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 claims recite an apparatus with structural limitations and material worked upon by the apparatus. While there is nothing wrong with claiming the material worked upon, such limitations are only given weight to the extent that they limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115. See In re Rishoi (94 USPQ 71), In re Smith (3 USPQ 315), and In re Young (25 USPQ 69).
In Rishoi, a film of liquid was claimed as part of an apparatus, it being clear that the liquid film is only present during use of the apparatus. It was held that the liquid film is not a structural limitation and therefore cannot impart patentability to those claims which are otherwise unpatentable. It was further stated that there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works.
In Smith, a particular web material having an extra length of carbons was claimed as part of an apparatus. The web material is worked upon by the apparatus. The court considered the possibility of combining the specified web with an old machine to provide a patentable combination, but it was held that a person may not patent a combination of a device and material upon which the device works, nor limit other persons from the use of similar material by claiming a device patent.
In Young, a concrete structure upon which an apparatus works was claimed as part of the apparatus. It was held that the inclusion of the material worked upon may not lend patentability to the apparatus.
In view of the cited cases and MPEP 2115, the claimed material worked upon has only been given weight to the extent that such limitations indicate structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
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 1-10, 12 and 13 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.
Claim 1 recites “a pair of chucks rotatably mounted on tip portions of the pair of support arms and configured to support a paper roll” It’s not clear if each tip portion contains a pair of chucks or a single chuck. Based on the specification, it appears each tip portion contains one chuck of the pair of chucks. The claim should be amended as follows: “a pair of chucks, wherein one of the chucks of the pair of chucks is mounted on a tip portion of one of the support arms, and the other chuck is mounted on a tip portion of the other support arm.” The examiner will assume such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the chuck includes”. It is unclear to which of the previously recited chucks in the pair chucks “the chuck” refers. The limitation should be amended to recite “wherein each chuck of the pair of chucks includes”. The examiner will assume such for the purposes of this action.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the plurality of support members includes a flange portion protruding outward in a radial direction of the chuck body”. It’s not clear if this refers to each of the support members. The claim should be amended as follows: “wherein each of the plurality of support members includes a flange portion protruding outward in a radial direction of the chuck body”.
In claims 5 and 7, it’s not clear to which of the two previously recited chuck bodies the limitation “the chuck body” refers.
Claim 8 recites “a center side”. It’s not clear how a center can also be a side.
Claim 10 recites “a pressing force when the paper roll is supported by the chuck” It’s not clear if this is the same pressing force previously recited.
In claim 10, it’s unclear to which of the previously recited pressing forces “the pressing force” refers.
In claim 10, it’s not clear to which of the previously recited chucks “the chuck” refer.
In claim 12, the limitation “the adjacent support members” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 13, it’s not clear if “a paper roll” refers to the same paper roll previously recited.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoji et al. (JPH09136745, of record, see attached machine translation for text citations).
Shoji discloses a paper roll chuck comprising: a chuck body (fig 2) having a shape whose outer diameter decreases from a base end portion toward a tip portion 1 (fig 2) and in which a plurality of guide portions 4/6 along an axial direction are provided on an outer peripheral surface (fig 2, para 12-15); a plurality of support members 3a including a receiving portion (3a surface, see fig 2, para 12, 15) supported to be movable by the plurality of guide portions and configured to come into contact with an end portion of the paper roll (fig 2, para 12-15, specifically para 15 discloses 3a is moved by 4/6), and a support portion 3 configured to come into contact with an inner peripheral surface of the paper roll; and a plurality of connecting members 8/8a extending from the plurality of support members in a direction intersecting a movement direction of the support member, integrally moving the plurality of support members in the axial direction of the chuck body, and synchronously moving the plurality of support members in a radial direction of the chuck body (figs 2-4, para 11-16).
Specifically, the support members 3a/3 are configured to move in an axial direction, see fig 2, para 12, 15). During the receiving of core, 8a/8 enables the movement of support members 3a in both the radial and axial directions (see fig 2, para 15) such that 3a/3 is enabled to grasp a roll.
As to claim 12, Shoji discloses the connecting member includes a first connecting member (8a, bottom side fig 2) provided on one side portion of the support member, and a second connecting member (8a, top side fig 2) provided on the other side portion of the support member and disposed to deviate from the first connecting member in the axial direction of the chuck body, and in the adjacent support members, the first connecting member and the second connecting member are disposed to overlap each other in the axial direction of the chuck body (figs 1-3, para 12-15).
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) 1, 2 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji et al. (JPH09136745, of record, see attached machine translation for text citations) in view oof Focke et al. (US 4368859)
As to claim 1 Shoji discloses a paper roll support device comprising: a pair of support arms 12/12 (para 12, 15, fig 2) supported to be movable along an axial direction of a support shaft of a frame (frame shown in fig 1, see para 15-18 for moveable); and a pair of chucks 10 (fig 2, para 12-15) rotatably mounted on tip portions of the pair of support arms and configured to support a paper roll (para 14-15, fig 2), wherein the chuck includes a chuck body having a shape whose outer diameter decreases from a base end portion toward a tip portion (see fig 2) and in which a plurality of guide portions 8 (para 11-12) along the axial direction are provided on an outer peripheral surface (fig 2), and a plurality of support members 3 (para 12) including a receiving portion (3a, fig 2, para 12, 15) supported to be movable by the plurality of guide portions and configured to come into contact with an end portion of the paper roll (para 12 discloses movement of 3/3a), and a support portion 3 configured to come into contact with an inner peripheral surface of the paper roll (fig 2, para 12-16), and the paper roll support device further comprises a movement unit including a movement member 4 (fig 2, para 13) configured to come into contact with the plurality of support members and configured to move the plurality of support members to a tip portion side by the movement member (fig 2, para 12-18); and a force applying device 6 that applies a force in a direction in which the plurality of support members and the movement member move close to each other (fig 1-4, para 10-18, 28).
Shoji does not disclose a drive device that brings the pair of support arms close to and separated from each other. Focke discloses a roll support device comprising a pair arms 17, 18, wherein a drive device 20,21 is capable of bringing the pair of support arms close to and separated from each other (claim 1, abstract, C3, L27-51, figs 2-4). Focke discloses using the drive to achieve the desired arm movement has a high expectation of success (claim 1 – “said drive means successively pivots the one ends of the yoke arms”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shoji such that a drive device is capable of bringing the pair of support arms close to and separated from each other as taught by Focke as such has a reasonable expectation of success as detailed above.
As to claim 2, Shoji discloses the force applied by the force applying device is lower than a support force P1 with which the chuck supports the paper roll after the support portion comes into contact with the inner peripheral surface of the paper roll. See fig 2, para 15. The tube is released from the chuck by the force of the spring 6. In order for the chuck to obtain the tube 15, the force P1 with which the chuck and support portion 3 support the tube must be greater than the releasing force exerted by 6.
As to claim 8, Shoji discloses the receiving portion including a first receiving portion 1 located on a center side and the tip portion side of the chuck body (fig 2), and a second receiving portion 3a located on an outer peripheral portion side and a base end portion side of the chuck body with respect to the first receiving portion (fig 1).
As to claim 9, Shoji discloses the movement unit is configured to press the movement member against the plurality of support members, and is operated when the paper roll is supported by the chuck and when the chuck is separated from the paper roll (fig 2, para 15).
As to claim 10, Shoji discloses a pressing force with which the movement member is pressed against the plurality of support members by the movement unit when the chuck is separated from the paper roll is higher than a pressing force when the paper roll is supported by the chuck (fig 2, para 15).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji et al. (JPH09136745, of record, see attached machine translation for text citations) in view of Focke, and in view of Ogino et al. (JP 20180023414, of record see attached machine translation for text citations).
As to claim 13, Shoji discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed in the rejection of said claim above, said device capable of supporting a paper roll with liners.
Focke discloses a roll support device comprising a pair arms 17, 18, wherein a drive device 20,21 is capable of bringing the pair of support arms close to and separated from each other (claim 1, abstract, C3, L27-51, figs 2-4). Focke discloses using the drive to achieve the desired arm movement has a high expectation of success (claim 1 – “said drive means successively pivots the one ends of the yoke arms”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shoji such that a drive device is capable of bringing the pair of support arms close to and separated from each other as taught by Focke as such has a reasonable expectation of success as detailed above.
Ogino discloses a corrugated board manufacturing apparatus, comprising a paper roll support device 11 a single facer 15 (para 43, fig 1) capable of manufacturing a single-faced web by bonding the second liner to a corrugated medium; and a double facer 20 (para 43) capable of manufacturing a corrugated board by bonding the first liner to a medium side in the single-faced web (para 28-29, 43-47). The addition of a singer facer and double facer produces a high quality corrugated sheet (para 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shoji and Focke such that the device comprises a single facer capable of manufacturing a single-faced web by bonding the second liner to a corrugated medium; and a double facer capable of manufacturing a corrugated board by bonding the first liner to a medium side in the single-faced web as taught by Ogino above as such enables production of a high quality corrugated board.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 3-7, neither Shoji nor Focke discloses the force applying device includes a suction device. Additionally, modifying Shoji such that the force applying device is a suction device would render Shoji unsuitable for its intended purpose, since the compressing spring (force applying device) is required to synchronize the movement of the support portion 3 (para 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746