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 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: “supply means” in claim 1 (interpreted to be any component which supplies tubular film, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejection), “separating means” in claim 1 (interpreted to be any component which separates the tubular film, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejection), “discharge means” in claim 1 (interpreted to be any component which discharges the sleeve-like covering, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejection), and “setting device” in claim 4 (interpreted to be any component which limits the movement of the actuator, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejection).
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, “supply means”, “separating means”, and “discharge means” fail to comply with the written description requirement because the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for the limitations. The disclosure does not provide the required structure for “supply means”, “separating means” and “discharge means” as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claim 4, “setting device” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for the limitations. The disclosure does not provide the required structure for “setting device” as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-10, claims 2-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because they depend from a rejected claim.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, “said flat state”, “the covering”, “the opened tubular film”, “the form”, “the flat mouth”, “the purpose”, “said opened state”, “the same length”, “the transition area”, “the first set of transport rollers”, “the second set of transport rollers”, “the position”, and “the third set of film guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Additionally, “arranging it round the product” is indefinite because it is unclear what “it” refers to. For examination purposes, “arranging it round the product” is being interpreted to mean “arranging the tubular film round the product”.
The terms “a relatively flat mouth”, “a substantially constant circumference”, and “at least substantially the same length” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively flat” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms “relatively” and “indefinitely” are indefinite because it is what the feature of the prior art must be in order to satisfy the limitations “a relatively flat mouth”, “a substantially constant circumference”, and “at least substantially the same length”.
Moreover, the phrase "preferably" in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, “preferably at least substantially the same length” is being interpreted to be an optional limitation.
Claim limitation “supply means”, “separating means”, and “discharge means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 3, “the third set of film guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the third set of film guides is adjustable”, and the claim also recites “particularly in a width direction” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, “particularly in a width direction” is being interpreted to be merely exemplary and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 4, “the film guides” and “the third set of film guides” lack antecedent basis.
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the film guides of the third set of film guides are each carried by an actuator”, and the claim also recites “particularly in a linear actuator” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, “particularly in a linear actuator” is being interpreted to be merely exemplary and therefore not required.
Claim limitation “setting device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 5, “the actuators”, “the event”, “the film guides”, “and “the third set of film guides” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, “the first transport rollers” and “the second transport rollers” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, “which synchronizes their rotation” is indefinite because it is unclear what “their” refers to. For examination purposes, “which synchronizes their rotation” is being interpreted to mean “which synchronizes rotation of the first set of driven transport rollers and the second set of driven transport rollers”.
Regarding claim 7, “the transmission” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the film guides” and “the transport rollers” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “the transport rollers”, “the first set of transport rollers”, “the second set of transport rollers”, “the film guides” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, “in their running surface” is indefinite because it is unclear what “their” refers to. For examination purpose, “in their running surface” is being interpreted to mean “in a running surface of the first set of driven transport rollers and the second set of driven transport rollers”.
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “a central recess”, and the claim also recites “particularly a groove” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, “particularly a groove” is being interpreted to be merely exemplary and therefore not required.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 merely recites “a spreading device” which has already been recited in claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Claim 10 does not provide any features further limiting the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1-2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamura (US 2013/0017290).
Regarding claim 1, Sawamura discloses a device (Fig. 1, item 1) for arranging a sleeve-like covering (Fig. 1, item F) around a product (Fig. 1, item B), comprising:
- a spreading device (Fig. 1, item 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36), comprising a spreading element (Fig. 1, item 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36), for receiving a tubular film (Para. 0032- 0040) round the spreading element in a flat, closed state (Para. 0032- 0040) and bringing the tubular film into a deployed, opened state (Para. 0032- 0040), and a suspension (Fig. 2, item 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) in which the spreading element is receivable (Para. 0032- 0040),
- supply means (Fig. 1, item 10) for supplying said tubular film (Para. 0030) in said flat state to the spreading device (Para. 0030) and round the spreading element (Para. 0030),
- separating means (Fig. 1, item 20, 21, 22) which are able and configured to separate the covering (Para. 0030-0031) from the opened tubular film (Para. 0030-0031), and
- discharge means (Fig. 1, item 50, 51) for discharging the sleeve-like covering (Para. 0041) from the spreading device (Para. 0041) and arranging it round the product (Para. 0041),
wherein the spreading element has a supply side (Fig. 1, supply side is top side of mandrel 3), which takes the form of a relatively flat mouth (Fig. 3, top of mandrel 30 is relatively flat), and a discharge side (Fig. 2, discharge side is bottom of mandrel 30 where rollers 36 are located), and comprises between the supply side and the discharge side a transition piece (Fig. 2, middle section of mandrel 30 is transition piece), wherein the spreading element widens transversely of a main plane (Para. 0032- 0040) of the flat mouth (Para. 0032- 0040) in a direction from the supply side to the discharge side (Para. 0032- 0040),
wherein the spreading element imposes a substantially constant circumference (Fig. 2, tubular film has a substantially constant circumference over the mandrel 30) (Para. 0032- 0040) on the tubular film in the direction from the supply side (Para. 0032- 0040) to the discharge side (Para. 0032- 0040), and the tubular film, when passing over the spreading element (Para. 0032- 0040) for the purpose of the tubular film (Para. 0032- 0040) developing from said flat state to said opened state (Para. 0032- 0040), provides in the main plane of the flat mouth (Para. 0032- 0040) a path of at least the same length (Para. 0032- 0040), and preferably at least substantially the same length, as in a central perpendicular plane transversely thereof, (Para. 0032- 0040)
wherein the suspension comprises a first set of driven transport rollers (Fig. 2, item 44) and a second set of driven transport rollers (Fig. 2, item 41) which are able and configured to carry the tubular film (Para. 0032- 0040) over the spreading element (Para. 0032- 0040) in a direction from the supply side to the discharge side (Para. 0032- 0040),
wherein the spreading element comprises in the transition area a first set of film guides (Fig. 2, item 32, 33) (Para. 0032- 0040) and, in the main plane of the flat mouth, supports (Fig. 3, supports are the sides of the mandrel 30 on either side of rollers 32, 33) thereby on either side on the first set of transport rollers (Para. 0032- 0040), and
wherein the spreading element comprises beyond the transition area a second set of film guides (Fig. 2, item 35) and, in the main plane of the flat mouth, supports (Fig. 3, supports are the sides of the mandrel 30 on either side of rollers 35) thereby on either side on the second set of transport rollers (Para. 0032- 0040), wherein the spreading element comprises a narrowing (Fig. 3, item 31a) (Para. 0032- 0040) in the transition area between the first set of transport rollers and the second set of transport rollers (Para. 0032- 0040) in the main plane of the flat mouth (Para. 0032- 0040),
the suspension comprises at the position of the narrowing (Para. 0032- 0040) between the first set of transport rollers and the second of transport rollers a third set of opposite film guides (Fig. 2, item 45) (Para. 0032- 0040),
the third set of film guides is able (Para. 0032- 0040) and configured to enter into the narrowing (Fig. 2, rollers 45 enter into concave portions 31a, 31e) (Para. 0032- 0040) from opposite sides in order to guide the tubular film inward into the narrowing (Para. 0032- 0040).
Sawamura does not expressly disclose the second set of transport rollers maintains a mutual distance which is at most equal to a corresponding mutual distance between the first set of transport rollers. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the figures of Sawamura that the second set of rollers 41 are the same distance apart as the first set of rollers 44. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the second set of transport rollers at a mutual distance that is equal to a corresponding mutual distance between the first set of transport rollers, since applicant has not disclosed that these mutual distances solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the locations of the first and second set of rollers of Sawamura.
Regarding claim 2, Sawamura discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the narrowing comprises a recess (Fig. 3, item 31a) in a wall (Fig. 3, item 31) of the spreading element (Para. 0032- 0040).
Regarding claim 6, Sawamura discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein provided between the first transport rollers and the second transport rollers is a direct transmission (Fig. 2, item 46) which synchronizes their rotation (Para. 0035-0036, belt 46 connects each of the rollers together so the rollers are rotating at the same time).
Regarding claim 7, Sawamura discloses the device according to claim 6, wherein the transmission comprises a direct belt transmission (Fig. 2, item 46) (Para. 0035-0036) or chain or gear transmission with a transmission ratio of one.
Regarding claim 8, Sawamura discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the film guides comprise guide rollers (Fig. 2, item 33, 34, 35) with mutually parallel rotation axes (Fig. 2), parallel to respective rotation axes of the transport rollers (Fig. 2) (Para. 0032-0040).
Regarding claim 9, Sawamura discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the transport rollers of at least one of the first set of transport rollers and the second set of transport rollers (Para. 0033, 0038) comprise in their running surface a central recess (Para. 0033, 0038), particularly a groove (Para. 0033, 0038), in which the film guides co-acting therewith are received (Para. 0033, 0038).
Regarding claim 10, Sawamura discloses a spreading device (Fig. 7, item 64) as applied in the device according to claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamura (US 2013/0017290) in view of Konstantin et al (US 5,737,900), hereinafter Konstantin.
Regarding claim 3, Sawamura is silent about the device according to claim 1, wherein the third set of film guides is adjustable, particularly in a width direction in the main plane of the flat mouth.
However, Konstantin teaches a third set of film guides (Konstantin, Fig. 1, item 56) that are adjustable (Konstantin, Col. 8, lines 15-40), particularly in a width direction in the main plane of the flat mouth.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Sawamura and Konstantin to modify the device of Sawamura to include the adjustable film guides as taught by Konstantin. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such changes in order to accommodate mandrels of various diameters for handing tubular film of various diameters (Konstantin, Col. 8, lines 15-40).
Regarding claim 4, Sawamura is silent about the device according to claim 3, wherein the film guides of the third set of film guides are each carried by an actuator, particularly a linear actuator, a maximum stroke of which is limited by a setting device.
However, Konstantin teaches film guides of the third set of film guides (Konstantin, Fig. 1, item 56) are each carried by an actuator (Konstantin, Fig. 8, item 164) (Konstantin, Col. 12, line 58-Konstantin, Col. 13, line 11), particularly a linear actuator, a maximum stroke of which is limited by a setting device (Konstantin, Fig. 8, item 166) (Konstantin, Col. 12, line 58-Konstantin, Col. 13, line 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Sawamura and Konstantin to modify the device of Konstantin to include the actuator of Konstantin. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to ensure the device works accurately at high speeds (Konstantin, Col. 2, lines 22-35).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamura (US 2013/0017290) in view of Konstantin further in view of Ichikawa et al (US 2022/0306416), hereinafter Ichikawa.
Regarding claim 5, as combined above, Konstantin teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein setting devices of the actuators are electronically coupled to a central control device (Konstantin, Col. 13, line 52-Col. 14, line 25).
Sawamura in view of Konstantin is silent about in the event of an unequal setting between the film guides of the third set of film guides the central control device generates an error message which interrupts operation of the device.
However, Ichikawa teaches in the event of an unequal setting (Ichikawa, Para. 0236, unequal setting occurs when the film is off-center) between the film guide (Ichikawa, Fig. 13A, item 11C) (Ichikawa, Para. 0236) the central control device generates an error message (Ichikawa, Para. 0236) which interrupts operation of the device (Ichikawa, Para. 0236).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Sawamura, Konstantin, and Ichikawa to modify the device of Sawamura in view of Konstantin to include the error message of Ichikawa. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to increase the convenience for the user when using the device (Ichikawa, Para. 0004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731