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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the claim uses “wherein” clauses to recite method steps and does not specifically state that the “wherein” clauses are method steps, which is contrary to U.S. practice.
“that the production” in line 10 should read “that production”.
“on the basis” in line 12 should read “on a basis”.
“or has been” in line 16 should be omitted (because past tense should be avoided in claims).
Claims 4-12 are objected to because of the following informality: “Method” in line 1 should read “The method”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: “are selected” in line 2 should read “is/are selected”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“respective paper roll” in line 4 should read “respective one of the paper rolls”.
“these values” in line 4 should read “the values”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: “and/or length” in line 3 should read “and/or a length”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“in the production” in line 3 should read “in production”.
“respective paper roll” in line 3 should read “respective one of the paper rolls”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the paper of” in line 2 should be omitted (because claim 1 lines 6-7 recite that the paper parameters are of the paper roll not of the paper).
“respective paper roll” in line 2 should read “respective one of the paper rolls”.
“were” in line 2 should read “are” (because past tense should be avoided in claims).
“this paper roll” in line 3 should read “the respective one of the paper rolls”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the paper of” in line 3 should be omitted (because claim 1 lines 6-7 recite that the paper parameters are of the paper roll not of the paper).
“respective paper roll” in line 3 should read “respective one of the paper rolls”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the paper of” in lines 3 and 5 should be omitted in both instances the limitation appears in the claim (because claim 1 lines 6-7 recite that the paper parameters are of the paper roll not of the paper).
“respective paper roll” in line 6 should read “respective one of the paper rolls”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the paper of” in line 3 should be omitted (because claim 1 lines 6-7 recite that the paper parameters are of the paper roll not of the paper).
“respective paper roll” in line 3 should read “respective one of the paper rolls”.
“this is” in line 3 should read “the respective one of the paper rolls is”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: “Corrugator,” in line 1 should read “A corrugator”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Computer” in line 1 should read “A computer”.
“in each case” in line 3 should be omitted.
“the paper roll fed in each case” in line 5 should read “the respective one of the fed paper rolls”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the claim uses “wherein” clauses to recite method steps and does not specifically state that the “wherein” clauses are method steps, which is contrary to U.S. practice.
“each roll,” in line 9 should read “each paper roll,”.
“that the production” in line 10 should read “that production”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: “on the basis” in line 2 should read “on a basis”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: “the paper of” in line 3 should be omitted (because claim 1 lines 6-7 recite that the paper parameters are of the paper roll not of the paper).
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“to the use” in line 2 should read “to use”.
“which is” in line 2 should read “wherein the control system is”.
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, 4-14, and 16-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective fed paper roll," in lines 10-11. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the fed paper rolls first mentioned in line 4 of the claim the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a respective one of the fed paper rolls,”.
Regarding claim 1, the two instances of the phrase "in particular" in lines 14-15 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 1 as if the limitation “in particular improved, in particular maximized,” in lines 14-15 has been omitted.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "at least 10 paper parameters" in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the paper parameters mentioned in claim 1 or to totally new paper parameters. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 1 as if the limitation “at least 10 paper parameters are used” in line 2 instead reads “the number of the paper parameters is at least 10”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 1 as if the limitation “in particular at least 100” in line 2 has been omitted.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the paper roll" twice in lines 3-4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the paper rolls first mentioned in line 4 of claim 1 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a respective one of the paper rolls” in both instances the limitation appears in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the individual processing units" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “adjusts individual processing units of the corrugator”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the paper roll" in line 3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the paper rolls first mentioned in line 4 of claim 1 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a respective one of the paper rolls”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "in particular" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 11 as if the limitation “at least a subset, in particular each, of” in line 2 instead reads “each of”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "cause the corrugator, the method" in line 2. This limitation seems to be incomplete, is incomprehensible, and it is unclear what it is trying to convey. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “cause the corrugator to perform a method”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the respective fed paper roll" in line 11. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the fed paper rolls first mentioned in line 4 of the claim the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a respective one of the fed paper rolls”.
Regarding claim 17, the two instances of the phrase "in particular" in line 4 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 17 as if the limitation “in particular improved, in particular maximized” in lines 4 has been omitted.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "in particular" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 18 as if the phrase has been omitted.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the paper roll" in line 3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the paper rolls first mentioned in line 4 of claim 1 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “each paper roll”.
Claims 4-14 and 18-20 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected as being indefinite because it depends from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 8-10, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohler (US 2021/0040696).
Regarding claim 1, Kohler discloses a method for operating a corrugator (all the parts shown in Figure 3 and the “respective corrugators” described in Paragraph 0090, collectively),
- wherein the corrugator serves to produce a corrugated cardboard web (one of the “corrugated products” described in Paragraphs 0092, 0096, and 0100) and for this purpose has a number of adjustable operating parameters (the “Moisture Conditioning Setpoints” described in Paragraphs 0093-0095) (Paragraphs 0093-0096),
- wherein a number of paper rolls (the “Paper roll”s associated with the three Corrugator Control Terminals 600 in Figure 3) are fed to the corrugator, each with a paper web made of paper from which the corrugated cardboard web (the one of the “corrugated products”) is produced (Paragraphs 0091 and 0105),
- wherein the paper rolls (“Paper roll”s) are each characterized by a number of paper parameters (the “Corrugator Input Data” described in Paragraphs 0093 and 0095, which includes the “origin data” described in Paragraph 0091) which have individual values for each of the paper rolls, so that each of the paper rolls (“Paper roll”s) is individually characterized based upon its values for the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) (Paragraphs 0091-0093),
- wherein the operating parameters (“Moisture Conditioning Setpoints”) are set depending upon the values of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”), so that the production of the corrugated cardboard web (the one of the “corrugated products”) is individually adapted to the respective fed paper roll (Paragraphs 0093-0095),
- wherein values for the operating parameters (“Moisture Conditioning Setpoints”) are selected on the basis of a rule (the rule/algorithm/program used by 620 to determine the “Moisture Conditioning Setpoints” from the “Corrugator Input Data”) which links the values of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) with the values for the operating parameters (“Moisture Conditioning Setpoints”) in such a way that a quality measure for the corrugated cardboard web (the one of the “corrugated products”) is influenced (Paragraphs 0093-0095),
- wherein the rule (the rule/algorithm/program used by 620 to determine the “Moisture Conditioning Setpoints” from the “Corrugator Input Data”) is or has been empirically determined in advance using a Big Data approach (because the corrugator “collects more data for different papers, and for the same papers used at different locations and under different conditions” to increase “both its accuracy and precision in selecting appropriate Moisture Conditioning Setpoints based on a given set of Corrugator Input Data”, as described Paragraph 0095).
Regarding claim 4, Kohler discloses that at least 10 paper parameters (the “paper grade”, “moisture content on leaving the point of manufacture”, “caliper”, “production date”, “reel position in the paper machine”, “reel width”, “reel weight”, “paper web length”, “data concerning the transit conditions of the paper roll”, and the data “concerning other factors that may impact or have affected the hygroexpansivity of the paper after the origin date” described in Paragraph 0091) are used (Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 8, Kohler discloses that the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) comprise a number of paper production process parameters (the “moisture content on leaving the point of manufacture” and the “production date” described in Paragraph 0091) used in the production of the paper of a respective paper roll (Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 9, Kohler discloses that the values of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) of the paper of a respective paper roll were determined before this paper roll is fed to the corrugator (clear when Paragraphs 0091 and 0093 are considered together).
Regarding claim 10, Kohler discloses that the corrugator (all the parts shown in Figure 3 and the “respective corrugators” described in Paragraph 0090, collectively) has a data interface (one of Corrugator Control Terminals 600 in Figure 3) via which the values of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) of the paper of a respective paper roll are transmitted to the corrugator (Paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 13, Kohler discloses a corrugator (all the parts shown in Figure 3 and the “respective corrugators” described in Paragraph 0090, collectively), which has a control unit (620 and the three Corrugator Control Terminals 600 in Figure 3, collectively) which is designed to carry out a method according to claim 1 (see 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1 above, Paragraphs 0093-0095).
Regarding claim 16, Kohler discloses a method for operating a corrugator (all the parts shown in Figure 3 and the “respective corrugators” described in Paragraph 0090, collectively),
wherein the corrugator serves to produce a corrugated cardboard web (one of the “corrugated products” described in Paragraphs 0092, 0096, and 0100) and for this purpose has a number of adjustable operating parameters (the “Moisture Conditioning Setpoints” described in Paragraphs 0093-0095) (Paragraphs 0093-0096),
wherein a number of paper rolls (the “Paper roll”s associated with the three Corrugator Control Terminals 600 in Figure 3) are fed to the corrugator, each with a paper web made of paper from which the corrugated cardboard web (the one of the “corrugated products”) is produced (Paragraphs 0091 and 0105),
wherein the paper rolls (“Paper roll”s) are each characterized by a number of paper parameters (the “Corrugator Input Data” described in Paragraphs 0093 and 0095, which includes the “origin data” described in Paragraph 0091) which have individual values for each of the paper rolls, so that each of the paper rolls (“Paper roll”s) is individually characterized based upon its values for the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) (Paragraphs 0091-0093),
wherein the corrugator is controlled individually for each roll (Paragraphs 0091-0094), and the operating parameters (“Moisture Conditioning Setpoints”) are set depending upon the values of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”), so that the production of the corrugated cardboard web (the one of the “corrugated products”) is individually adapted to the respective fed paper roll (Paragraphs 0093-0095).
Regarding claim 17, Kohler discloses that values for the operating parameters (“Moisture Conditioning Setpoints”) are selected on the basis of a rule (the rule/algorithm/program used by 620 to determine the “Moisture Conditioning Setpoints” from the “Corrugator Input Data”) which links the values of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) with the values for the operating parameters (“Moisture Conditioning Setpoints”) in such a way that a quality measure for the corrugated cardboard web (the one of the “corrugated products”) is influenced (Paragraphs 0093-0095).
Regarding claim 18, Kohler discloses that each paper roll is assigned a data carrier (the “roll tag” described in Paragraph 0091) on which the individual values of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”, which includes the “origin data” described in Paragraph 0091) of the paper of the respective paper roll are stored (Paragraph 0091), wherein the data carrier (“roll tag”) is in particular read out by the corrugator (Paragraphs 0091-0093).
Regarding claim 19, Kohler discloses that the data carrier (“roll tag”) is attached to the paper roll (the phrase “roll tag” implies a tag attached to the paper roll, Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 20, Kohler discloses that the corrugator (all the parts shown in Figure 3 and the “respective corrugators” described in Paragraph 0090, collectively) has a control system (620 and the three Corrugator Control Terminals 600 in Figure 3, collectively) due to the use of the paper parameters (“Corrugator Input Data”) for control (Paragraphs 0093-0095), which is a feedforward control in which the paper roll as an input product supplies an input signal for the control system (620 and the three Corrugator Control Terminals 600 in Figure 3, collectively) in order to control the operating parameters (“Moisture Conditioning Setpoints”) (Paragraphs 0093-0095).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 11, 12, and 14, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5-7, 11, 12, and 14, the closest prior art reference, Kohler (see 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 over Kohler above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of the claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishibuchi et al. (US 6,136,417) also teaches setting operating parameters (the “flow rate of the supply liquid by the water quantity adjusting units 16s, 16r” described in Col. 3 lines 37-40) depending upon values of paper parameters (the “moisture contents of the front linerboard 1 side and rear linerboard 2 side of the double faced corrugated fiberboard sheet 5” described in Col. 3 lines 28-31) (Col. 3 lines 28-43).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights