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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a device or system.
II. Claim 15, drawn to a method.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case a device of claim 1 can be used without a magnetic opening device, just a mechanical opening device.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Inventions I-II require different fields of search, including different classification areas and different search queries. See MPEP 808.02(C).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Faris on April 28, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 15 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 2, 4, 7, and 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “has slip in the range of -10% to +10%,” and the claim also recites “preferably in the range of -5% to+5% and particularly in the range of 0% to +3%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein a position of the partial opening device is adjustable in the TD direction and/or MD direction,” and the claim also recites “herein the partial opening device comprises preferably at least one positioning device for adjusting the position of the partial opening disc in the TD direction and/or MD direction” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “wherein the contoured cross section is adapted to a contact region of a blade flap of a gripper to be opened partly,” and the claim also recites “preferably in such a way that a position of the contact point in the MD direction is independent of the film edge thickness of the material web held by the gripper to be opened partly” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 14 recites, “wherein the stretching unit has a gripper travel speed of greater than 400 m/min” and the claim also recites “preferably greater than 500 m/min and particularly preferably greater than 600 m/min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 4,879,788).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses partial opening device for the pre-opening of grippers comprising at least one partial opening disc and a drive (clip opener 12 mounted on rotary disc 17 driven by chain driving by a driving system, col. 10 ll. 34 to col. 11 ll. 14; col. 11 ll. 64 to col. 12 ll. 2, Figs. 18-19), wherein the drive is configured to drive said at least one partial opening disc (drive rotates chain around rotary disc 17, col. 10 ll. 34 to col. 11 ll. 14; col. 11 ll. 64 to col. 12 ll. 2, Figs. 18-19), and wherein the partial opening disc has a circumferential surface comprising a rotating contact surface (Fig. 19), wherein the contact surface is configured to engage with a blade flap of a gripper when the gripper is guided past the partial opening disc (clip 12 engages clip levers 10, col. 10 ll. 33-43, Figs. 18-19), and when the blade flap, when being guided past the partial opening disc, has a degree of opening below a predefined degree of opening so that the gripper is pre-opened (was previously closed and is opened, col. 10 ll. 33-43, Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses wherein the drive is configured to be synchronised with a gripper travel speed in such way that the contact surface of the partial opening disc, compared to a gripper to be opened partly, has slip in the range of -10% to +10%, preferably in the range of -5% to+5% and particularly in the range of 0% to +3% (system capable of performing at particular speeds, as presented, drive rotates chain around rotary disc 17, thus slip of approximately 0%, col. 10 ll. 34 to col. 11 ll. 14; col. 11 ll. 64 to col. 12 ll. 2, Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses wherein the drive is a direct drive, or wherein the drive is an indirect drive that can comprise a belt drive or a chain drive (chain drive, col. 10 ll. 34 to col. 11 ll. 14; col. 11 ll. 64 to col. 12 ll. 2, Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses wherein a position of the partial opening device is adjustable in the TD direction and/or MD direction (adjustable externally, col. 10 ll. 34-43), wherein the partial opening device comprises preferably at least one positioning device for adjusting the position of the partial opening disc in the TD direction and/or MD direction (structure that makes it adjustable externally, col. 10 ll. 34-43).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses wherein the position of the partial opening disc is adjustable in the vertical direction (assembled as shown in Fig. 18, structure that assembles it will have bolts or some other fastener that can be adjusted).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki discloses wherein the partial opening device comprises in addition a control device that can change the position of the partial opening disc (assembled as shown in Fig. 18, structure that assembles it will have bolts or some other fastener that can be adjusted and constitutes a control device).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki discloses wherein the contact surface of the partial opening disc comprises contoured cross section (Figs. 18-19), wherein the contoured cross section is adapted to a contact region of a blade flap of a gripper to be opened partly (contact, col. 10 ll. 33-43, Figs. 18-19), preferably in such a way that a position of the contact point in the MD direction is independent of the film edge thickness of the material web held by the gripper to be opened partly (position of contact point is shown at the top of Fig. 18, is not based on how open the clip was, col. 10 ll. 33-43, Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses wherein the partial opening disc is a metallic partial opening disc (while materials are not specified, at least some are magnetic and therefore metallic, permanent magnet 15, col. 10 ll. 33-43).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki discloses opening system for the opening of grippers (col. 10 ll. 33-43), in particular grippers of a stretching unit (abstract, col. 10 ll. 33-43), the opening system comprising at least one partial opening device according to claim 1 (see claim 1); and a magnetic opening device (magnet 13 cooperating with magnet 15, col. 10 ll. 33-43), wherein the magnetic opening device is configured to open the grippers using magnetic force when the grippers are guided past the magnetic opening device (col. 10 ll. 33-43, Figs. 18-19), and wherein said at least one partial opening device is positioned in the MD direction (R) in such a way to carry out a pre-opening of the grippers (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki discloses wherein said at least one partial opening device is positioned relative to the magnetic opening device in such a way that the contact point of the partial opening disc is positioned in the MD direction in a front region, in particular in a front third of the magnetic opening device (col. 10 ll. 33-43, Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses wherein the partial opening device can be positioned relative to the magnetic opening device in such a way that the contact point of the partial opening disc is located at a distance before or after a point at which a maximum magnetic force acts on the grippers to be opened (col. 10 ll. 33-43, Figs. 18-19; note that “before or after” is tautological).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki discloses wherein the opening system comprises in addition a mechanical forced opening device (mechanical member, claim 1), wherein the mechanical forced opening device is located in the direction of travel of the grippers after the magnetic opening device and the partial opening device (mechanical member, claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses stretching unit, in particular a transverse direction orienter, a machine direction orienter and/or a simultaneous stretching unit (abstract, col. 1 ll. 10-14), comprising a multitude of grippers for gripping a material web to be stretched (plurality of clap bases, col. 8 ll. 32-36), in particular a film (film 1, col. 8 ll. 39-48), and opening system according to claim 9 (see claim 9, above).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 4,879,788).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki discloses in particular film stretching unit, wherein the stretching unit has a gripper travel speed of greater than 400 m/min (highspeed operation, col. 13 ll. 32, constitutes at least an overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gresens (US 4,918,796) teaches adjustment control means with bolt 42 and nut 43, along with bolt 40 and slots 39 (col. 8 ll. 12-27, Fig. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights