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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0001042 A1) in view of Weisang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0263361 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Betti discloses an embosser (FIG. 1 of Betti, rewinder which includes embossing and laminating unit #61 and is therefore an “embosser”) comprising: a first embossing unit, comprising at least a first upper roller and a first lower roller coupled to each other and configured to contact each other (FIG. 1, [0042] of Betti, first pressure roller #67 and first embossing cylinder #63); said first embossing unit being configured to emboss a first ply (P) of tissue paper wound between the first upper roller and the first lower roller (FIG. 1, [0046] of Betti, rollers #67 #63 configured to emboss web-like material V1); a second embossing unit, comprising at least a second upper roller and a second lower roller coupled to each other and configured to contact each other (FIG. 1, [0042] of Betti, second pressure roller #75 and second embossing cylinder #65); said second embossing unit being configured to emboss a second ply (P') of tissue paper wound between the second upper roller and the second lower roller (FIG. 1, [0046] of Betti, rollers #75 #65 configured to emboss web-like material V2); the first lower roller and the second upper roller facing each other and being at least close defining a coupling zone (C) of said plies (P) and (P') (FIG. 1, [0046] of Betti, embossing cylinders #63 #65 face each other and define a coupling zone of first and second plies V1 V2); a coupling roller placed downstream of the coupling zone (C) and coupled to the first lower roller or to the second upper roller (FIG. 1, [0046] of Betti, laminating roller #91 which is coupled to first embossing cylinder #63); said coupling roller being configured to join the first ply (P) and the second ply (P') from the first embossing unit and the second embossing unit to form a multi-layer ply (PP') (FIG. 1, [0046] of Betti, plies V1 V2 bonded together by laminating roller #91 to form weblike material N); a glue assembly placed upstream of the coupling zone (C) and associated to the first lower roller or the second upper roller, said glue assembly being configured to spread a layer of glue on the embossed first ply (P) or second ply (P') (FIG. 1, [0044] of Betti, adhesive dispenser #83); and at least one dispenser of a stiffening substance (FIG. 1, [0055] of Betti, adhesive spraying nozzles #121); said dispenser being configured to dispense a predetermined amount of said stiffening substance on a predetermined area (A) of said embossed first ply (P) or second ply (P') (FIG. 1, [0055] of Betti, adhesive spraying nozzles #121 which apply adhesive for anchoring the initial edge and tail of the roll).
Betti does not disclose that the at least one dispenser of a stiffening substance is positioned at said first lower roller and/or said second upper roller or that said dispenser is placed upstream of the coupling zone (C). Weisang, however, discloses a converting machine for manufacturing rolls of weblike material (FIG. 5 of Weisang) comprising spray applicators for applying a coating composition onto the end of the weblike material ([0194]-[0196] of Weisang). According to Weisang, the spray applicators can be placed before the embossing unit such that the coating composition is applied between the plies (i.e., upstream of the coupling or laminating zone) ([0196] of Weisang). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the spray nozzles at the first lower roller and placed upstream of the laminating or coupling zone since Weisang establishes that it was known to position dispensers in this manner in web embossing and laminating machines. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Betti discloses the embosser according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of dispensers placed side by side to each other; each dispenser being configured to dispense a predetermined amount of said stiffening substance ([0055] of Betti, series of spray nozzles #53 #121 configured to dispense adhesive to an area of weblike material N).
Regarding claim 3, Betti discloses the embosser according to claim 2, wherein each dispenser (30) is adapted to dispense the stiffening substance according to a spray cone defining said predetermined area (A); said plurality of dispensers being positioned so that said predetermined areas (A) are adjacent to each other along a direction transverse to an advancement direction (Y) of the ply (P) or (P') (FIG. 3 of Betti, nozzle #121 depicted applying adhesive in cone pattern).
Regarding claim 4, Betti discloses the embosser according to claim 3, wherein said plurality of dispensers are positioned so that said predetermined areas (A) are contiguous ([0052] of Betti, adhesive dispensed over width of roll which would necessarily require contiguous application areas).
Regarding claim 5, Weisang suggests the embosser according to claim 3, wherein each dispenser (30) is configured to dispense said stiffening substance in subsequent times so as to cover said predetermined areas (A) that are adjacent along the advancement direction (Y) of the ply (P) or (P') for a section ranging from 0.5 m to 2 m. Moreover, Weisang discloses applying the coating composition over a length of 600 mm (i.e., 0.6 m) ([0276] of Weisang).
Regarding claim 7, Weisang suggests the embosser according to claim 1, wherein said predetermined amount of the stiffening substance ranges from 1 g/m2 to 10 g/m2. Moreover, Wesiang discloses applying 0.5 g of the coating ([0277 of Weisang) over a 600 mm (0.6 m) ([0276] of Weisang) length of a 0.6 m wide roll ([0251] of Weisang) which results in a coating weight of 0.5 g/(0.6mx0.6m) or 0.5 g/0.36 m2 or 1.39 g/m2.
Regarding claim 8, Betti discloses that said stiffening substance is a glue ([0052] of Betti, nozzles #121 dispense an adhesive).
Regarding claim 9, Betti and Weisang suggest a converting line for processing tissue paper (Abstract, [0004] of Betti, rewinding machine for paper converting), comprising: the embosser according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above); and a rewinding machine placed downstream of the embosser and configured to wind the multi-layer ply (PP') forming logs in succession (FIG. 1 of Betti), wherein said dispenser is configured to dispense said stiffening substance at predetermined times synchronously with said rewinding machine so that said predetermined area (A) defines a log innermost coil, adjacent to a core to be extracted ([0055] of Betti, adhesive applied to area N of weblike material at initial free edge which enters into contact with winding up core).
Regarding claim 10, Betti discloses a process to stiffen a ply of tissue paper to be coil-winded around a core to be extracted ([0003] of Betti, winding method; [0055] of Betti, method involves applying adhesive to plies of weblike material which would necessarily stiffen the material), said process comprising: (i) embossing a first ply (P) of tissue paper ([0046] of Betti, first ply of weblike material embossed); (ii) embossing a second ply (P') of tissue paper ([0046] of Betti, second ply of weblike material embossed); (iii) spreading a layer of glue on an embossed first ply (P) or second ply (P') ([0044] of Betti, adhesive dispensed on one of the plies); (iv) joining the first ply (P) to the second ply (P') forming a multi-layer ply (PP') ([0046] of Betti, plies joined together by adhesive); and (v) subsequent to said embossing (i) and embossing (ii), dispensing a stiffening substance on the first ply (P) or the second ply (P') wherein said dispensing (v) is separated from said spreading (iii) and is carried out for a shorter time than said spreading (iii) ([0055] of Betti, spray nozzles #121 #53 apply adhesive to areas of weblike material at initial free edge and tail end; adhesive is only applied by spray nozzles #121 #53 at beginning and end of each roll which would necessarily be for a shorter time than spreading of laminating adhesive which is continuous).
Betti does not disclose that the stiffening substance is dispensed prior to said joining (iv). Weisang, however, discloses a converting machine for manufacturing rolls of weblike material (FIG. 5 of Weisang) comprising spray applicators for applying a coating composition onto the end of the weblike material ([0194]-[0196] of Weisang). According to Weisang, the spray applicators can be placed before the embossing using such that the coating composition is applied between the plies (i.e., upstream of the coupling or laminating zone) ([0196] of Weisang). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the spray nozzles upstream of the laminating or coupling zone since Weisang establishes that it was known to position dispensers in this manner in web embossing and laminating machines. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betti in view of Weisang as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Schubring et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0226809 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Betti does not specifically disclose that said plurality of dispensers (30) are configured to be inclined and/or rotated. Schubring, however, discloses an embosser-laminator comprising a plurality of spray guns for applying an adhesive (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Schubring, spray guns #50) wherein the adhesive spray guns are configured to be inclined (FIGS. 2-4 of Schubring). According to Schubring, the orientation of the spray guns may be changed to optimize the application of the adhesive to the weblike material ([0016] of Schubring). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified apparatus with dispensers configured to be inclined as taught by Schubring. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the application of the adhesive to the weblike material as taught by Schubring ([0016] of Schubring).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights