DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/13/2024.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 2 submitted IDS documents have been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, “the upper pressing rollers” lack sufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear if they are referencing the upper pressing member or the plurality of pressing rollers.
In claim 6, “the blanks” lacks antecedent basis since only a singular “blank” is referenced in the parent claims.
In claim 8, “each pivot lever” is indefinite because it implies a plurality of pivot levers, whereas the claim only recites a singular pivot lever.
In claims 8 and 9, “the cantilevered extension” is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis because it implies a single cantilevered extension, whereas claim 8 recites a plurality of cantilevered extensions.
Claims dependent on the above claims are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valterio et al. US 2005/0239623 in view of Iwasaki et al. US 2019/0025749.
Regarding claim 1:
Valterio teaches an alignment module for lateral alignment of blanks in a converting machine ([0001]-[0002]), the alignment module comprising: a first alignment device comprising: an upper pressing member (60) provided with a plurality of pressing rollers (75), a lower alignment conveyor (20) comprising a motorized alignment conveyor belt (21), and a guide (40/43), wherein the alignment module is configured to receive the blank between the upper pressing member and the lower alignment conveyor and convey the blank against the guide (see FIG. 1B), wherein the upper pressing rollers are connected to a linear frame member (74; [0024]).
Since Valterio’s linear frame member is only manually adjustable ([0024], last two sentences), Valterio does not teach wherein at least some of the pressing rollers are connected to a respective actuator, said actuator being configured to displace the pressing roller in the vertical direction, and wherein the alignment module further comprises a control unit and a memory, wherein the control unit is configured to determine a required displacement for each pressing roller and actuate each respective actuator to perform the required displacement.
In a related alignment module (30) for an analogous lateral alignment of sheets, Iwasaki teaches pressing rollers (321-323, 311) wherein at least some of the pressing rollers are connected to a respective actuator (Mk), said actuator being configured to displace the pressing roller in the vertical direction ([0092]), and wherein the alignment module further comprises a control unit (600) and a memory (602), wherein the control unit is configured to determine a required displacement for each pressing roller and actuate each respective actuator to perform the required displacement ([0092]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the alignment module of Valterio, by substituting the controlled and actuated alignment device of Iwasaki, where each pressing roller would be individually actuated via actuators, according to the control unit, since this would allow for an automated control of the pressure setting operation of the rollers.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein all pressing rollers are connected to a respective actuator and are all configured to be vertically displaced by said respective actuator (Iwasaki, [0092], “the oblique-feed pressure motors Mk are provided in a quantity (n) that corresponds to the number of oblique-feed rollers”).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a required contact pressure for each pressing roller and to displace the respective actuator to automatically perform the required displacement of each pressing roller (Iwasaki, [0095]).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the control unit is configured to divide the pressing rollers into a first group (Iwasaki, 311) and a second group (321-323), and wherein the pressing rollers in each group are provided with the same displacement and the displacement is different for the first and second group (shown in FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 4, as discussed above, where the pressing rollers in the first group are distanced away from the blank and the pressing rollers in the second group are applying a pressure against the blank (Iwasaki, the modified device is capable of this pressing configuration).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 5, as discussed above, further comprising: an inlet section (20) provided in an upstream part of the alignment module, wherein the pressing rollers (21) in the inlet section are distanced away from the blanks such that they are not in contact with the blank, while the remaining pressing rollers are in contact with the blank (Iwasaki, [0061]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the actuator is a pneumatic actuator and is connected to a pneumatic circuit, wherein each actuator is connected to a separate pneumatic circuit and wherein a central valve is configured to distribute the air supply to each pneumatic circuit.
However, Examiner takes official notice that pneumatic actuators supplied air via a central valve are old and well-known alternatives in the art to the types of motors used in Iwasaki and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the alignment module of the combination of Valterio and Iwasaki, by using pneumatic actuators connected to a pneumatic circuit, wherein each actuator is connected to a separate pneumatic circuit and wherein a central valve is configured to distribute the air supply to each pneumatic circuit, since pneumatics are well-known alternatives in the art to electric motors, especially when power-to-weight ratios and costs are desired to be optimized.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the required displacement for the pressing rollers from the thickness of the blank (Iwasaki, [0156]).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 13, as discussed above, wherein the control unit is configured to further calculate the required displacement for the pressing rollers from the longitudinal length of the blank (Iwasaki, [0095]).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising: a second alignment device (Iwasaki, 311 may be considered a second alignment device working in conjunction with a first alignment device comprising rollers 321-323), wherein the control unit is configured to deactivate one of the first alignment device and the second alignment device by moving all pressing rollers of the deactivated alignment device into a clearing position in which they are not in contact with the blank (the device is capable of deactivating any combination of rollers 311 and 321-323).
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the vertical position of the pressing roller can be adjusted from a control interface (Iwasaki, [0092]).
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Valterio and Iwasaki teaches the alignment module according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the memory is configured to store a contact pressure and make them retrievable from a user interface (Iwasaki, [0095], [0092]).
While neither reference teaches storing an inlet section length, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the alignment module of the combination of Valterio and Iwasaki, by also storing an inlet section length, since this information would be useful for properly conveying differently sized blanks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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 and/or 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.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating claims 7-10 allowable: Neither Valterio et al. US 2005/0239623, Iwasaki et al. US 2019/0025749, or the prior art as a whole, teaches or renders obvious the control unit is further configured to adjust the length of the inlet section by determining the longitudinal length of the blank in the direction of transportation and move the pressing rollers in the inlet section such that they are distanced away from the blank (claim 7) and a connection structure arranged between the pressing rollers and the linear frame member, the connection structure including a plurality of cantilevered extensions and a pivot lever, wherein each pivot lever is interconnecting a pressing roller to the cantilevered extension (claim 8). Claims 9-10 would be allowed for depending from claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: for example, see FIGS. 6-8 of Machamer US 2013/0168922, FIG. 1 of Reymond et al. US 5,413,327, and FIGS. 1-6 of Jaton US 5,019,026.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights