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 § 112
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, “a lift configured to adjust a clearance between the guide and the conveyor belt by raising and lowering the guide in a vertical direction” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification and drawings do not disclose or describe “a lift configured to adjust a clearance between the guide and the conveyor belt by raising and lowering the guide in a vertical direction”.
Regarding claims 2-5, claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the guide” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, “the guide” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belmann (EP-1251096-A2, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Belmann discloses a folding machine (Fig. 1a) comprising:
a conveyor belt (Fig. 1a, item 7) configured to transport a sheet (Fig. 1a, item 23) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a stopper (Fig. 1a, item 17) configured to abut against the leading end of the sheet to stop the sheet (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a knife (Fig. 3, item 22) having an elongated shape (Fig. 3) and configured to move onto a folding position of the sheet stopped by the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026);
at least one guide (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) made of a rigid material (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and configured to hold the sheet between the conveyor belt and the guide (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and press the sheet transported to the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017); and
a lift (Fig. 1a, item 19.3) (Machine Translation, Para. 0019, item 19.4, 19.5, 19.6) configured to adjust a clearance (Machine Translation, Para. 0015) between the guide and the conveyor belt (Machine Translation, Para. 0015) by raising and lowering the guide in a vertical direction (Machine Translation, Para. 0015, guide rods 19.1 and 19.2 can move back and forth along a direction perpendicular to the transport direction, which can be interpreted as a vertical direction depending on the orientation of the system).
Regarding claim 2, Belmann discloses the folding machine according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one guide has an elongated shape (Fig. 3, guide 19.1, 19.2 has elongated shape) extending in a transport direction of the conveyor belt (Fig. 3), and the at least one guide comprises a plurality of guides (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) that are provided in an orthogonal direction (Fig. 3) that is orthogonal to the transport direction (Fig. 3) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017), and wherein a position in the orthogonal direction of each of the guides is variable (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 3, Belmann discloses the folding machine according to claim 2,
wherein the knife is fixed to a body (Fig. 3, item 22) (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026), and wherein the guides (Fig. 3, item 19.1, 19.2) are arranged on both sides of the knife, respectively (Fig. 3, guides 19.1 and 19.2 are positioned on either side of knife 22).
Regarding claim 5, Belmann discloses the folding machine according to claim 1 further comprising a control unit (Machine Translation, Para. 0024, control unit) configured to adjust the clearance defined by the lift (Machine Translation, Para. 0024, control unit).
Regarding claim 6, Belmann discloses an operation method of a folding machine (Fig. 1a), wherein the folding machine comprises a conveyor belt (Fig. 1a, item 7) configured to transport a sheet (Fig. 1a, item 23) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a stopper (Fig. 1a, item 17) configured to abut against the leading end of the sheet to stop the sheet (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a knife (Fig. 3, item 22) having an elongated shape (Fig. 3) and configured to move onto a folding position of the sheet stopped by the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026);
at least one guide (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) made of a rigid material (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and configured to hold the sheet between the conveyor belt and the at least one guide guide (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and press the sheet transported to the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017),
the operation method comprising a clearance adjusting step (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) of adjusting a clearance between the guide and the conveyor belt (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) by raising and lowering the guide in a vertical direction (Machine Translation, Para. 0015, guide rods 19.1 and 19.2 can move back and forth along a direction perpendicular to the transport direction, which can be interpreted as a vertical direction depending on the orientation of the system).
Regarding claim 7, Belmann discloses the operation method of the folding machine according to claim 6,
wherein the at least one guide has an elongated shape (Fig. 3, guide 19.1, 19.2 has elongated shape) extending in a transport direction of the conveyor belt (Fig. 3), and the at least one guide comprises a plurality of guides (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) that are provided in an orthogonal direction (Fig. 3) that is orthogonal to the transport direction (Fig. 3) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017), and wherein the position in the orthogonal direction of each of the guides is variable (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 8, Belmann discloses the operation method of the folding machine according to claim 7, wherein the knife is fixed to a body (Fig. 3, item 22) (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026), and wherein the guides (Fig. 3, item 19.1, 19.2) are arranged on both sides of the knife, respectively (Fig. 3, guides 19.1 and 19.2 are positioned on either side of knife 22).
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.
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 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belmann in view of Hiltmann (DE-4215729-A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Belmann is silent about the folding machine according to claim 2, wherein each of the guides is expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction.
However, Hiltmann teaches a folding machine (Hiltmann, Fig. 1) having guides (Hiltmann, Fig. 1, item 2) which are expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, claim 1, guides 4 are displaceable along the conveying direction, thus spreading the position of the guides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Belmann and Hiltmann to modify the folding device of Belmann to include the expandable guides of Hiltmann. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to adjust the position of the guides to prevent inaccurate folding (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, Page 2).
Regarding claim 9, Belmann is silent about the operation method of the folding machine according to claim 7, wherein each of the guides is expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction.
However, Hiltmann teaches a folding machine (Hiltmann, Fig. 1) having guides (Hiltmann, Fig. 1, item 2) which are expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, claim 1, guides 4 are displaceable along the conveying direction, thus spreading the position of the guides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Belmann and Hiltmann to modify the folding device of Belmann to include the expandable guides of Hiltmann. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to adjust the position of the guides to prevent inaccurate folding (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, Page 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reason:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the lift of Belmann does not disclose adjusting the clearance between a guide and a conveyor belt by raising and lowering the guide in a vertical direction, Examiner disagrees. Para. 0015 of the Machine Translation of Belmann states “the spaced apart guide rods 19.1 and 19.2 have bearing points in the guide rod holder 19.3 and in the stop finger 17, both of which can be moved substantially perpendicularly to the plane defined by the transport direction”. This means that the guide rods 19.1 and 19.2 can move back and forth along a direction perpendicular to the transport direction, which can be interpreted as a vertical direction, in order to change the distance between the guide rods and thus adjusting the clearance. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
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 VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights