1DETAILED 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 1-16-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1 and 27 were amended. Claims 2-3 and 41-47 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-40 are pending with claims 4-8, 10-26, 28-40 were withdrawn. Claims 1, 9, and 27 were examined in this 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 cutting section in Claim 1; infeed section in claim 1; a first infeed member in Claim 1; a second infeed member in Claim 1; a first drive in Claim 2; and a second drive in Claim 2; and irregularity sensor in Claim 27.
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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
In re Claim 9, “wherein the second driven roll is arranged to be rotated in the stretching mode at a circumferential speed corresponding to the second infeed rate,” is indefinite. The Examiner notes that Applicant removed the “stretching mode” limitations which were previously in Claim 1, in the 1-16-2026 Amendment. In view of the Amendment to Claim 1, Claim 9 is now indefinite. it is unclear what structure is being claimed. As best understood, the structure of the device is the same regardless of the mode of operation. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/088825 A1 in view of US 4,688,455 to Takehara.
WO 2019/088825 A1 teaches an apparatus for converting a sheet (8) of elastomeric material (page 14, line 11) into a continuous strip (9) (Fig. 4), wherein the apparatus comprises a cutting section (2) for providing a sequence of cuts (83) in the sheet (8) along which the sheet (8) is separable into interconnected zig-zag sections (91) to form the continuous strip (9), wherein the apparatus further comprises an infeed section (3) (Fig. 1,2) for feeding the sheet (8) to the cutting section (K) in a feeding direction (F) along a feeding path, wherein the infeed section (3) comprises a first infeed member (33) for feeding the sheet (8) along the feeding path at a first infeed rate, and a second infeed member (31,32) downstream of said first infeed member (33) for feeding the sheet (8) along the feeding path at a second infeed rate.
WO 2019/088825 A1 does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises:
a first drive for driving one of the first infeed member and the second infeed member, wherein the apparatus further comprises a transmission between the first infeed member and the second infeed member for driving the other of the first infeed member and the second infeed member in a transmission ratio in which the second infeed rate is higher than the first infeed rate; or
a first drive for driving the first infeed member, a second drive for driving the second infeed member and a control unit that is operationally connected to the first drive and the second drive to control that the second infeed rate is higher than the first infeed rate in the stretching mode.
However, Takehara teaches that it is known in the art of web conveyance to a cutter to provide:
a first drive for driving one of the first infeed member (see Fig. 3, #1) and the second infeed member (see Takehara, Fig. 3, #15), wherein the apparatus further comprises a transmission (see Takehara, Fig. 3, “B”) between the first infeed member and the second infeed member for driving the other of the first infeed member and the second infeed member in a transmission ratio in which the second infeed rate is higher than the first infeed rate (see Takehara, Fig. 3, in view of Col. 3, l. 5-40, teaching “the respectively subordinate rollers (15), (15) and (15'), (15') below them and having relatively smaller diameters,” which causes the smaller roller to rotate faster which reads on “a transmission ration in which the second infeed rate is higher than the first infeed rate, as best understood); or
a first drive for driving the first infeed member (see Fig. 3, #M1, #6/7/8/2/3), a second drive for driving the second infeed member (see Fig. 3, “B”) and a control unit that is operationally connected to the first drive and the second drive to control that the second infeed rate is higher than the first infeed rate in the stretching mode (in this interpretation, the second drive was interpreted as the belt “B” – see Applicant’s specification, which states “As schematically shown in figure 1, the apparatus 1 comprises a first drive 11 for driving the first driven roll 31 and a transmission 12 between the first driven roll 31 and the second driven roll 42 for driving the second driven roll 42_ As schematically shown in figure 1, the apparatus 1 comprises a first drive 11 for driving the first driven roll 31 and a transmission 12 between the first driven roll 31 and the second driven roll 42 for driving the second driven roll 42).
In the same field of invention, drives for webs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the driving structure of WO 2019/088825 A1 with the driving structure of Takehara. Doing so allows the device to cut a web without support from behind (see Takehara, Col. 3, ll. 40-47).
In re Claim 9, modified WO 2019/088825 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the second infeed member comprises a second driven roll (see Takehara, Fig. 3, #15), wherein the second driven roll is arranged to be rotated in the stretching mode at a circumferential speed corresponding to the second infeed rate (as best understood, structure of the rollers in Takehara, Fig. 3, #15/#1 are the same and operate the same manner as applicant’s disclosure).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/088825 A1 in view of US 4,688,455 to Takehara, and further in view of US 2019/0111578 to Mulder
In re Claim 27, modified WO 2019/088825 A1, in re Claim 1, is silent as to the apparatus further comprises an sensor for detecting irregularities in the sheet upstream of the second infeed member. However, Mulder teaches that it is known in the art of rubber strip cutting to provide an irregularity sensor (see Mulder, Fig. 1, #41-44 to detect the position of the strip; see also Para. 007-8; 0012-13 and 0077). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a sensor to detect the position of the workpiece at any point along the manufacturing process, as exemplified by Mulder. Doing so would ensure that the workpiece is in the proper location and not “irregular.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 obviate the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection to Claim 1. However, the amendment to Claim 1 introduced a 35 USC 112(b) rejection to Claim 9 – see above.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Figure 1 illustrates the first driven roll #31, conveyor belt #32, and second driven roller #42. As best understood, Takehara, Fig. 3, #1, #15, and “B” teaches the same structure. The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, as best understood, the structure of Takehara is the same as applicants disclosure and performs the intended use of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724