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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “imaging device lens” and “magnifying element” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because reference 122 is referred to in paragraph [0051] of the publication of the specification as “microscope lens” in Fig. 2. However, reference 122 in Fig. 2 appears to be pointing at a rectangular frame.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“magnifying element” in claims 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “magnifying element” in claims 1 and 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner is unable to find structure for a “magnifying element” in either the specification nor a labeled element in the Figures
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the “magnifying element” and the “imaging device lens” are the same element, as neither the “magnifying element” nor “imaging device lens” are mentioned in the detailed description.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear if the recitation following “during a calibration mode” and “during an operation mode” are required steps, as the claim does not require “performing a calibration mode” or “performing an operation mode”. It is suggested to amend the claim to include steps of “performing a calibration mode” and “performing an operation mode”.
In light of the indefiniteness of the claims, the claims are rejected as best understood by the examiner, and that these are the same element..
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 13-20 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 12.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed limitation lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C.112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 Sec. IV.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drasek et al. (US 2013/0116812 A1), hereinafter “Von Drasek”, and further in view of Paavola et al. (US 2015/0107791 A1), hereinafter “Paavola”, and Gädtke (DE102017120035A1), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Gadtke”.
Regarding claim 1, Von Drasek teaches a system (abstract, Figs. 1, 2C) comprising:
a creping analysis module (Fig. 6, paragraph [0064]) comprising an imaging device lens (paragraph [0049] “microscope with a standardized illumination source”), a magnifying element (paragraph [0049]“magnification lens”), a light source (ref 100, paragraph [0049]) configured to provide a grazing angle illumination (paragraph [0048], as shown in Figs, 1 and 6); and
one or more processors are configured, during a calibration mode, to determine a number of pixels per unit length in a calibration image collected via the creping analysis module at a set magnification and the grazing angle illumination via the light source (paragraph [0054]);
wherein the one or more processors (inherently disclosed) are configured, during an operating mode, to ascertain one or more crepe structure characteristics in one or more captured operating images comprising a tissue sheet (paragraphs [0010], [0015], [0072]).
Von Drasek is silent regarding a user computing device comprising a first housing, a display unit on a first side of the first housing, and an imaging device lens on a second side of the first housing opposing the first side; and a second housing configured for selective coupling to the first housing, wherein the imaging device lens is encompassed by the second housing, the creping analysis module further comprising a ring adapter; and via the creping analysis module at the set magnification and the grazing angle illumination, and further to determine a crepe structure value based on the crepe structure characteristics and the determined number of pixels per unit length.
However, Gadtke teaches a sheet analysis device (abstract, Figs. 1, 2) including a user computing device comprising a first housing (ref 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0038]), a display unit on a first side of the first housing (ref 12, paragraph [0038]), and lens (ref 8, paragraph [0037]) on a second side of the first housing opposing the first side (as shown in Fig. 1); and a second housing configured for selective coupling to the first housing (via clamp, ref 6, paragraph [0036]), wherein the imaging device lens is encompassed by the second housing (paragraph [0037]), the creping analysis module further comprising a magnifying element (ref 8, paragraph [0037]) and a ring adapter (ref 8a, paragraph [0037]).
Furthermore, Paavola teaches a crepe sheet analysis device (abstract, Figs. 1, 2C) the creping analysis module at the set magnification and the grazing angle illumination (paragraph [0071]), and further to determine a crepe structure value based on the crepe structure characteristics and the determined number of pixels per unit length (paragraphs [0060]-[0065], [0081]-[0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gadtke and Paavola by including a user computing device comprising a first housing, a display unit on a first side of the first housing, and an imaging device lens on a second side of the first housing opposing the first side; and a second housing configured for selective coupling to the first housing, wherein the imaging device lens is encompassed by the second housing, the creping analysis module further comprising a ring adapter; and via the creping analysis module at the set magnification and the grazing angle illumination, and further to determine a crepe structure value based on the crepe structure characteristics and the determined number of pixels per unit length in order to have a portable analysis module that can be used for any production line, and determine the optimum illumination settings, and having a housing prevents contamination of the optical elements.
Regarding claim 2, Von Drasek teaches wherein the crepe structure characteristics comprise one or more peaks and corresponding valleys in the tissue sheet (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Von Drasek teaches wherein the crepe structure value comprises a periodicity of the crepe structure determined via frequency spectrum analysis (paragraphs [0012], [0062]).
Regarding claim 4, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode and corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a width of the tissue sheet to determine a distance traveled using the extension as a position reference, and to capture operating images at respective predetermined distances along the width of the tissue sheet.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that including wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode and corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a width of the tissue sheet to determine a distance traveled using the extension as a position reference, and to capture operating images at respective predetermined distances along the width of the tissue sheet would be well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One would have an extension to move across the entire sheet and measure the entire sheet.
Regarding claim 5, Von Drasek teaches wherein the creping analysis module comprises a position sensor (ref 105), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to synchronize outputs from the position sensor with video signals to extract images at respective distances traveled by the user computing device along a width of the tissue sheet (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Von Drasek is silent regarding one or more sensors mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode to aggregate determined crepe structure values and output signals from the one or more sensors.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that including one or more sensors mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode to aggregate determined crepe structure values and output signals from the one or more sensors would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing. One would include the sensors in order to measure multiple characteristics of the paper. In addition, Paavola teaches any suitable sensor(s) capable of measuring one or more characteristics of a web of creped tissue paper (paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode and corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a length of a creping blade to determine a distance traveled using the extension as a blade edge reference, to capture operating images at respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade, and to determine a blade wear profile based on edge analysis from the captured images.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that including wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode and corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a length of a creping blade to determine a distance traveled using the extension as a blade edge reference, to capture operating images at respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade, and to determine a blade wear profile based on edge analysis from the captured images would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing. One would include an extension and determine a distance travelled in order capture images of the entire paper and to monitor wear across the blade plane.
Regarding claim 12, Von Drasek teaches a method (abstract, Figs. 1, 2C) comprising:
a creping analysis module (Fig. 6, paragraph [0064]) comprising, wherein the imaging device lens (paragraph [0049] “microscope with a standardized illumination source”), the creping analysis module further comprising a magnifying element (paragraph [0049]“magnification lens”), and a light source (ref 100, paragraph [0049]) configured to provide a grazing angle illumination (paragraph [0048], as shown in Figs, 1 and 6); and
during a calibration mode, determining a number of pixels per unit length in a calibration image collected via the creping analysis module at a set magnification and the grazing angle illumination via the light source (paragraph [0054]); and
during an operating mode:
ascertaining one or more crepe structure characteristics in one or more captured operating images comprising a tissue sheet, via the creping analysis module at the set magnification and the grazing angle illumination (paragraphs [0010], [0015], [0072]).
Von Drasek is silent regarding coupling a user computing device, the user computing device comprising a first housing, a display unit on a first side of the first housing, and an imaging device lens on a second side of the first housing opposing the first side; a second housing configured for selective coupling to the first housing; creping analysis module further comprising a ring adapter.
However, Gadtke teaches a sheet analysis method (abstract, Figs. 1, 2) including a user computing device comprising a first housing (ref 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0038]), a display unit on a first side of the first housing (ref 12, paragraph [0038]), and lens (ref 8, paragraph [0037]) on a second side of the first housing opposing the first side (as shown in Fig. 1); and a second housing configured for selective coupling to the first housing (via clamp, ref 6, paragraph [0036]), wherein the imaging device lens is encompassed by the second housing (paragraph [0037]), the creping analysis module further comprising a magnifying element (ref 8, paragraph [0037]) and a ring adapter (ref 8a, paragraph [0037]).
Furthermore, Paavola teaches a crepe sheet analysis device (abstract, Figs. 1, 2C) the creping analysis module at the set magnification and the grazing angle illumination (paragraph [0071]), and further to determine a crepe structure value based on the crepe structure characteristics and the determined number of pixels per unit length (paragraphs [0060]-[0065], [0081]-[0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gadtke and Paavola by including a user computing device comprising a first housing, a display unit on a first side of the first housing, and an imaging device lens on a second side of the first housing opposing the first side; and a second housing configured for selective coupling to the first housing, wherein the imaging device lens is encompassed by the second housing, the creping analysis module further comprising a ring adapter; and via the creping analysis module at the set magnification and the grazing angle illumination, and further to determine a crepe structure value based on the crepe structure characteristics and the determined number of pixels per unit length in order to have a portable analysis module that can be used for any production line, and determine the optimum illumination settings, and having a housing prevents contamination of the optical elements.
Regarding claim 13, Von Drasek teaches wherein the crepe structure characteristics comprise one or more peaks and corresponding valleys in the creped tissue sheet (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Von Drasek teaches wherein the crepe structure value comprises a periodicity of the crepe structure determined via frequency spectrum analysis (paragraphs [0012], [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, the method further comprising, during the operating mode and corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a width of the tissue sheet, determining a distance traveled using the extension as a position reference and capturing operating images at respective predetermined distances along the width of the tissue sheet.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that including wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, the method further comprising, during the operating mode and corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a width of the tissue sheet, determining a distance traveled using the extension as a position reference and capturing operating images at respective predetermined distances along the width of the tissue sheet would be well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One would have an extension to move across the entire sheet and measure the entire sheet.
Regarding claim 16, Von Drasek teaches wherein the creping analysis module comprises a position sensor (ref 105), the method further comprising synchronizing outputs from the position sensor with video signals to extract images at respective distances traveled by the user computing device along a width of the tissue sheet (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 19, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, and wherein the method comprises, corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a length of a creping blade, determining a distance traveled using the extension as a blade edge reference, capturing operating images at respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade, and determining a blade wear profile based on edge analysis from the captured images.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that including wherein the creping analysis module comprises an extension from the second housing toward the tissue sheet, and wherein the method comprises, corresponding to movement of the user computing device along a length of a creping blade, determining a distance traveled using the extension as a blade edge reference, capturing operating images at respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade, and determining a blade wear profile based on edge analysis from the captured images would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing. One would include an extension and determine a distance travelled in order capture images of the entire paper and to monitor wear across the blade plane.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Drasek, Paavola, and Gadtke as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Gorden (US 2023/0295875 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the one or more sensors comprise a temperature sensor configured to generate output signals representing a temperature profile of the tissue sheet, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode to aggregate determined crepe structure values and temperature profiles to the tissue sheet and determine corresponding effects thereof.
However, the Gordon teaches a system for measuring creping paper (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the one or more sensors comprise a temperature sensor configured to generate output signals representing a temperature profile of the tissue sheet, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode to aggregate determined crepe structure values and temperature profiles to the tissue sheet and determine corresponding effects thereof (paragraphs [0046], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gordon by including wherein the one or more sensors comprise a temperature sensor configured to generate output signals representing a temperature profile of the tissue sheet, wherein the one or more processors are configured during the operating mode to aggregate determined crepe structure values and temperature profiles to the tissue sheet and determine corresponding effects thereof in order to be used to maintain a constant temperature, paragraph [0072].
Regarding claim 8, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the one or more sensors comprise a vibration sensor mounted with respect to a creping blade and/or dryer and configured to generate output signals representing vibration, wherein the one or more processors are configured to ascertain changes in blade wear based at least in part on changes in vibration energy over time.
However, the Gordon teaches a system for measuring creping paper (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the one or more sensors comprise a vibration sensor mounted with respect to a creping blade and/or dryer and configured to generate output signals representing vibration, wherein the one or more processors are configured to ascertain changes in blade wear based at least in part on changes in vibration energy over time (paragraphs [0047], [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gordon by including wherein the one or more sensors comprise a vibration sensor mounted with respect to a creping blade and/or dryer and configured to generate output signals representing vibration, wherein the one or more processors are configured to ascertain changes in blade wear based at least in part on changes in vibration energy over time in order to be used to adjust the beam intensity based on vibrations, paragraph [0127].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Drasek, Paavola, and Gadtke as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Gorden (US 2023/0295875 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the creping analysis module comprises a position sensor, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to synchronize outputs from the position sensor with video signals to extract images at respective distances traveled by the user computing device along a length of the creping blade.
However, Gorden teaches wherein the creping analysis module comprises a position sensor, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to synchronize outputs from the position sensor with video signals to extract images at respective distances traveled by the user computing device along a length of the creping blade (paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gorden by including wherein the creping analysis module comprises a position sensor, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to synchronize outputs from the position sensor with video signals to extract images at respective distances traveled by the user computing device along a length of the creping blade in order to measure the entire paper.
Regarding claim 11, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the creping analysis module comprises an angle sensor configured to generate output signals representing a wear angle of the creping blade, wherein the one or more processors are further configured during the operating mode and corresponding to the movement of the user computing device along the length of a creping blade to track a determined wear angle of the creping blade with respect to the determined blade wear profile at the respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade.
However, Gorden teaches wherein the creping analysis module comprises an angle sensor configured to generate output signals representing a wear angle of the creping blade, wherein the one or more processors are further configured during the operating mode and corresponding to the movement of the user computing device along the length of a creping blade to track a determined wear angle of the creping blade with respect to the determined blade wear profile at the respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade (paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gorden by including wherein the creping analysis module comprises an angle sensor configured to generate output signals representing a wear angle of the creping blade, wherein the one or more processors are further configured during the operating mode and corresponding to the movement of the user computing device along the length of a creping blade to track a determined wear angle of the creping blade with respect to the determined blade wear profile at the respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade in order to monitor the blade.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Drasek, Paavola, and Gadtke as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gorden (US 2023/0295875 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein one or more sensors are mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements and comprise a temperature sensor configured to generate output signals representing a temperature profile of the tissue sheet, and wherein the method comprises aggregating determined crepe structure values and temperature profiles to the tissue sheet and determining corresponding effects thereof.
However, the Gordon teaches a method for measuring creping paper (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein one or more sensors are mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements and comprise a temperature sensor configured to generate output signals representing a temperature profile of the tissue sheet, and wherein the method comprises aggregating determined crepe structure values and temperature profiles to the tissue sheet and determining corresponding effects thereof (paragraphs [0046], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gordon by including wherein one or more sensors are mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements and comprise a temperature sensor configured to generate output signals representing a temperature profile of the tissue sheet, and wherein the method comprises aggregating determined crepe structure values and temperature profiles to the tissue sheet and determining corresponding effects thereof in order to be used to maintain a constant temperature, paragraph [0072].
Regarding claim 18, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein one or more sensors are mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements and comprise a vibration sensor mounted with respect to a creping blade and/or dryer and configured to generate output signals representing vibration energy, and wherein the method comprises ascertaining changes in blade wear based at least in part on changes in vibration energy over time.
However, the Gordon teaches a system for measuring creping paper (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein one or more sensors are mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements and comprise a vibration sensor mounted with respect to a creping blade and/or dryer and configured to generate output signals representing vibration energy, and wherein the method comprises ascertaining changes in blade wear based at least in part on changes in vibration energy over time (paragraphs [0047], [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gordon by including wherein one or more sensors are mounted with respect to fixed creping process elements and comprise a vibration sensor mounted with respect to a creping blade and/or dryer and configured to generate output signals representing vibration energy, and wherein the method comprises ascertaining changes in blade wear based at least in part on changes in vibration energy over time in order to be used to adjust the beam intensity based on vibrations, paragraph [0127].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Drasek, Paavola, and Gadtke as applied to claims 12 and 19 above, and further in view of Gorden (US 2023/0295875 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Von Drasek is silent regarding wherein the creping analysis module comprises an angle sensor configured to generate output signals representing a wear angle of the creping blade, wherein the method further comprises, corresponding to the movement of the user computing device along the length of a creping blade, tracking a determined wear angle of the creping blade with respect to the determined blade wear profile at the respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade.
However, Gorden teaches wherein the creping analysis module comprises an angle sensor configured to generate output signals representing a wear angle of the creping blade, wherein the method further comprises, corresponding to the movement of the user computing device along the length of a creping blade, tracking a determined wear angle of the creping blade with respect to the determined blade wear profile at the respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade (paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Von Drasek with the teaching of Gorden by including wherein the creping analysis module comprises an angle sensor configured to generate output signals representing a wear angle of the creping blade, wherein the method further comprises, corresponding to the movement of the user computing device along the length of a creping blade, tracking a determined wear angle of the creping blade with respect to the determined blade wear profile at the respective predetermined distances along the length of the creping blade in order to monitor the blade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gorden (US 2016/0032527) and (US 2018/0119359) teach similar creping sheet analysis systems and can be combined with prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Kellomaki (US 2015/0108375) teaches similar creping sheet analysis systems and can be combined with prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights