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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/603,710 (filed on 11/29/2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 13, and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 11, line 3, the limitation “the plurality of the cores” should read -- the plurality of cores --.
In claim 13, lines 2 and 4, the limitation “the plurality of the cores” should read -- the plurality of cores --.
In claim 15, line 6, the limitation “move one of the cores” should read -- move each of the cores --.
In claim 15, line 9, the limitation “release the core” should read -- release each of the cores --.
In claim 15, line 15, the limitation “move one of the cores” should read -- move each of the cores --.
In claim 15, line 18, the limitation “release the core” should read -- release each of the cores --.
In claim 16, line 4, the limitation “move one of the cores” should read -- move each of the cores --.
In claim 16, line 8, the limitation “move one of the cores” should read -- move each of the cores --.
In claim 17, line 7, the limitation “indexes one of the cores” should read -- indexes each of the cores --.
In claim 17, line 9, the limitation “between the adjacent core” should read -- between each adjacent core --.
In claim 17, line 19, the limitation “a populated rewind shaft” should read -- the populated rewind shaft --.
In claim 18, line 2, the limitation “need for cores” should read -- need for the cores --.
In claim 18, line 3, the limitation “the shaft” should read -- the rewind shaft --.
In claim 19, line 37, the limitation “the outside diameter of the cores” should read -- the outside diameter of each core --.
In claim 19, line 39, the limitation “the outside diameter of the cores” should read -- the outside diameter of each core --.
In claim 19, line 45, the limitation “move one of the cores” should read -- move each of the cores --.
In claim 19, line 47, the limitation “the outside diameter of the cores” should read -- the outside diameter of each core --.
In claim 19, line 48, the limitation “release the core” should read -- release each of the cores --.
In claim 19, line 51, the limitation “the outside diameter of the core” should read -- the outside diameter of each core --.
In claim 19, line 56, the limitation “move one of the cores” should read -- move each of the cores --.
In claim 19, line 58, the limitation “the outside diameter of the cores” should read -- the outside diameter of each core --.
In claim 19, line 59, the limitation “release the core” should read -- release each of the cores --.
In claim 19, line 61, the limitation “the outside diameter of the core” should read -- the outside diameter of each core --.
In claim 19, line 65, the limitation “holding the core” should read -- holding each core” --.
In claim 19, line 68-69, the limitation “loading grabbers with the pointed ends” should read -- loading grabbers with pointed ends --.
In claim 19, line 69, the limitation “holding the core” should read -- holding each core” --.
In claim 19, line 75, the limitation “the length of the cores” should read -- the length of each core --.
In claim 19, line 78, the limitation “match slit widths and spacing” should read -- match the slit widths and spacing --.
In claim 19, line 81-82, the limitation “a pre-determined or electronically measured gap between the adjacent core” should read -- the pre-determined or electronically measured gap between each adjacent core --.
In claim 19, line 87, the limitation “match slit widths and spacing” should read -- match the slit widths and spacing --.
In claim 19, line 91-92, the limitation “match slit widths and spacing between webs of material” should read -- match the slit widths and spacing between the slit web of material --.
In claim 19, line 97, the limitation “match slit widths and spacing” should read -- match the slit widths and spacing --.
In claim 19, line 103, the limitation “once the cores” should read -- once the series of gapped cores --.
In claim 19, line 112-113, the limitation “need for cores…onto the shaft” should read -- need for the cores…onto the rewind shaft --.
In claim 19, line 117, the limitation “the web to the cores” should read -- the slit web of material to the cores --.
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 17-19 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 17 recites the limitation “the slit web of material” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the slit web of material” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 limitation “the automatic core loading system is configured to eliminate the need for cores to be manually loaded or spaced onto the shaft” (in lines 2-3) additionally renders the claim vague and indefinite. Because the claims are directed to an apparatus, it is unclear what physical scope this limitation entails or how this limitation is related to/further defines the overall structure of the claimed automatic core loading system. In other words, does “configured to eliminate the need for cores to be manually loaded or spaced onto the shaft” simply intended to explain advantageous results obtained by the claimed invention? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 18 limitation “the automatic core loading system is configured to allow an automated winder/rewinder machine to finish more rolls compared to an unautomated winder/rewinder machine with manual core loading, manual taping of the slit web of material to the cores, or manual finishing of the rolls; or a combination thereof” (in lines 5-8) additionally renders the claim vague and indefinite. Is the “or a combination thereof” attempting to recite any combination of finishing more rolls (i.e. compared to an unautomated winder/rewinder machine with manual core loading), manual taping of the slit web of material to the cores, and manual finishing of the rolls? Furthermore, it is also unclear if the automated winder/rewinder machine is part of the claimed invention (in other words, is the automated winder/rewinder machine a component of the automatic core loading system, or is the automatic core loading system a component of the automated winder/rewinder machine?), or if it’s a separate structure that is configured to be used together with the claimed automatic core loading system? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 19 limitation “the automatic core loading system is configured to allow an automated winder/rewinder machine to finish more rolls compared to an unautomated winder/rewinder machine with manual core loading” (in lines 114-116) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the automated winder/rewinder machine is part of the claimed invention (in other words, is the automated winder/rewinder machine a component of the automatic core loading system, or is the automatic core loading system a component of the automated winder/rewinder machine?), or if it’s a separate structure that is configured to be used together with the claimed automatic core loading system? Clarification by the applicant is required.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerhart (U.S. Patent 3,869,046 A).
In regards to claim 1, Gerhart teach (Figures 1-19) an automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10) for loading a plurality of cores (cores 12) onto a rewind shaft (mandrel 14), the automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10) comprising: a populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16), and a loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22); wherein the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) is configured to grab and move each core (cores 12) one at a time, from a core source (hopper 50 of the core supply assembly 16) with the plurality of cores (cores 12) to a loading point (location where the cores exit/dropped from the chute 20 and into the slots 26 of the core box 18) for the loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22); and wherein the loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22) is configured to grab and move each core (cores 12) from the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) at the loading point (location where the cores exit/releases from the chute 20 and placed into the slots 26 of the core box 18) to a set position (when the cores 12 are mounted on the mandrel 14, or when the core box 18 and the mandrel 14 are in the positioned to receive the cores 12 as illustrated in figures 6-8) on the rewind shaft (mandrel 14) with a pre-determined gap (axial spacing between each of the cores 12 when they are loaded onto the core box 18 or when they are loaded onto the mandrel 14; figures 6-7, 9, 11, and 16-18 clearly illustrate, each of the core 12 being spaced apart by a axial similar distance, when said cores 12 are placed in the slots 26 of the core box 18 and when they are loaded/mounted on the mandrel 14) between each core (cores 12) (see also Col. 2, line 50 - Col. 12, line 25).
In regards to claim 9, Gerhart teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Gerhart further teach (Figures 1-19), the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) and the loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22) being positioned in line with the rewind shaft (mandrel 14).
In regards to claim 18, Gerhart teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Gerhart further teach (Figures 1-19), the automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10, which is controlled by the control box 133) being configured to eliminate the need for the cores (cores 12) to be manually loaded or spaced onto the rewind shaft (mandrel 14) (Col. 2, line 50 - Col. 12, line 25 disclose, the automatic core loader 10 being designed to automatically transport and the cores 12, which are held in the hopper 50 of the core supply assembly 16, onto the mandrel 14 without any physical interaction from a user); and the automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10) also being configured to allow an automated winder/rewinder machine (machine where the slit paper is wound about the cores 12 loaded on the mandrel 14, as described in Col. 6, line 40-49) to finish more rolls (rolls of slit paper wound about the cores 12) compared to an unautomated winder/rewinder machine with manual core loading, manual taping of the slit web of material (slit paper wound about the cores 12) to the cores (cores 12), or manual finishing of the rolls (rolls of slit paper wound about the cores 12) (examiner notes that the limitation “the automatic core loading system is configured to allow an automated winder/rewinder machine to finish more rolls compared to an unautomated winder/rewinder machine with manual core loading, manual taping of the slit web of material to the cores, or manual finishing of the rolls” is being interpreted as an intended use limitation which describe the planed operative usage of the applicant’s automatic core loading system. It is additionally emphasized 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; in other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the automatic core loader 10 is designed to automatically load the cores 12 onto the mandrel 14 which is then transported to a machine that is adapted to wind a slit paper about the cores 12 on the mandrel 14; where said automatic core loader 10 has the specific structure and operative functionality recited within parent claim 1 and claim 18. Furthermore, it is reasonably conceivable that an automatic core loading system, such as the automatic core loader 10 taught by Gerhart, would inherently be capable of quickly, effortlessly, and efficiently loading more cores onto a rewind shaft, when compared to an unautomated core loading system that requires a user to manually load cores onto a rewind shaft. Therefore, it is clear that the automatic core loader 10 would be able to perform all intended use functions of the claims invention).
In regards to claim 20, Gerhart teach (Figures 1-19) a method of automatically loading (via the automatic core loader 10) a plurality of cores (cores 12) onto a rewind shaft (mandrel 14) of a winder/rewinder machine (machine where the slit paper is wound about the cores 12 loaded on the mandrel 14, as described in Col. 6, line 40-49) with predetermined gaps (axial spacing between each of the cores 12 when they are loaded onto the core box 18 or when they are loaded onto the mandrel 14) and locations of each core (cores 12), the method including: providing an automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10) comprising a populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16), and a loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22); the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) being configured to grab and move each core (cores 12) one at a time, from a core source (hopper 50 of the core supply assembly 16) with the plurality of cores (cores 12) to a loading point (location where the cores exit/dropped from the chute 20 and into the slots 26 of the core box 18) for the loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22); the loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22) being configured to grab and move each core (cores 12) from the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) at the loading point (location where the cores exit/releases from the chute 20 and placed into the slots 26 of the core box 18) to a set position (when the cores 12 are mounted on the mandrel 14, or when the core box 18 and the mandrel 14 are in the positioned to receive the cores 12 as illustrated in figures 6-8) on the rewind shaft (mandrel 14) with a pre-determined gap (axial spacing between each of the cores 12 when they are loaded onto the core box 18 or when they are loaded onto the mandrel 14; figures 6-7, 9, 11, and 16-18 clearly illustrate, each of the core 12 being spaced apart by a axial similar distance, when said cores 12 are placed in the slots 26 of the core box 18 and when they are loaded/mounted on the mandrel 14) between each core (cores 12); and using the provided automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10) to automatically loading the plurality of cores (cores 12) onto the rewind shaft (mandrel 14) of the winder/rewinder machine (machine where the slit paper is wound about the cores 12 loaded on the mandrel 14, as described in Col. 6, line 40-49) with the predetermined gaps (axial spacing between each of the cores 12 when they are loaded onto the core box 18 or when they are loaded onto the mandrel 14) and the locations of each core (cores 12) (see also Col. 2, line 50 - Col. 12, line 25).
Claims 1, 9, 18, and 20 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cushing (U.S. Patent 5,941,474 A).
In regards to claim 1, Cushing teach (Figures 1-20) an automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) for loading a plurality of cores (cores 24) onto a rewind shaft (pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16), the automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) comprising: a populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50, which includes the chains 52, the core trays 54, the sprockets 54a, and the electrically/pneumatically/hydraulically powered driving means of the core feeder/conveyor 50), and a loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32); wherein the populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50) is configured to grab and move each core (cores 24) one at a time, from a core source (core bins 40 of the core carriage 28) with the plurality of cores (cores 24) to a loading point (location near the carriage opening 60 where the core trays 54 of the core feeder/conveyor 50 places/releases the cores 24 onto the recessed longitudinal core cradle 84 of the core loading rack 30) for the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32); and wherein the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32) is configured to grab and move each core (cores 24) from the populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50) at the loading point (location near the carriage opening 60 where the core trays 54 of the core feeder/conveyor 50 places/releases the cores 24 onto the recessed longitudinal core cradle 84 of the core loading rack 30) to a set position (location where the ram head 94 of the core ram 32 pushes/loads the cores 24 onto the pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16) on the rewind shaft (pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16) with a pre-determined gap (axial spacing between each of the adjacent cores 24 when said cores 24 are pushed/loaded onto the pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16, as clearly illustrated in figures 1, 3-6, and 12-13) between each core (cores 24) (see also Col. 10, line 56 - Col. 19, line 56).
In regards to claim 9, Cushing teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cushing teach (Figures 1-20), the populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50) and the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32) being positioned in line with the rewind shaft (pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16).
In regards to claim 18, Cushing teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cushing teach (Figures 1-20), the automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) being configured to eliminate the need for the cores (cores 24) to be manually loaded or spaced onto the rewind shaft (pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16) (see also Col. 2, line 2-21); and the automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) also being configured to allow an automated winder/rewinder machine (winder 16 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) to finish more rolls (wound rolls 18) compared to an unautomated winder/rewinder machine with manual core loading or manual finishing of the rolls (wound rolls 18) (see also Col. 28, line 5-54).
In regards to claim 20, Cushing teach (Figures 1-20) a method of automatically loading (via the roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) a plurality of cores (cores 24) onto a rewind shaft (pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16) of a winder/rewinder machine (winder 16 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) with predetermined gaps (axial spacing between each of the adjacent cores 24 when said cores 24 are pushed/loaded onto the pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16, as clearly illustrated in figures 1, 3-6, and 12-13) and locations of each core (cores 24), the method including: providing an automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) comprising a populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50, which includes the chains 52, the core trays 54, the sprockets 54a, and the electrically/pneumatically/hydraulically powered driving means of the core feeder/conveyor 50), and a loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32); the populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50) being configured to grab and move each core (cores 24) one at a time, from a core source (core bins 40 of the core carriage 28) with the plurality of cores (cores 24) to a loading point (location near the carriage opening 60 where the core trays 54 of the core feeder/conveyor 50 places/releases the cores 24 onto the recessed longitudinal core cradle 84 of the core loading rack 30) for the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32); and the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32) being configured to grab and move each core (cores 24) from the populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50) at the loading point (location near the carriage opening 60 where the core trays 54 of the core feeder/conveyor 50 places/releases the cores 24 onto the recessed longitudinal core cradle 84 of the core loading rack 30) to a set position (location where the ram head 94 of the core ram 32 pushes/loads the cores 24 onto the pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16) on the rewind shaft (pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16) with a pre-determined gap (axial spacing between each of the adjacent cores 24 when said cores 24 are pushed/loaded onto the pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16, as clearly illustrated in figures 1, 3-6, and 12-13) between each core (cores 24); and using the provided automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) to automatically load the plurality of cores (cores 24) onto the rewind shaft (pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16) of the winder/rewinder machine (winder 16 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) with the predetermined gaps (axial spacing between each of the adjacent cores 24 when said cores 24 are pushed/loaded onto the pivotable shafts 12/13 of the winder 16, as clearly illustrated in figures 1, 3-6, and 12-13) and the locations of each core (cores 24) (see also Col. 10, line 56 - Col. 19, line 56).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhart.
In regards to claim 2, Gerhart teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Gerhart further teach (Figures 1-19), the automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10) configured to automatically load the plurality of cores (cores 12) onto the rewind shaft (mandrel 14) with the pre-determined gap (axial spacing between each of the cores 12 when they are loaded onto the core box 18 or when they are loaded onto the mandrel 14; figures 6-7, 9, 11, and 16-18 clearly illustrate, each of the core 12 being spaced apart by a axial similar distance, when said cores 12 are placed in the slots 26 of the core box 18 and when they are loaded/mounted on the mandrel 14) between each core (cores 12); wherein a slit web of material (slit paper wound about the cores 12, as described in described in Col. 1, line 5-6, Col. 1, line 37-51, Col. 6, line 40-49; based on the entire disclosure of Gerhart, the automatic core loader 10 is designed to automatically load the cores 12 onto the mandrel 14 which is then transported to a machine that is adapted to wind a slit paper about the cores 12 on the mandrel 14, thereby producing rolls of slit paper on the cores 12) is configured to be wound onto each core (cores 12) loaded/positioned on the rewind shaft (mandrel 14). Yet, Gerhart does not explicitly reveal, the pre-determined gap (axial spacing between each of the cores 12 when they are loaded onto the core box 18 or when they are loaded onto the mandrel 14) between each core (cores 12) on the rewind shaft (mandrel 14) matching slit widths and spacing between the slit web of material (slit paper wound about the cores 12).
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the loading conveyor in Gerhart’s automatic core loading system to load the cores onto the rewind shaft, such that the pre-determined gap between each said cores on said rewind shaft matches the slit widths and spacing between the slit web material wound about said cores. As explained above, each core used in the automatic core loading system taught by Gerhart, is specifically designed to receive a slit web material; and one of ordinary skil in the art would recognize that each web strip forming such slit web material are known to inherently have a slit width and a slit spacing between adjacent web strips. Therefore, axially spacing each core on the rewind shaft (i.e. axially distancing each adjacent core by a pre-determined gap) in a manner which results in said axial spacing between each adjacent core matching the slit widths and spacing of the slit web material, would essentially eliminate the need to realign the spacing between the cores or to realign each core with each corresponding web strip of the slit web material, at the start of the slit web material winding process. In other words, if the cores loaded onto the rewind shaft are already spaced apart by a proper axial distance that matches the slit width and spacing of the slit web material (or by a proper axial distance that appropriately aligns with the web strips forming the slit web material) when each web strips forming the slit web material is attached to and wound onto each respective core, it would remove the need for re-spacing/realigning of the cores along the rewind shaft a second time; thereby improving the overall operative functionality of the automatic core loading/winding system and the overall efficiency of the slit web material winding operation, while also minimizing the production time to finish the wound slit web material rolls.
Furthermore, examiner also notes that the limitation “configured to automatically load the plurality of cores onto the rewind shaft with the pre-determined or electronically measured gap between each of the cores to match slit widths and spacing between a slit web of material” appears to encompass the intended use of the claimed automatic core loading system; and it is recognized 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; that is, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the prior art simply require to propose an automatic core loading system that is able to load the cores onto the rewind shaft with pre-determined gaps that match the slit widths and spacing of a theoretical slit web material; specially since the slit widths/spacing of the slit web material and the slit web material itself, are neither positively claimed no are they part of the automatic core loading system structure. Accordingly, Gerhart’s automatic core loading system can teach the scope of the limitations in claim 2, because said automatic core loading system capable of loading of each core onto a rewind shaft with a gap (i.e. spacing between each adjacent core) that corresponding to a theoretical slit web material having matching slit widths and spacings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 10-16 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, for the following reasons:
In regards to claim 3, both Gerhart and Cushing, independently teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Yet, both Gerhart and Cushing fails to explicitly disclose, the automatic core loading system additionally including a gap sensor that is located upstream of the rewind shaft, that is configured to sense the slit widths and spacing of the slit web material after its slitting, and that is configured to communicate the slit widths and spacing of the slit web material to said automatic core loading system. As explained above, Gerhart discuss a slit paper material being wound about the cores placed on the rewind shaft by the automatic core loading system; where said cores can be axially spaced from each core on the rewind shaft in a manner that results in the axial spacing between each adjacent core matching the slit widths/spacing of the slit paper material. Nevertheless, Gerhart’s automatic core loading system does not have a gap sensor that is located upstream of the rewind shaft for sensing and communicating the slit widths and spacing of the slit paper material. Furthermore, all other prior art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, a populating conveyor and a loading conveyor of an automatic core loading system comprising the precise structural arrangement recited within parent claim 1, and said populating conveyor and said loading conveyor are collectively functions to load a plurality of cores onto the rewind shaft with a pre-determined gap between each said cores which matches slit widths and spacing between a slit web of material (as required by claim 2), where said slit widths and spacing are detected and transmitted to said automatic core loading system via a gap sensor positioned upstream of the rewind shaft (as required by claim 3). Consequently, claim 3 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification and when they are considered along with the superseding limitations in parent claims 1-2.
Claims 4-8 depends from claim 3. Subsequently, claims 4-8 also contain the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 3.
In regards to claim 10, both Gerhart and Cushing, independently teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Gerhart further teach (Figures 1-19), the automatic core loading system (automatic core loader 10) comprising a frame (structural frame 15, which includes the horizontal channels 130, the horizontal structural members 131, the legs 134, the vertical structural members 140, and the horizontal structural members 142) configured to position the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) in line with the loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22). Yet, Gerhart fails to teach, the height of the frame (structural frame 15) being adjustable, or the frame (structural frame 15) being configured to raise and lower the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) and the loading conveyor (core box 18 and gear-rack arrangement 22). In addition, Cushing further teach (Figures 1-20), the automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) comprising a frame (carriage frame members 46, which includes the front wall 29, the back wall 31, the frame pivot point 72, the two-way acting air cylinders 74, and the attachment points 76/78) configured to position the populating conveyor (core feeder/conveyor 50) in line with the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32), and being configured to raise and lower (via the two-way acting air cylinders 74) the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32). However, Cushing also fails to propose, the height of the entire frame (carriage frame members 46) being adjustable, or the frame (carriage frame members 46) being configured to raise and lower the populating conveyor (chute 20 of the core supply assembly 16) together with the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32). On the contrary, the frame (carriage frame members 46) in Cushing’s automatic core loading system (roll conveyor 14, the core carriage 28, the core loading rack 30, the core feeder/conveyor 50 of the winder and unloader/loader system combination 10) is only capable adjusting the height and the lateral positioning of the loading conveyor (core loading rack 30 with the core ram 32). Furthermore, none of the other prior art of record, neither disclose nor render obvious (i.e. either individually or in combination), an automatic core loading system according to claim 1, also being provided with a height adjustable frame that is structurally and functionally arranged to raise/lower the populating conveyor and the loading conveyor of said automatic core loading system, while keeping the populating conveyor in line with the loading conveyor (as required by claim 10). Therefore, claim 10 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification and when they are considered along with the superseding limitations in parent claim 1.
Claims 11-16 depends from claim 10. Subsequently, claims 11-16 also contain the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 10.
Claims 17 and 19 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, for the following reasons:
Claim 17 depends from claims 10-13. Subsequently, claims 17 also contain the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 10.
In regards to claim 19, the prior art record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, an automatic core loading system having the specific collective structure recited by independent claim 19. As set forth above, both Gerhart and Cushing independently propose, an automatic core loading system for loading a plurality of cores onto a rewind shaft; the automatic core loading system comprising: a populating conveyor that includes populating servos for controlling the movement of the populating conveyor, a loading conveyor that includes loading servos for controlling the movement of the loading conveyor, and a frame that holds the populating conveyor and the loading conveyor; the populating conveyor and the loading conveyor being positioned in line with the rewind shaft; wherein the populating conveyor is configured to grab and move each core from a core hopper of a core source with the plurality of cores to a loading point for the loading conveyor, while the loading conveyor is configured to grab and move each core from the populating conveyor at the loading point to a set position on the rewind shaft with a pre-determined gap between each adjacent core. Nevertheless. Gerhart and Cushing, both fails to explicitly reveal, the automatic core loading system additionally including: a gap sensor/single gap sensor, a web servo, a staging conveyor/flat belt staging conveyor, a staging conveyor sensor, a left populating conveyor with populating grabbers, a right populating conveyor side with populating grabbers, a left loading conveyor side with loading grabbers, a right loading conveyor side with loading grabbers, a programmable logic controller with a human machine interface panel, and a rewind shaft with an internal bladder, all of which has the precise features, the exact relative structure, and the particular cooperative operative functionality, that is described by claim 19 limitations. Furthermore, none of the other applicable/analogues prior art identified by the examiner, neither disclose nor suggest, an automatic core loading system having the complect structural and functional arrangement recited within claim 19. Accordingly, claim 19 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the attached PTO-892 for complete list of pertinent prior art references made of record by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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, VICTORIA P AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights