DETAILED 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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed 12/8/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-9 and 12-13 have been amended. Claims 15-20 are newly added.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borgwardt (DE 3806320 A1). Note that for convenience, citations to the written description of Borgwardt refer to the translation dated 9/16/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Borgwardt discloses a rod-shaped-article measurement device that is a measurement device for measuring an outer circumference of a rod-shaped article (31 – Fig. 4) in a wrapping section of the rod-shaped article, wherein the wrapping section includes a paper supply assembly (the portion of 2 prior to 23 – Fig. 1) and a wrapping assembly (the portion of 2 after 23 – Fig. 1), the paper supply assembly comprising a bobbin (24 – Fig. 1) around which the wrapping paper is wound and a plurality of transport rollers (though unlabeled, transport rollers are clearly depicted guiding the paper along the path of the paper) configured to transport the wrapping paper from the bobbin toward the wrapping assembly (see note above), the paper supply assembly supplying continuous wrapping paper (27 – Fig. 1) toward a component of the rod-shaped article, the wrapping assembly wrapping the component with the wrapping paper supplied from the paper supply assembly to form the rod-shaped article, and wherein the measurement device comprises: a first optical sensor (39 – Fig. 1; pg. 4, third paragraph) positioned in the paper supply assembly (see Fig. 1, 39 is positioned prior to 23, hence it is positioned in the paper supply assembly) to measure a paper width of the wrapping paper in a width direction crossing a longitudinal direction of the wrapping paper (abstract, lines 2-3) before the wrapping paper enters the wrapping assembly; a second optical sensor (41 – Fig. 1; pg. 4, fourth paragraph) that measures an overlapping width of an overlapping portion in which portions of the wrapping paper overlap in a circumferential direction of the rod-shaped article transported from the wrapping assembly (abstract, lines 3-4); and circuitry (42 – Fig. 1) configured to calculate the outer circumference based on the width difference obtained by subtracting the overlapping width measured by the second optical sensor from the paper width measured by the first optical sensor (abstract, last 3 lines).
Borgwardt further discloses:
Claim 2, the wrapping assembly transports the rod-shaped article therefrom at a predetermined transport speed, wherein the first optical sensor (39 – Fig. 1) measures the paper width of the wrapping paper at a predetermined first period corresponding to the transport speed, and wherein the second optical sensor (41 – Fig. 1) measures the overlapping width of the overlapping portion at a predetermined second period corresponding to the first period at positions matching positions at which the wrapping paper is measured at the first period (pg. 4, second paragraph, lines 10-16).
Claim 3, the first optical sensor (39 – Fig. 1) measures the paper width of the wrapping paper at the first period at positions outside the large-diameter portion, and wherein the second optical sensor (41 – Fig. 1) measures the overlapping width of the rod-shaped article at the second period at positions outside the large-diameter portion (pg. 2, second paragraph; since the measurement units continuously measure the respective widths, they would measure all areas of a rod-shaped article, thus measuring any portions that are not the large-diameter portion).
Claim 4, the first (39 – Fig. 1) and second (41 – Fig. 1) optical sensors continuously measure the paper width and the overlapping width, respectively, and wherein the circuitry (42 – Fig. 1) is configured to continuously calculate the width difference and then calculates an average width difference obtained by averaging the width difference over a predetermined length range in an axial direction of the rod-shaped article as the outer circumference (pg. 4, second paragraph, lines 10-16; although not expressly disclosed, since the measurement units measure over the course of a time period, it is clear that the values are averaged).
Claim 5, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine whether or not the outer circumference is within a predetermined threshold range; and issue an abnormal output indicating that the rod-shaped article is abnormal when the outer circumference is outside the threshold range (pg. 4, paragraph 2, last 5 lines).
Claims 8-12, comprise similar limitations to those above and are rejected in the same manner.
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 6-7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgwardt (DE 3806320 A1) in view of Owczarek (US 2020/0022402 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 13-14, Borgwardt discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 5 or 12. Borgwardt further discloses that the circuitry is configured to receive measurement data from the first optical sensor and the second optical sensor (see Fig. 1, data lines go from 39 and 41 to 42); calculate the outer circumference based on the width difference (abstract); and determine whether the outer circumference is within the threshold range (pg. 4, para. 2, last 5 lines). Borgwardt further discloses that the wrapping section is electrically connected to the circuitry and includes a wrapping controller that controls wrapping conditions of the rod-shaped article so that the outer circumference calculated by the calculation unit falls within the threshold range when the abnormal output is issued (pg. 4, paragraph 2, last 3 lines).
However, Borgwardt does not disclose a post-processing section that includes a removal assembly.
Owczarek teaches a method and apparatus for rod-shaped articles comprising a post-processing station (Fig. 1) to which the rod-shaped articles transported through a wrapping section are transported, wherein the post-processing station is electrically connected to a measurement device (100 – Fig. 1) and includes a removal assembly (200 – Fig. 1) that removes the rod-shaped articles for which an abnormal output has been issued (abstract) in order to increase the production quality (para. 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus and method of Borgwardt to include a post-processing station as taught by Owczarek in order to increase the production quality. Note that this would result in transmitting an abnormal output to the post-processing section when the outer circumference is outside the threshold range.
Claims 15-20 comprise similar limitations to those above and are rejected in the same manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, applicant argues Borgwardt does not disclose a paper supply assembly comprising a bobbin and a plurality of transport rollers since Borgwardt does not expressly disclose a plurality of rollers.
In response it is noted that rollers are clearly depicted in several locations along the path of 27 in Fig. 1. At least in five different places the paper 27 is bent at a circular member which is quite clearly a roller. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, applicant argues the Borgwardt does not disclose a first optical sensor positioned in the paper supply assembly to measure paper width before the wrapping paper enters the wrapping assembly because Borgwardt writes that the measuring system 39 is in connection with the garniture.
However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1, the paper supply assembly is interpreted to be the portion of Borgwardt apparatus upstream of 23 in Fig. 1. The first optical sensor 39 is clearly depicted as being upstream of 23. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues that Borgwardt does not disclose averaging values over a period of time.
However, as noted, since Borgwardt discloses that the optical sensors measure over the course of a time period, there must be some way to combine the measurements to a single value, and that can only be done by averaging. Note that applicant has not disclosed how the values are averaged. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 13-14, applicant argues that neither Borgwardt nor Owczarek, alone or in combination, teaches steps 1-4 on pg. 16 of applicant’s arguments since there is no teaching, suggestion, to motivation in either reference to modify Borgwardt’s system to transmit to a removal assembly instead of the format garniture adjustment mechanism.
In response, it is noted that Borgwardt is relied upon to disclose essentially everything except the removal assembly. Owczarek is only relied upon to teach the removing assembly. Since Owczarek activates the removing assembly when it receives an abnormal signal, when Borgwardt is modified by Owczarek, when the abnormal signal of a circumference being outside of the threshold range, the abnormal signal would be sent to the removal assembly. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 15-20 are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth above.
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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
2/12/2026