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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, paragraph 5, the first word “the” should be read as “The”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites “at least three between said first winding roller, second winding roller, first pressure roller and second pressure roller are designed to exercise a simultaneous control of the roll of paper wound around said core” in lines 23-25 of the claim. It is unclear what element the limitation of “at least three between” is referring to within the claim. Clarification is required as it is pertinent to the scope of the claims. Claims 2-12 are further rejected as they all depend on independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "even more preferably" 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).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the half-plane" in the second line of the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to introduced a new element, if so, then the limitation should read “a half-plane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is also rejected as it depends on rejected claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the phrases "inclusive, preferably between" and “inclusive, more preferably between” 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).
Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
"a winding channel";
"a first and a second winding roller";
"a first and a second axis of rotation";
"a first and a second pressure roller";
"a third axis of rotation";
"a first movable arm";
"a fourth axis of rotation";
"a second movable arm";
"an initial position"; and
"a web of paper".
It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to introduce new elements to the claim or if they are referring to the elements previously introduced in claim 1. If it is the latter, then the mentioned limitation should be preceded by the word “the” or “said” as opposed to “a”. Claims 10-12 are also rejected as they depend on rejected claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a final position” on the sixth line of the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to introduce a new position or if they are referring to “a final position” previously introduced in claim 1. If it is the latter, then the mentioned limitation should read “the final position”. Claim 11 is also rejected as it depends on rejected claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicolaus (DE 3,640,366 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nicolaus discloses a machine for the production of rolls of paper material (Pg. 1, ¶1) comprising: at least a first and a second winding roller rotatably mounted (Fig. 1; Pg. 9, ¶23, feed rollers 2, 3), respectively, about a first and a second axis of rotation (Fig. 2 depicting the axis of rotation of feed rollers 2, 3); at least a first and a second pressure roller designed to rotate (Fig. 1; Pg. 9, ¶23 inlet support roller 5 and middle support roller 6 corresponding to first and second pressure rollers), respectively, about a third axis of rotation positioned on a first movable arm (Fig. 1; Pg. 10, ¶24, angle lever 8 having axis indicated by the letter C), and a fourth axis of rotation positioned on a second movable arm and defining (Fig. 1; Pg. 10, ¶24, toggle lever 10 having axis indicated by the letter E), together with said first and second winding roller, a winding channel (Fig. 1; Pg. 10-11, ¶25, feed channel 16) for a web of paper around a core rotating about its own axis of rotation, for forming a roll (Fig. 1-3; Pg. 12, ¶28, winding core 19 fed through feed channel 16 having paper web 4); said core being designed to be moved by the action of one or more of said first winding roller, second winding roller, first pressure roller and second pressure roller, between an initial winding position of said web of paper and a final position (Pg. 13, ¶30); the first winding roller and the second winding roller being positioned, relative to said first pressure roller and second pressure roller, on opposite sides of said winding channel, respectively upstream and downstream of said winding channel, relative to the movement of said core during its winding process (Fig. 1-6 depicting feed rollers 2, 3 positioned opposite support rollers 5, 6); said first and second movable arms pivoting, respectively, on a first and a second secondary axis of rotation, in such a way that the rotation of said first and/or second movable arms moves said first and/or said second pressure roller from or towards said first and/or second winding rollers (Fig. 1; Pg. 10, ¶24, angle lever 8 having pivot axis 9 and toggle lever 10 having pivot axis 11); in said initial position, at least three between said first winding roller, second winding roller, first pressure roller and second pressure roller are designed to exercise a simultaneous control of the roll of paper wound around said core (Fig. 1; Pg. 11, ¶26); said simultaneous contact lasting until said web of paper wound around said core is designed to be cut (Pg. 12, ¶29).
Regarding claim 2, Nicolaus discloses wherein said initial position corresponds to the zone of said winding channel wherein at least the centre line of said core passes beyond the axis joining the centres of rotation relative to said first and second winding rollers, even more preferably when the profile of the outermost perimeter of said core is tangent to said axis and said final position corresponds to the zone of the winding channel wherein said web of paper is designed to be cut (Fig. 2-3; Pg. 12, ¶¶28-29).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Nicolaus discloses wherein, in said initial position, said first winding roller second winding roller and first pressure roller are designed to exercise a simultaneous control of the roll of paper being wound around said core (Fig. 1; Pg. 12, ¶28).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Nicolaus discloses wherein, in said initial position, said second winding roller, first pressure roller and second pressure roller are designed to exercise a simultaneous control of the roll of paper being wound around said core (Fig. 4; Pg. 13, ¶30).
Regarding claim 5, Nicolaus discloses wherein, in said final position, at least said second winding roller and second pressure roller are designed to exercise a simultaneous control of the roll of paper being wound around said core (Fig. 2-3; Pg. 12, ¶29).
Regarding claim 6, Nicolaus discloses wherein said second winding roller and the second pressure roller are designed to exercise a simultaneous control of the roll of paper wound around a first core which is in said final position and, at the same time, said first winding roller, second winding roller and first pressure roller are in simultaneous control of the roll of paper wound around a second core which is in said initial position (Fig. 2-4; Pg. 12-13, ¶¶28-30).
Regarding claim 7, Nicolaus discloses wherein said first secondary axis of rotation lies in the half-plane determined by said axis and opposite with respect to said winding channel (Fig. 1; Pg. 10, ¶24, depicting axis 9 lying on a half-plane determined by the support roller’s 5 axis which is opposite channel 16).
Regarding claim 9, Nicolaus discloses a winding process for the production of rolls of paper material, in a rewinding machine according to claim 1, comprising the steps consisting of: introducing a first core inside a winding channel defined by at least a first and a second winding roller (Fig. 1; Pg. 9, ¶23, feed rollers 2, 3), rotatably mounted respectively about a first and a second axis of rotation of said machine (Fig. 1; Pg. 9, ¶23, feed rollers 2, 3) and by at least a first and a second pressure roller (Fig. 1; Pg. 9, ¶23 inlet support roller 5 and middle support roller 6 corresponding to first and second pressure rollers), designed to rotate respectively about a third axis of rotation, positioned on a first movable arm (Fig. 1; Pg. 10, ¶24, angle lever 8 having axis indicated by the letter C), and a fourth axis of rotation, positioned on a second movable arm (Fig. 1; Pg. 10, ¶24, toggle lever 10 having axis indicated by the letter E), in such a way that said first core is in an initial position controlled simultaneously by said first winding roller, second winding roller and first pressure roller (Fig. 1-4; Pg. 12-13, ¶¶28-30), winding a web of paper, coming from upstream of said winding channel (Fig. 1-3; Pg. 12, ¶28, winding core 19 fed through feed channel 16 having paper web 4), around said first core rotatable about its own axis of rotation to form a first roll and, simultaneously, moving said first core, by means of said second winding roller, first pressure roller and second pressure roller, until said first partially wound core reaches a positioning downstream of said winding channel, so as to allow said first movable arm to enter in said winding channel cutting said web of paper being wound around said first core (Fig. 1-6 depicting feed rollers 2, 3 positioned opposite support rollers 5, 6), introducing a second core inside said winding channel, so that said cut web of paper is wound around its own axis of rotation to form a second roll and, simultaneously, moving said second core by means of said first winding roller, second winding roller and first pressure roller, until said second partially wound core reaches a positioning downstream of said winding channel, allowing said first movable arm to enter said winding channel cutting said web of paper being wound around said second core and, simultaneously, expelling said first formed roll by the action of said second winding roller and second pressure roller, continuing cyclically with the steps just described for forming a third roll, fourth roll, fifth roll, etc. (Fig. 1-4; Pg. 12-13, ¶¶28-30).
Regarding claim 10, Nicolaus discloses wherein the roll of paper being wound around each of said first and second cores is controlled by the action of at least three of said first winding roller, second winding roller, first pressure roller and second pressure roller, between an initial winding position of said web of paper, wherein it does not have layers of paper wound around said relative axis of rotation and a final position when the winding of the respective roll has been completed (Fig. 2-4; Pg. 12-13, ¶¶28-30).
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 (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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolaus (DE 3,640,366 A1) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-12 above, and further in view of Hertel et al. (US 6,422,501 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Nicolaus discloses wherein said first movable arm is substantially shaped like the letter “V”, in such a way that said “V” has a vertex angle Z defined by the contact of the axes of symmetry respectively referred to the end portions of said arm (Fig. 1; Pg. 10, ¶24, best depicting the V-like levers 8, 10), but fails to discloses a particular angle of said axis of rotation. However, Hertel et al. teaches wherein at said pressure roller and said axis of rotation, of between 40° and 80°, inclusive, preferably between 45° and 70°, inclusive, more preferably between 50° and 65°, inclusive, even more preferably between 53° and 60° (Col. 5, Ln. 21-28). Therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the axis of rotation of the arms to be between 45° and 70°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Allen, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose a paper winding assembly and process by which three or more winding rollers and pressure rollers are utilized for the winding of a core.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights