 6, while Pasqualoni does not disclose using pneumatic means to move the retaining member, it does use pneumatic means for other elements.[0065] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use pneumatic means to move the retaining members since the use of pneumatics to move elements is known in general in the manufacturing arts as shown by Pasqualoni and since pneumatics would be easier than the operator rotating it by hand as suggested by Pasqualoni.[0062]
Regarding claim 10, Pasqualoni shows a frame.(Figure 1) While Pasqualoni does not disclose covers over the top surface of Figure 1, it is well-known and conventional in general to have covers for surfaces to prevent contamination of the equipment and to prevent limbs or clothing from becoming trapped in the equipment and it would have been obvious for this reason. Since the webs would need to pass on either side of element 14, there would need to be two covers
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqualoni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campedelli et al.(US Publication 2022/0289509).
Campedelli et al. discloses a splicing device with a spongy material on the pad which creates the vacuum in order to avoid damaging the equipment when joining.([0073]-[0074]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to cover the vacuum surface with a spongy material to avoid damaging it during joining as taught by Campedelli et al.([0073]-[0074])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746