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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II (includes claims 8-16 and 20) in the reply filed on 14 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that it would not be a significant burden on the Office to search and examine each of the identified inventions. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of groups I and II require a different field of search and have separate classification. The conveying roller cleaning method process of group I can be used practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as with an apparatus that does not require a support, an unwinding reel, or a winding reel. The roller cleaning device apparatus of group II can be used in methods that do not require a material tape.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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: “a transmission mechanism” in claim 9 and “an operating part” in claims 11 and 20.
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 § 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) 8, 11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., WO 2018/216949 A1 (see English translation).
Regarding claim 8, Park et al. disclose a cleaning device comprising a support (support is the surface of 730 shown in Figure 1 from which reels of 200, 310, 410, 420, 430 extend); an unwinding reel rotatably arranged on the support (200) and configured to unwind an adhesive tape wound on the unwinding reel (tape 100); and a winding reel rotatably arranged on the support and configured to wind a release film separated from the adhesive tape (410, winds film 130, see Figure 1), wherein the unwinding reel and the winding reel are arranged in parallel to each other (Figure 1). Regarding claim 11, the conveying roller cleaning device further comprises an operating part (motors that drive the rollers, not shown, see English translation wherein “drive 730 may include a plurality of motors for driving the transfer unit 710 and each roll…”) wherein the operating part is arranged at one end of the winding reel to drive the winding reel to rotate (see English translation, motors at each roll). Regarding claim 13, the conveying roller cleaning device further comprises a guide roller (310, Figure 1), wherein the guide roller is rotatably arranged on the support to change a direction of movement of the adhesive tape (at 310 in Figure 1, the adhesive tape changes its direction in the path), and the guide roller is parallel to the unwinding reel (Figure 1). Regarding claim 14, the unwinding reel is located between the guide roller and the winding reel (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okeyui et al., WO 2008/041445 A1 (see English translation).
Regarding claim 8, Okeyui et al. disclose a cleaning device comprising a support (housing 19 of taper cartridge 16, Figures 3-4); an unwinding reel rotatably arranged on the support (29) and configured to unwind an adhesive tape wound on the unwinding reel (tape T, English translation paragraph [0038]); and a winding reel rotatably arranged on the support and configured to wind a release film separated from the adhesive tape (30, Figure 3, release film s), wherein the unwinding reel and the winding reel are arranged in parallel to each other (Figure 3). Regarding claim 9, the cleaning device further comprises a transmission mechanism (37, see English translation at paragraphs [0040]-[0043], and Figures 4-5), connecting the unwinding reel and the winding reel (Figures 4-5). Regarding claims 11 and 20, the conveying roller cleaning device further comprises an operating part (motor 41) wherein the operating part is arranged at one end of the winding reel to drive the winding reel to rotate (at one end via gear 38, Figure 5). Regarding claim 13, the conveying roller cleaning device further comprises a guide roller (310, Figure 1), wherein the guide roller is rotatably arranged on the support to change a direction of movement of the adhesive tape (guide roller is any one of 32 or 33 where the direction of movement of the tape changes, alternatively 28; Figure 3), and the guide roller is parallel to the unwinding reel (Figure 3). Regarding claim 14, the unwinding reel is located between the guide roller and the winding reel (Figure 3).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al., CN 108238483 A (see English translation).
Regarding claim 8, Liang et al. disclose a cleaning device comprising a support (frame 100); an unwinding reel rotatably arranged on the support (600) and configured to unwind an adhesive tape wound on the unwinding reel (double faced adhesive tape on 600, see English translation); and a winding reel rotatably arranged on the support and configured to wind a release film separated from the adhesive tape (200, release paper), wherein the unwinding reel and the winding reel are arranged in parallel to each other (Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 9, the cleaning device further comprises a transmission mechanism (includes 700, 800, 900; Figure 2), connecting the unwinding reel and the winding reel (Figure 2, see also English translation). Regarding claims 11 and 20, the conveying roller cleaning device further comprises an operating part (motor, unlabeled, see English translation) wherein the operating part is arranged at one end of the winding reel to drive the winding reel to rotate (not shown, see English translation discussion relating to the reels being driven). Regarding claim 12, the conveying roller cleaning device further comprises a damper (damping rotating shaft, see English translation), wherein the unwinding reel is rotatably connected to the support through the damper (see English translation, unwinding reel 600 and pulley are “connected with a damping rotating shaft”). Regarding claim 13, the conveying roller cleaning device further comprises a guide roller (400), wherein the guide roller is rotatably arranged on the support to change a direction of movement of the adhesive tape (roller 400 guides the tape through a changed direction), and the guide roller is parallel to the unwinding reel (Figure 1). Regarding claim 14, the unwinding reel is located between the guide roller and the winding reel (Figure 1).
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.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., CN 108238483 A (see English translation).
Liang et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above. Regarding claim 10, the transmission mechanism comprises a first belt pulley connected to the unwinding reel (900), a second belt pulley connected to the winding reel (700), wherein a diameter of the first belt pulley is smaller than that of the second belt pulley (Figure 2). In the English translation Liang et al. discusses the transmission ratio of the pulleys and setting them accordingly to allow for an appropriate amount of stretching of the tape. It is well known to adjust pulley size to accommodate different needs in transmitting motion.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the first belt pulley to be larger than the second belt pulley of Liang et al. in order to optimize the transmission motion of the pulleys based on the needs of the system of reels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention recited in claims 15-16. None of the prior art discloses that the conveying roller device is arranged at a tape connecting platform that is arranged upstream of multiple conveying rollers that are configured to convey a material tape, the tape connecting platform being configured to achieve a connection between two segments of the material tape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg