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 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP 2000219374 A) in view of Haapanen (FI 20215826 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai et al. discloses an assembly for handling reel spools having engagement ends (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶1), the assembly comprising:
parallel vertical support elements positioned at a first end and a second end of the assembly, the vertical support elements being positioned in an area for access of engagement ends of the reel spool, wherein the first end is spaced in a machine direction from the second end (Fig. 1; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, spool unloader 4 having vertical support elements positioned at the two ends of the assembly);
parallel spaced horizontal support rails extending between the vertical support elements, the horizontal support rails being spaced from one another in a cross-machine direction which is perpendicular to the machine direction (Fig. 1; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, transport rails 3, and return rails 7 which corresponds to support rails);
hoisting devices mounted to each of the parallel support elements at the first end of the assembly, and movable vertically thereon, the hoisting devices configured to engage the engagement ends of the reel spools and move the reel spool engagement ends above the horizontal support rails (Pg. 2-3, ¶2, spool unloader 4, disposed on the right of Fig.1, adapted to hoist the spool 12); and
lowering devices mounted to each of the parallel support elements at the second end of the assembly and movable vertically thereon., the lowering devices arranged to engage the reel spool engagement ends and transport the reel spools to a position below the horizontal support rails (Pg. 2-3, ¶2, spool unloader 4, disposed on the left of Fig.1, adapted to lower the spool 12). Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a reel spool transfer device. However, Haapanen teaches a reel spool transfer device movably arranged on the horizontal support rails for movement between the first end and the second end for engagement and transfer of the reel spools from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, ¶34, reel spool cart 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a reel spool transfer device to the handling assembly in order to provide a means for controlled movement of the reel spools. Doing so would merely require to add the reel spool cart of Haapanen to the rails of Sakai et al. for reel spool control.
Regarding claim 2, Sakai et al. discloses wherein each of the hoisting devices and the lowering devices further comprises a hook member which extends in the machine direction and which is configured to attach and support one of the engagement ends of one of the reel spools (Fig. 1; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, carriage 6 corresponding to a hook).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the hook member of each of the hoisting devices further comprises a tilting mechanism (Fig. 1; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, swing arm 5 corresponding to a hook).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the hoisting device is located in a vertical area between the support rails (best depicted in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the hoisting devices and the lowering devices have a similar construction (best depicted in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the hoisting device and the lowering device each comprise a hook member, and wherein the hook member of each hoisting device extends towards the hook member of an opposed lowering device (Fig. 1; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, carriage 6 corresponding to a hook).
Regarding claim 7, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a reel spool transfer device having a rotation device. However, Haapanen teaches wherein the reel spool transfer device further comprises an integrated rotation device for reject removal (Fig. 3; Pg. 5, ¶37, reel spool rotator 213.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reel spool transfer device having a rotation device to provide a means for checking the reel spool for any defects about its circumference without the need for picking up said reel spool.
Regarding claim 8, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a reel spool transfer device having a rotation device having two support parts and a cross directional support beam. However, Haapanen teaches wherein the reel spool transfer device comprises: two support parts, one engaged with each of the horizontal support rails (Fig. 6; Pg. 4, ¶35, carrier parts 202); and a cross directional support beam extending between the two support parts, wherein the cross directional support beam is arranged in a middle area of the reel spool transfer device (Fig. 6; Pg. 4, ¶35, transverse bridge 206). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reel spool transfer device having a rotation device having two support parts and a cross directional support beam to provide a means for properly securing the reel spool to the assembly while movement occurs to the transfer device as to prevent the reel spool from falling off.
Regarding claim 9, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a reel spool transfer device wherein the cross directional support beam is positioned to underlie a reel spool. However, Haapanen teaches wherein the cross directional support beam is positioned to underlie a reel spool transported by the reel spool transfer device and there is only a single cross directional support beam in the middle area of the reel spool transfer device and no other cross directional beam extending between the two support parts (Fig. 6; Pg. 4, ¶35, transverse bridge 206). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reel spool transfer device wherein the cross directional support beam is positioned to underlie a reel spool in order to provide additional means for ensuring the reel spool remains in place while under transport.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the reel spool has a first length, and wherein the distance between the horizontal support rails is greater than the first length (Fig. 7 depicting the length of the reel spool being smaller than the horizontal rails 3, 7 indicated by the character A), but fails to disclose a set distance between the horizontal rails and the reel spool length. However, Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a distance between the horizontal support rails to be at least 500 mm greater than the first length of the reel spool, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. In this instance, it is known within the art that the reel spool comprises a length smaller than the distance between the horizontal rails thus setting a preset distance would merely require one skilled in the art to set based on material length.
Regarding claim 12, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a reel spool transfer device having moving elements support on the rail as well as supports having notches to support a bearing of the reel spool. However, Haapanen teaches wherein the reel spool transfer device comprises: moving elements connected to body parts, the body parts supported on the moving elements, wherein the moving elements are supported on the support rail (Fig. 3; Pg 4-5, ¶35, wheels 204 being supported on rails 12.1, 12.2); support parts having portions defining a notch, for receiving and supporting ends at a bearing of the reel spool; and wherein each support part is connected to one of the body parts (Fig. 2; Pg. 5, ¶38, lay-down support 214 supporting the bearing housing 1.6 of the reel spool). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reel spool transfer device having moving elements support on the rail as well as supports having notches to support a bearing of the reel spool in order to provide a means for both transporting and supporting the rotational movement of the reel spool.
Regarding claim 13, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a reel spool transfer device having a body with different components being unitary. However, Haapanen teaches wherein the body parts and support parts of the reel spool transfer device are constructed as one piece (Fig. 3; Pg. 4-5, ¶35). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the reel spool transfer device unitary with its body unitary or integral, as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure as various discrete elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179; In re Fridolph, 309 F.2d 509, 50 CCPA 745; In re Larson, 52 C.C.P.A. 930, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 14, Sakai et al. discloses wherein a tilting mechanism is mounted between the hook member and a vertical base element of the hoisting device, the tilting mechanism being operable to pivot the hook member downwardly, such that the hoisting device can be lowered to bring the hook member below the bearing ends of the reel spool, the tilting mechanism thus providing for lowering the hoisting device when there is a reel spool occupying an unwinder at the first end of the assembly (Fig. 1; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, carriage 6 corresponding to a hook member and swing arm 5 corresponding to a tilting mechanism).
Regarding claim 15, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the system is part of a fiber web production line, and further comprising: two parallel substantially horizontal transfer rails spaced from each other in a horizontal direction and extending between the vertical elements (Fig. 1; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, transport rails 3 and return rails 7 extending between unloaders 4); a reel spool station at the second end (Fig. 1; Pg. 9-10, ¶9, reel part 1 and unwinder 2 disposed on the ends of the assembly); a reel up (Fig. 4; Pg. 12-13, ¶12, reversal device 40 corresponding to a reel up device); a parent roll storage (Fig. 1; Pg. 9-11, ¶¶9-10, brake stand 10 acting as storage of a parent roll); and an unwinder arranged on the transfer rails at the first end (Fig. 1; Pg. 9-10, ¶9, unwinder 2).
Regarding claim 16, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a reject removal station located on the support rails (Fig. 1; Pg. 10-11, ¶10, describing the exit station).
Regarding claim 17, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the transfer rails disposed beneath the support rails. However, Haapanen teaches wherein the transfer rails are located beneath the support rails (Fig. 1-2; Pg. 5, ¶39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the transfer rails beneath the support rails, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Doing so would provide different advantageous such as providing eye-level inspection during operations on support rails.
Regarding claim 18, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the preset distance between transfer rails being less than the distance of the support rails. However, Haapanen teaches wherein the distance between the transfer rails in the horizontal direction is less than the distance in the horizontal direction between the support rails (Pg. 6, ¶43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the distance between transfer rails to be less than the distance of the support rails as it is known that the length of the reel spool, being disposed on both transfer rails, would easily and efficiently transfer when smaller in relation to the overall length of the support rails.
Regarding claim 19, Sakai et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a reel spool storage arranged on the support rails (Fig. 10; Pg. 2-3, ¶2, return rail 7 having spool stoppers 9 corresponding to a spool storage).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references refer to assemblies for handling reel spools with two sets of rails for transport and support. The cited references further comprises means to hoist and lower the reel spools for proper inspection, winding and unwinding operations.
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