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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29-31 and 35 are potentially allowable.
Claims 32-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the aforementioned claims set forth a series of physical structures/configurations that are well beyond that which is disclosed within the Geldmeier, Porat ‘843 and Porat ‘405 references (discussed in greater depth infra), which represent the prior art combination closest to Applicant’s invention of independent claims 25 and 28-29, and there would be no obvious reason to further modify this trio of references to the extent necessary to satisfy each of Applicant’s pertinent limitations.
With respect to claims 29, 32 and 33 (and claims 30-31 and 34-35 depending therefrom), the provision of: i) upper and lower “carriage portions” supporting upper and lower portions of a knife (claim 29), ii) mechanisms to permit automatic sequential production of different sized cases (claim 32), and bar code readers configured to read bar codes present on print sheets (claim 33) are well known, but providing such devices within the particular aforementioned Geldmeier, Porat ‘843 and Porat ‘405 combination would satisfy no purpose other than merely rejecting the pertinent claims. Further, effecting such modifications would likely interfere with the ability of the respective references to continue to operate as originally intended.
In view of the foregoing, the modifications necessary to satisfy each of Applicant’s claim limitations would be likely to render the Geldmeier, Porat ‘843 and Porat ‘405 combination incapable of continuing to operate/behave in the particular manners set forth within the respective references themselves (given the particularly sensitive nature of such sophisticated case-producing assemblies), which would be strongly indicative of an application of improper hindsight reasoning.
Claims 29-31 and 35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 32-34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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.
Note that any change to the scope of the claimed invention related to the aforementioned claims may potentially affect the determinations/treatment of claims set forth supra.
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 21-22, 24-25 and 27-36 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple limitations in the claims, including: i) as indicated in the previously issued Office Action, claim 21 recites the limitation “a new position” (note that no initial position is recited beforehand within the claim; additionally note that newly amended claim 24 suffers the same deficiency); ii) as indicated in the previously issued Office Action, claim 30 recites the limitation "the direction of transport”; and iii) as indicated in the previously issued Office Action, claim 36 recites the limitation “the process”.
As indicated in the previously issued Office Action, the claim 24 recitation of “by applying vacuum to the cylinder” is unclear. Does Applicant actually intend to recite “by applying a vacuum to the cylinder”? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
As indicated in the previously issued Office Action, the claims 25 and 34 recitations of both a “print sheet edge cutter” and a “print sheet corner cutter” are unclear, as a corner of a sheet is generally understood to also define/constitute/include at least one edge of the sheet. Accordingly, exactly how are the respective “edge cutter” and “corner cutter” devices expected to differ from one another? In the event that a hypothetical device cuts an upper-left corner segment from a rectangular sheet, said cut extending from the sheet’s left edge to the sheet’s upper edge, could this device be considered an “edge cutter” as well as a “corner cutter”? Exactly what structure/configuration does Applicant call for with regard to the respective “print sheet edge cutter” and “print sheet corner cutter” mechanisms? Please review/revise/clarify. Note that newly amended claims 28-29 suffer the same deficiency.
The claim 35 recitation of “a direction of movement of a case along the apparatus” is unclear, as there is no earlier indication (within claim 35 or 29, from which it depends) that said case is actually being moved. Hence, the no existing “direction of movement” can be implied or inferred.
Claims 22, 27 and 31-33 are rejected as depending (directly or indirectly) from rejected independent claims 21, 25 and 29.
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.
Claims 21-22, 24 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,280,901 to Smith et al. (“Smith”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0180843 to Porat (“Porat ‘843”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0251270 to Speller et al. (“Speller”).
Regarding claim 21, Smith discloses a method of maneuvering (e.g. feeding process discussed at col. 1, line 65) a print (per col. 2, line 13, images may be provided/printed on a sheet) sheet (e.g. sheet 12, as shown in figs. 1-2) on (figs. 1-2) a machine (e.g. printer or copier discussed at col. 3, lines 34-35), the method (aforementioned feeding process) comprising: i) placing (figs. 1-2) the print sheet (12) on a flat surface (e.g. horizontal elements located between upper ends of instances of feed rollers 22, together, as shown in fig. 2), the surface (aforementioned horizontal elements, together) including at least two (fig. 2) openings (e.g. spaces in which feed rollers 22 are held, as shown in fig. 2) therein (fig. 2), at least two (fig. 2) vertically oriented (fig. 2) wheels (e.g. feed rollers 22, as shown in figs. 1-2) aligned with (fig. 2) the two openings (aforementioned spaces in which feed rollers 22 are held); ii) gripping (fig. 2) the print sheet (12) between (fig. 2) each of the wheels (22) and a corresponding (fig. 2) ball (24) that is forced against (fig. 2) each wheel (22) with the print sheet (12) held therebetween (fig. 2); iii) rotating the wheels (22) in unison (fig. 2; note that feed rollers 22 are held on common feed shaft 23) to move or rotate (col. 6, lines 42-53) the print sheet (12), each of the balls (24) passively rotating (i.e. freely rotate, per col. 3, lines 63-65) while providing pressure (e.g. gravitational pressure, as discussed at col. 4, lines 21-24) to engage (fig. 2) the print sheet (12) with the wheels (22); and iv) reducing a force (note that when sheet 12 is inserted between a ball 24 and feed roller 22, at least the direct force of the ball 24 upon the feed roller 22 is reduced) of the balls (24) against the wheels (22) to release (i.e. eject, as discussed at col. 2, lines 51-52) the print sheet (12) in a new position (e.g. a downstream location).
Smith does not disclose the said machine (aforementioned printer or copier) being a casemaking machine.
Porat ‘843 teaches the concept of utilizing a casemaking machine (e.g. apparatus for manufacturing a hard book cover, as shown in figs. 1A-B and discussed at para. 14-15).
Given that Smith and Porat both concern apparatuses designed to handle and convey sheets of material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Porat ‘843 hard book cover producing teachings to the Smith printer/copier, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Smith apparatus that is capable of printing/copying sheets and ultimately binding them into an outer case material, thereby producing a finished book.
Smith also does not disclose wherein the force of the balls (24) against (fig. 2) the wheels (22) is provided by a pressurized gas.
Speller teaches the concept of providing a force of a conveyance element (e.g. upper gravity weighted wheels discussed at para. 181) against an underlying conveyance element (e.g. conveyor discussed at para. 181), said force being provided by a pressurized gas (e.g. air acted upon by vacuum system discussed at para. 181).
Given that Smith and Speller both concern apparatuses designed to handle and convey sheets, both utilizing a series of overlying and underlying components creating a nip therebetween through which sheets must travel, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Speller’s vacuum teachings to the top portions of Smith’s cylindrical ball retaining tubes 26, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Smith assembly in which its balls 24 may be retracted from underlying rollers 22 as desired (thereby reducing/adjusting the force of the balls 22 against the rollers 22), thereby providing a path of less resistance for sheets 12 passing through the nip section.
Regarding claim 22, Smith in view of Porat ‘843 and further in view of Speller discloses the method of claim 21 wherein the balls (Smith 24) are housed in (Smith fig. 2) cylindrical tubes (e.g. Smith cylindrical ball retaining tubes 26, as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Smith discloses a method of maneuvering (e.g. feeding process discussed at col. 1, line 65) a print (per col. 2, line 13, images may be provided/printed on a sheet) sheet (e.g. sheet 12, as shown in figs. 1-2) on (figs. 1-2) a machine (e.g. printer or copier discussed at col. 3, lines 34-35), the method (aforementioned feeding process) comprising: i) placing (figs. 1-2) the print sheet (12) on a flat surface (e.g. horizontal elements located between upper ends of instances of feed rollers 22, together, as shown in fig. 2), the surface (aforementioned horizontal elements, together) including at least two (fig. 2) openings (e.g. spaces in which feed rollers 22 are held, as shown in fig. 2) therein (fig. 2), at least two (fig. 2) vertically oriented (fig. 2) wheels (e.g. feed rollers 22, as shown in figs. 1-2) aligned with (fig. 2) the two openings (aforementioned spaces in which feed rollers 22 are held); ii) gripping (fig. 2) the print sheet (12) between (fig. 2) each of the wheels (22) and a corresponding (fig. 2) ball (24) that is forced against (fig. 2) each wheel (22) with the print sheet (12) held therebetween (fig. 2); iii) rotating the wheels (22) in unison (fig. 2; note that feed rollers 22 are held on common feed shaft 23) to move or rotate (col. 6, lines 42-53) the print sheet (12), each of the balls (24) housed in (fig. 2) cylindrical tubes (e.g. cylindrical ball retaining tubes 26, as shown in fig. 2) and passively rotating (i.e. freely rotate, per col. 3, lines 63-65) while providing pressure (e.g. gravitational pressure, as discussed at col. 4, lines 21-24) to engage (fig. 2) the print sheet (12) with the wheels (22); and iv) reducing a force (note that when sheet 12 is inserted between a ball 24 and feed roller 22, at least the direct force of the ball 24 upon the feed roller 22 is reduced) of the balls (24) against the wheels (22) to release (i.e. eject, as discussed at col. 2, lines 51-52) the print sheet (12) in a new position (e.g. a downstream location).
Smith does not disclose the said machine (aforementioned printer or copier) being a casemaking machine.
Porat ‘843 teaches the concept of utilizing a casemaking machine (e.g. apparatus for manufacturing a hard book cover, as shown in figs. 1A-B and discussed at para. 14-15).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 21, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Porat ‘843 hard book cover producing teachings to the Smith printer/copier.
Smith also does not disclose wherein the balls (24) are retracted by applying vacuum to the cylinder (26).
Speller teaches the concept of providing a conveyance element (e.g. upper gravity weighted wheels discussed at para. 181) that is retracted by applying a vacuum (para. 181).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 21, supra, it would have been obvious to apply Speller’s vacuum teachings to the top portions of Smith’s cylindrical ball retaining tubes 26.
Regarding claim 36, Smith in view of Porat ‘843 and further in view of Speller discloses a computer readable medium including instructions (per Porat ‘843 para. 67, components of the assembly may be automated, using computer control and per para. 114-115, a computer readable recording medium may be utilized) for carrying out the process (note that as presently filed, claim 21 is drawn to a method- not a process) of claim 21.
Claims 25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0283854 to Geldmeier et al. (“Geldmeier”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,885,405 to Porat (“Porat ‘405”) and further in view of Porat ‘843.
Regarding claim 25, Geldmeier discloses an apparatus for making cases for books (e.g. case maker 1, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 21), the apparatus (1) comprising: i) a print sheet feeder (e.g. blank sheet feed 11, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 21); ii) a board feeder (e.g. center strip conveying device 30 and board magazine 24, together, as shown in figs. 1 and discussed at para. 22 and 24); iii) a board cutter (e.g. cutters 32 and 39, together, as shown in fig. 2 and discussed at para. 24 and 26; note that these cutters will cut spine board strips 3, per para. 21); vi) a gluing station (13, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 21); and iv) a folding station (e.g. turn-in and rub-down station discussed at para. 21); v) wherein the apparatus (1) is constructed and arranged to move (figs. 1-2) a print sheet (e.g. black to be covered 4, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 21) along a single axis (e.g. a horizontal axis, as shown in fig. 2) as it advances to (compare figs. 1-2) each of the print sheet feeder (11), the gluing station (13) and the folding station (aforementioned turn-in and rub-down station).
Geldmeier does not disclose a print sheet edge cutter.
Porat ‘405 teaches the concept of providing a print sheet edge cutter (e.g. device that cuts wrap provided as a continuous roll, as discussed at col. 1, lines 22-24).
Given that Geldmeier and Porat ‘405 both concern apparatuses designed to form multi-panel outer covers for books, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Geldmeier blank sheet feed 11 according to the Porat ‘405 continuous roll with cutter teachings, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Geldmeier assembly in which the Geldmeier blanks to be covered 4 are stored in a compact manner, on a continuous—feed roll.
Geldmeier does not disclose a print sheet corner cutter.
Porat ‘843 teaches the concept of providing a print sheet corner cutter (e.g. cutters 210, as shown in figs. 1A-B and 12B and discussed at para. 130).
Given that Geldmeier and Porat ‘843 both concerns apparatuses designed to form multi-panel outer covers for books, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Geldmeier assembly with Porat ‘843 cutters 210 disposed immediately subsequent Geldmeier pressing rollers 15, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Geldmeier assembly that is undoubtedly capable of providing the Geldmeier book cases 10 with truncated corners shown in Geldmeier fig. 2.
Regarding claim 27, Geldmeier in view of Porat ‘405 and further in view of Porat ‘843 discloses the apparatus of claim 25 wherein the board feeder (Geldmeier 30 and 24, together) is constructed and arranged to feed (Geldmeier fig. 1) boards (e.g. Geldmeier cover boards 2 and spine board strips 3) in a direction (e.g. downward, as shown in Geldmeier fig. 1) perpendicular to the single axis (aforementioned horizontal axis).
Regarding claim 28, Geldmeier discloses an apparatus for making cases for books (e.g. case maker 1, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 21), the apparatus (1) comprising: i) a print sheet feeder (e.g. blank sheet feed 11, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 21); ii) a board feeder (e.g. center strip conveying device 30 and board magazine 24, together, as shown in figs. 1 and discussed at para. 22 and 24); iii) a gluing station (13, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 21); iv) a folding station (e.g. turn-in and rub-down station discussed at para. 21); v) a first board cutter (e.g. cutter 32, as shown in fig. 2 and discussed at para. 24) for slitting (para. 24) a board (e.g. spine board strips 3, as discussed per para. 21) in a first direction (e.g. horizontally, as shown in fig. 2); and vi) a second board cutter (e.g. cutter 39, as shown in fig. 2 and discussed at para. 26) for slitting (para. 26) the board (3) in a direction (e.g. vertically, as shown in fig. 2) perpendicular to (fig. 2) the first direction (horizontally).
Geldmeier does not disclose a print sheet edge cutter.
Porat ‘405 teaches the concept of providing a print sheet edge cutter (e.g. device that cuts wrap provided as a continuous roll, as discussed at col. 1, lines 22-24).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Geldmeier blank sheet feed 11 according to the Porat ‘405 continuous roll with cutter teachings.
Geldmeier does not disclose a print sheet corner cutter.
Porat ‘843 teaches the concept of providing a print sheet corner cutter (e.g. cutters 210, as shown in figs. 1A-B and 12B and discussed at para. 130).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Geldmeier assembly with Porat ‘843 cutters 210 disposed immediately subsequent Geldmeier pressing rollers 15.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s claim amendments (including those which are small in length, but nonetheless material), a further search of the pertinent area of prior art was executed. The aforementioned references were identified within said search. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
