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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the handling unit in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-20 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 11, line 1 the phrase “at least one blade and a counter-blade configured to form perforation lines on web materials running along a predefined path, in which the perforation lines are formed each by a predetermined number of perforations spaced apart by a predetermined value and aligned along a predetermined perforation direction” is unclear and renders indefinite. Please note that this invention is directly structures of a perforating unit (an apparatus claim). It is unclear how and what structures of the blade and the counter-blade are configured to form perforation lines on web materials running along a predefined path. How are the web materials or the at least one blade and the counter-blade moved, in order to allow the perforation lines on web materials running along a predefined path. If an art has a blade and a counter-blade, it meets this limitation right (since it is not clear how and what structures of the blade and the counter-blade are performed)?
Claim 11 , line 7 “said path downstream of the perforating unit” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the path downstream is referencing to (another word, it is not mentioned an upper stream or a downstream).
Claim 11, lines 7-8 “while the web material moves along the path” is unclear see the discussion above. What do structures of the perforating unit cause the web material moving along the path?
Claim 11, the phrase “in that” used thought-out the claim renders the claim indefinite because the transitional phrase (i.e. between the body of a claim) “in that” is common in applications of European origin in US practice claims containing these words and phrases may be rejected under 35 USC 112b when “in that” may connote more than mere description (see a dictionary definition). Therefore, the reader may be unsure about the meaning of the wording of the claim, and additionally the scope of the claim is often unclear. Avoiding the confusion and making the claim more clearer, the phrase “… in that …” should be suggested to replace for “such that” or delete it or any equivalent language. Claims 14-15 have the same issue.
Claim 11, line 11 the language “them” is unclear what the “them” is referencing to.
Claim 11, the last line “ “in that, in function of the comparison made, the processing unit is configured to emit an error signal indicating an anomaly condition relating to the operation of the perforating unit” is unclear and has many issues. First as it is written, it appears that after the comparison made, the processing unit is configured to create an error signal…. Is the optical unit always detected “error”, right? What is happening if there is a comparison, but it is erred? Second, the language “an anomaly condition” in the recitation is not clear. As the claim is written, it does not provide a guidance to understand what the “an anomaly condition” is. What is the constitution of the anomaly condition? Claim 20 has the same issue.
Claim 12 “the control zone” is unclear whether it refers to the control area of claim 11 or not and claim 12 “the processing unit is programmed to emit the error signal if the total number of perforations detected by the optical unit on one or more …” is unclear since it is “if”, therefore, it is unclear since “if” it is not detected, then it is unclear how to interpret this scope of claim 12. Also, the language “a predetermined percentage of the predetermined number of perforations” is unclear whether it refers to the predetermined number of perforations or a percentage of the predetermined number of perforations. Please note that there is no discussion of the “predetermined percentage of the predetermined number of perforations”, therefore, it is unclear what it means. Claim 13 has the same issue “if”.
Claims 13-14, 17 “the control zone” is unclear whether it refers to the control area of claim 11 or not.
Claim 15 is unclear and Examiner does not interpret the scope of claim 15 since it depends on the cancelled claim.
Claim 16 “the activation of the optical unit” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear how the processing unit controls an activation of the optical unit. See claim 11, it appears the optical unit works together with the processing units to detect the number of perforations on the web. Therefore, as claim 16 is written, it is redundant or not further claimed.
Claim 18 “whose mutual position is adjustable, and that said error signal controls the mutual positioning of said supports.” is unclear. As claim 11 written, the error signal (the number of perforations on the web are missing perforations as discussed in Applicant’s specification, page 4) is detected by the optical unit, however, as claim 18, it is unclear how the error signal controls the mutual positioning of said supports. Do supports have adjusting means (connecting the processing unit) for adjusting the supports based on the error signal, right?
The scope of Claim 20 is unclear what it is trying to claim since Applicant’s specification does not discuss it and as claim 20 is written, the error signal occurs if the anomaly condition occurs a preset number of times, right? What’s happen if it is not occurred?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 11-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwarta et al (US 2014/0116215) hereinafter Kwarta in view of Blitchington (US 4205769).
Regarding claims 11, as best understood, Kwarta shows a perforating unit (Figure 16 and see other figures for a processing unit) comprising:
at least one blade (1612) and a counter-blade (see the blade 1019, Figure 11) configured to form perforation lines on web materials running along a predefined path (via a feeding mechanism…etc., “2 small pairs of rollers, Figure 15), in which the perforation lines (see dot lines, Figure 16) are formed each by a predetermined number of perforations spaced apart by a predetermined value and aligned along a predetermined perforation direction (242, Figure 16), and
an optical unit (1660) adapted to optically detect the perforations of each perforation line in a control area (see the area in Figure 16) arranged along a path downstream of the perforating unit while the web material moves along the path, “in that” the optical unit is configured to acquire images of the web material in correspondence of the perforation lines (Para. 138 “Detector 1660 is adapted to detect dull perforations produced by perforating device 1610” and see Para. 139 “optical detector 1662”),
in that the optical unit is connected to a programmable processing unit (1299, Figure 12 and see Para. 138) which receives electrical signals produced by the optical unit and processes them according to a programmed processing criterion that comprises a comparison between the predetermined number of perforations of the perforation lines and the number of perforations detected by the optical unit on each perforation line (see Para. 138 “a selected threshold”), and
in that, in function of the comparison made, the processing unit is configured to emit an error signal indicating an anomaly condition (as this is written, it is unclear what the anomaly condition be, therefore, the dull perforations are something different and met this anomaly condition and see Para. 146 “detector can also detect failure to cut…” which means there is an inherent error or failure signal indicating the anomaly condition) relating to the operation of the perforating unit as discussed in Para. 138.
If one still argues that there is no error signal indicating an anomaly condition by the processing unit, see Blitchington’s reference.
Blitchington shows an optical unit (52, Figure 2) for detecting holes or perforations on a web, wherein a processing unit (a circuit 70, Figure 2) is configured to emit an error signal indicating an anomaly condition (Col. 8, lines 23-24 “If the actual count does not compare favorably with the preset count, a fault signal is developed by a fault signalling portion of the circuit 70 and represents that a circuit section having one or more missing or extra holes has been detected”) relating to the operation of a perforating unit (44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the perforating unit of Kwarta to have an error signal indicating an anomaly condition, as taught by Blitchington, in order to allow to develop an alarm (sound of an alarm) send a “stop” signal to the punching or perforating unit to stop the operation (Col. 8, lines 23-39 of Blitchington).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that the processing unit is programmed to emit the error signal if the total number of perforations detected by the optical unit on one or more perforation lines in the control zone or area is less than a predetermined percentage of the predetermined number of perforations (see Col. 8, lines 23-39 of Blitchington “missing or extra holes has been detected”).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that the processing unit is programmed to emit the error signal if a number of consecutive perforations detected by the optical unit on one or more lines perforation in the control zone is less than a predetermined value (see the discussion in claim 12 above and see Col. 16, lines 29-34 of Blitchington “If any number of the holes 40a, 40b and 40c, and slots 42a and 42b are missing, the outputs of some of the comparators 218-221 will be negative where unfavorable comparisons are made”).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that said control zone or area is divided into a plurality of control sub-zones (see two locations of light source 48 and a camera 52 and a mirror 50, Figure 2) aligned transversely with respect to a direction of movement of the web material in the control area,
However, it is unclear whether the optical unit is moved cyclically between the control subzones by a respective handling unit or not.
The examiner takes official notice that it is known to have the camera and the light source to be moved or aligned. Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have a camera and a light source to be moved or adjusted, in order to allow the light source aligned with the camera and holes.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that said control sub-zones comprise two lateral control sub-zones (see Blitchington’s Figure 2 since it is not what direction be) and in that the handling unit positions the optical unit first in correspondence with the lateral control sub-zones and subsequently in correspondence with any further control sub-zones comprised between the lateral control sub-zones (see Blitchington’s Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that the processing unit controls the activation of the optical unit (see both references).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that said path comprises a convex surface where the control zone is arranged (see the path where the laminate 32 from the punching press to a roller (where the reference “46’ is in Blitchington’s Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that an illuminator (see light source 48, Blitchington’s Figure 2) activated by the processing unit is associated with the optical unit.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows that the processing unit is programmed to emit said error signal if the anomaly condition detected by the optical unit occurs a preset number of times (see the invention of Blitchington and how Blitchington can detect the extra or missing holes on the laminate).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwarta et al (US 2014/0116215) hereinafter Kwarta in view of Blitchington (US 4205769) and Chilcott (US 2013/0152750)
Regarding claim 18, as best understood the modified perforating unit of Kwarta shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the at least one blade and the counter-blade are mounted on respective supports whose mutual position is adjustable, and that said error signal controls the mutual positioning of said supports.
Chilcott shows at least one blade and the counter-blade (Figure 9) are mounted on respective supports (930, 970) whose mutual position is adjustable (Para. 67 “ an indication of the amount the blade has worn”), and that a signal controls the mutual positioning of said supports (Para. 67 “an indication may be obtained by means of a optical sensor of a type such as a registration sensor …. A registration sensor mounted on the knife holder 100, for example on the knife carrier 120, may be configured to monitor an edge of a rotary knife attached to the knife carrier 120. Indications of movement of this edge will thereby provide an indication of knife wear” and later Para. 74 “… a second rotatably mounted knife blade laterally adjacent the first knife blade and adjusting a side load between the first and second knife blades to reduce a difference between the rotational speeds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the perforating unit of Kwarta to have a blade mount adjustable based on the error signal (worn or dull blade), as taught by Chilcott, in order to allow to reduce a difference between the rotational speeds of the blades (Para. 74 of Chilcott).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stroms (US 4872381) shows a controller with a sensor for detecting perforations on a web.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights