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 .
Amendments
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment to claims, filed on 01/16/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-14.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 01/16/2025, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
For convenience, reference to the PG Publication US 20240253320 A1 will be made for support for the following claimed elements interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Movement means– Claim 1. The structure of this element is insufficiently described in the specification, and there is no recited structure for performing the claimed function;
If the 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “Helical development” as claimed in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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.
The claim limitation “Movement means” as set forth in claim 133, invoke 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, and the corresponding structure for the various means plus function limitation cannot be ascertained. 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 1, the claim recites in part “characterised in that it comprises a second cutting tool” in line 15, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to. Is it referring to the beam, first roller unit or combination of both. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the “it” is interpreted as either the beam or the roller unit.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites in part “another roller unit” in line 2, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “another roller unit” is referring to. Is it referring to the same other roller unit introduced in claim 1 or an entirely different one. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as other roller unit introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites in part “a method for varying the length of the sheet articles of the interfolded packs of sheet articles produced by an interfolding machine in a system according to claim 7” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 8 positively depends from claim 7 and incorporates its limitation or claim 8 is independent from claim 7. Additionally, it is improper to combine two different statutory classes in a single claim.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites in part “wherein: in the step of fixing the beam to the frame in the second position the beam is rotated about the axis up to orientating the second cutting tool with respect to the axis and as in the relative second position” (emphasis added). However, considering the claims as a whole, and in light of the specification and drawings, the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope of the claimed subject matter is unclear. For instance, it is unclear as to what is meant by the beam is rotated about the axis up to orientationg the second cutting tool with respect to the axis and as in the relative second position. Given the aforementioned ambiguity, the claims are rendered indefinite. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites in part “wherein the first support part and the second support part both have a helical development and wherein the first cutting tool and the second cutting tool comprise blades, or counter-blades” (emphasis added). However, considering the claims as a whole, and in light of the specification and drawings, the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope of the claimed subject matter is unclear. For instance, it is unclear as to what is meant by helical development, and if the blades are the same blade and counterblade as introduced in claim 13 or a different blade. Given the aforementioned ambiguity, the claims are rendered indefinite. Clarification is required.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Revision and correction is required. The above rejections are some of the more pertinent examples.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE MATTEIS (US 20070203007 A1; Hereinafter referred to as Matteis).
Regarding claim 1, Matteis discloses an interfolding machine (100) for production of interfolded packs of sheet articles (1) from strips (2; [0001],[0014]) comprising:
a first roller unit (16, 17) which comprises a cutting tool (17) and a first roller (16), for guiding a strip (2), which bears the cutting tool (17);
a frame (21, 21a, 21b) which comprises a seat (Fig. 3; [0037] “an opening or a recess with complementary shape for introducing the or each removable portion”) which houses the first roller unit (16, 17);
movement means (gearings, bearings; Abstract and [0059]) which move the first roller (16) in rotation with respect to the frame (21) about a rotation axis (Rotational axis of 16; Fig. 3); a first cutting tool (3); a beam (25, 30, 35 and/or 36) which bears the first cutting tool (3) and which is fixed to the frame (21) in a first position in which the first cutting tool (3) has a relative first position with respect to the rotation axis (Rotational axis of 16; Fig. 3) so as to cut or score the strip with the cutting tool (17) of the first roller unit (16, 17; Matteis teaches that the cutter (17) with blade (3) is mounted on the removable modular portion (30), which includes plates (31a, 31b) interconnected by transversal beams (35) ([0056], Figs. 2, 3, 8). When the modular portion (30) is fully inserted into the frame recess and seated on guides (36), the blade (3) is positioned at a precise relative distance and orientation with respect to the axis of cutting roller (16) to effect cutting cooperation ([0057], Figs. 2, 6). The transversal beams (35) of the portion function as a support structure analogous to a beam bearing the cutting tool in a first (operating/inserted) position relative to the roller axis);
wherein the first roller unit (16, 17 unit of 30) is interchangeable with another roller unit (16’, 17’ unit of 30’) so as to vary the distance between the cuts or scores on the strip and therefore the length of the sheet articles (Abstract, [0001], and [0009]-[0012], [0060]-[0065]; Matteis teaches that the removable modular portion (30) can be replaced with an equivalent portion (30′) having rollers (16′, 5′) of different diameter corresponding to a different desired length of the interfolded sheets ([0060], [0010]). The length of the sheets is responsive to the circumference of the cutting roller ([0009], [0010]). Multiple removable portions with different-diameter rollers are provided and can be selectively mounted ([0034], [0064])).
characterised in that it comprises a second cutting tool (cutting tool of 30’) and in that the beam (25, 30, 35 and/or 36) brings the second cutting tool (cutting tool of 30’) into a different position with respect to the first cutting tool (cutting to of 30; since the rollers have different dimension) and is fixable to the frame (21) in a second position (Fig. 6) in which the second cutting tool (cutting tool of 30’) has a relative second position with respect to the rotation axis (Fig. 6), different to the relative first position (Fig. 3), so as to cut or score the strip with the cutting tool of the other roller unit (Fig. 6).
Matteis further discloses:
Regarding claim 6, wherein the beam (25, 30, 35 and/or 36) is translatable with respect to the frame (21) in moving towards or away from the rotation axis (Fig. 3) between a working position (Fig. 2) in which the first cutting tool (3) cooperates with the cutting tool (17) and a rest position (Fig. 3) in which the first cutting tool (3) is by a side of the first roller (16) so as to enable the change with the other roller unit (roller unit of 30’).
Regarding claim 7, A system comprising an interfolding machine (100) according to claim 1, and another roller unit (roller unit of 30’) which comprises a dedicated cutting tool (cutting tool of 30’) and another roller (roller of 30’), for guiding a strip (1), which bears a dedicated cutting tool (17’),
wherein the first roller (roller of 30) is configured to rotate about a first axis (Fig. 2) and brings the dedicated cutting tool (17 of 30) to a first distance from the first axis (Axis of 17) and wherein the other roller (roller of 30’) is configured to rotate about a second axis (Axis of 30) and brings the dedicated cutting tool (17’) to a second distance from the second axis (Axis of 17’), different to the first distance (Different removable portions, different distances).
Regarding claim 8, a method for varying the length of the sheet articles of the interfolded packs of sheet articles produced by an interfolding machine (100) in a system according to claim 7 (See claim 7 rejection above) comprising steps of: providing a system according to claim 7 (See claim 7 rejection above); removing the beam (30, 35) from the first position (Fig.3); removing the first roller unit (Fig. 3) from the seat (Fig. 3; [0037] “an opening or a recess with complementary shape for introducing the or each removable portion”); positioning the other roller unit (Fig. 6) in the seat (Fig. 3; [0037] “an opening or a recess with complementary shape for introducing the or each removable portion”); fixing the beam (Fig. 7) to the frame (21) in the second position (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, wherein: the first cutting tool (Cutting tool of 30) and the second cutting tool (Cutting tool of 30’) both comprise a blade (3), or counter- blade; the beam (see at least 35, 36) comprises a first support part which houses the blade of the first cutting tool (Cutting tool of 30) and a second support part which houses the blade of the second cutting tool (Cutting tool of 30’); the first support part and the second support part are configured so as to adapt the blades to the cutting tool respectively of the first roller unit (Roller unit of of 30) or the other roller unit (Roller unit of 30’).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE MATTEIS (US 20070203007 A1; Hereinafter referred to as Matteis) in view of Montagnani (US 20210252728 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Matteis discloses the interfolding machine (100) wherein the first support part (part of 35/36 attached to 31b) and the second support part (part of 35/36 attached to 31a) wherein the first cutting tool (cutting tool of 30) and the second cutting tool (cutting tool of 30’) comprise blades (3) (Fig. 1);
However, Matteis is silent with regards to first and second support part having helical development and blades fixed resting on the respective support part.
Montagnani a beam structure having first (21B) and second support part (21C) having helical development ([0060]-[0067]) and blades (19) fixed resting on the respective support part (Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Matteis by incorporating the beam structure as taught by Montagnani in order to make the operation of the perforating device more uniform and to reduce the stresses on the web material ([0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. Those references not relied upon are directed mainly toward the general field of Interfolding machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731