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
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 flatness measuring unit, a web tension unit, an evaluation unit, a collapsing unit in claims 13 & 15.
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) 1-8, & 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schumacher et al (PGPub 2019/0315037) (Schumacher).
Regarding Claim 1, Schumacher discloses a method for determining flatness of a flexible web material in a manufacturing process of the flexible web material, the method comprising steps of:
determining an actual flatness (91, 92) of the web material (Paragraph 314);
determining a first process parameter of the manufacturing process (systematic dependence of the parameters, Paragraphs 67, 74, 321)
converting the actual flatness of the web material into at least one comparative value of the actual flatness of the web material depending on the first process parameter (Paragraph 321). By developing a systematic dependence of the parameters and then applying them to the measured optical properties in order to adapt the film quality this limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 2, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses wherein an actual topography of a surface of the web material is determined in order to determine the actual flatness of the web material (Paragraph 231).
Regarding Claim 3, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses wherein the first process parameter of the manufacturing process is a web tension of the web material (Paragraphs 52 & 67).
Regarding Claim 4, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses wherein the at least one comparative value of the actual flatness of the web material is a comparative flatness or a comparative topography. Since it is a topography (Paragraph 231) being converted then the comparative value would be a comparative topography.
Regarding Claim 5, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses determining at least one further process parameter of the manufacturing process, wherein the at least one further process parameter is one of process parameters including a width of the web material, a thickness of the web material, a material composition of the web material, a temperature of the web material and an ambient temperature (Paragraph 92). Used raw materials and proportions of raw materials would cover material composition of the web material.
Regarding Claim 6, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses wherein conversion of the actual flatness of the web material into the at least one comparative value of the actual flatness of the web material is additionally carried out depending on the at least one further process parameter and/or at least one material characteristic value (Paragraphs 67 & 321).
Regarding Claim 7, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses further comprising: defining a reference value for the first process parameter (Paragraph 321, Systematic dependence of the parameters), wherein the actual flatness of the web material is converted into the at least one comparative value of the actual flatness of the web material based on the reference value of the first process parameter (Paragraph 321).
Regarding Claim 8, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses wherein the first process parameter is a web tension of the web material (Paragraph 52), wherein the reference value of the first process parameter is a reference web tension, and wherein the reference value of the first process parameter depends on at least one further process parameter and/or the at least one material parameter (Paragraphs 67 & 92). AS disclosed the systematic dependence can be based on a variety of variables.
Regarding Claim 11, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses a step of converting the at least one comparative value of the actual flatness of the web material into at least one quality parameter of the flatness (Paragraphs 77, 321). The product of the conversion is to adapt the quality of the film thus it is a quality parameter.
Regarding Claim 12, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses wherein the at least one comparative value of the actual flatness of the web material is a comparative topography (Paragraph 231), and wherein the at least one comparative value is converted into the at least one quality parameter of the flatness by using at least one method selected from a group consisting of determining a standard deviation, determining a coefficient of variation, determining Pearson skewness, determining camber and excess, determining a mean deviation, determining an Abbott curve and determining a profile depth of the comparative topography (Paragraphs 75 & 77). A coefficient of determination is a coefficient of variation.
Regarding Claim 13, Schumacher discloses a flatness measuring arrangement (Fig. 3) for a web material, in particular for a plastic web, comprising:
a flatness measuring unit (Fig. 3, 86, 87) which is configured to determine an actual flatness of the web material, in particular an actual topography of a surface of the web material (paragraph 231), in a detection section of the web material;
a web tension unit adapted to detect a web tension in the detection section of the web material (Paragraph 52); and
an evaluation unit which is configured to convert the actual flatness into at least one comparative value of the actual flatness of the web material depending on the web tension (Paragraphs 67 & 321).
Regarding Claim 14, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses a module frame in which one or more of elements of the flatness measuring unit, the web tension unit and the evaluation unit are mounted. They are all inherently mounted on something thus this would be the module frame.
Regarding Claim 15, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses a blow head (72) for ejecting a film tube, a collapsing unit (73) for folding the film tube into a web material (Paragraph 308), the flatness measuring arrangement according to claim 13 (Shown above in the rejection of claim 13).
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.
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.
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) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher.
Regarding Claim 9, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the actual flatness of the web material is determined in a transverse plane of the web material, and/or the actual flatness of the web material is determined by means of a flatness measuring unit which is arranged in the transverse plane of the web material, and wherein the transverse plane is orientated transversely, in particular orthogonally, to a transport direction of the web material;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schumacher with wherein the actual flatness of the web material is determined in a transverse plane of the web material, and/or the actual flatness of the web material is determined by means of a flatness measuring unit which is arranged in the transverse plane of the web material, and wherein the transverse plane is orientated transversely, in particular orthogonally, to a transport direction of the web material because in order to measure flatness one would need the topography of the whole web and a line scanning system which measures a line across the transverse plane across the material is a known measurement method which offers advantages of being fast at capturing images and low cost.
Regarding Claim 10, Schumacher discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schumacher discloses wherein the first process parameter and/or at least one further process parameter is determined in the transport direction of the web material in a region of the transverse plane (Paragraph 92). Tensile strengths with or across the machine direction meets this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 9, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877