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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“associated to” in line 7 should read “associated with”.
“sheet; the” in line 9 should read “sheet,”.
“location” in line 10 should read “locations”.
“the quality” in line 11 should read “a quality”.
“the thickness” in line 13 should read “a thickness”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: “camera being configured” in line 2 should read “camera configured”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: “cuts” in line 2 should read “cuts in the trial sheet” in both instances the term appears in the claim (in order to make clear that the cuts being referred to are not the cuts of the model layout).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“cut lines” in line 3 should read “a cut line” (because each cut consists of only one cut line).
“the quality” in line 3 should read “a quality”.
“respective cut” in line 4 should read “cut”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: “the depth” in line 2 should read “a depth”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: “the peak” in line 2 should read “a peak”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“as a” in line 2 should read “based on a”.
“the depth” in line 9 should read “a depth”.
“and of the width” in line 2 should read “and a width”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informality: “scores, a position and a length” in line 2 should read “scores and positions and lengths” (because plural segments have plural positions and lengths).
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a thickness of a patch” in line 2 should read “the thickness of the patch” (because the step of “determining…thickness of a patch” was previously recited in line 13 of claim 1).
“length” in line 3 should read “lengths” (because plural segments have plural lengths).
“segments or” in line 3 should read “segments, or”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: “representative for” in line 5 should read “representative of”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: “representative for” in line 4 should read “representative of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a blank" in line 5. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the blank mentioned in line 4 of claim 1 or to a totally new blank. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the blank”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a score" in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the score mentioned in claim 8 or to a totally new score. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 9 as if “computing a score at each location along a cut line and” in lines 2-3 has been omitted.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a cut line" in lines 2-3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the cut line mentioned in claim 8 or to a totally new cut line. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 9 as if “computing a score at each location along a cut line and” in lines 2-3 has been omitted.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the angle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “an angle”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a groove”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cut’s groove" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a groove of the cut”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the score is compared to a threshold value, resulting in a thresholded score" in line 3. It is unclear from this limitation how comparing two quantities (i.e. the score and threshold value) can possibly result in a third quantity (i.e. the thresholded score). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 15 as if “value, resulting in a thresholded score being indicatve” in line 2 instead reads “value indicative”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the thresholded scores" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the scores”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the cardboard processing machine" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a cardboard processing machine”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the pressing station" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a pressing station”.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitations of claim 1 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 1:
“A method for manufacturing a patching sheet for a pressing station of a cardboard processing machine, the method comprising:” and
“computing, based on the measured image, the quality of each cut in the trial sheet to obtain a list of defective cuts needing correction;
determining, for each defective cut, the thickness of a patch to be applied on the patching sheet for correcting the defective cut to obtain a list of patches; and
building the patching sheet according to the list of patches”.
The prior art references considered by the examiner to come closest to teaching the limitations of claim 1 are Karelin (WO 2022201125 A2) and Bae (CN 116141424 A).
Karelin teaches:
obtaining a job recipe (300m in Figure 1), the job recipe (300m) defining a model layout (the “cutting data” described in Page 4 lines 28-30, Page 12 lines 14-16) of cuts to be applied in a blank (300) being cut in a cardboard processing machine (shown in Figure 1);
cutting a blank (300) in a pressing station (100 in Figure 1) of the cardboard processing machine (shown in Figure 1) according to the model layout (“cutting data”) to obtain a trial sheet (300 after being cut by 102 in Figure 1) comprising cuts (Page 4 lines 28-34, Page 12 lines 14-20), each of the cuts in the trial sheet (300 after being cut by 102) being associated to one of the cuts of the model layout (“cutting data”) (clear from Page 4 lines 28-34 and Page 12 lines 14-20).
Bae teaches measuring, by an imaging system (50, 52, and 54 collectively in Figures 1 and 2), an image (the “image” described in Page 8 line 51 of Machine Translation of CN 116141424 A) of cuts in a trial sheet (F in Figure 1) (Page 8 lines 51-56 of Machine Translation of CN 116141424 A); the location of said cuts being defined by a model layout (the “cutting plan” described in Page 8 lines 53 of Machine Translation of CN 116141424 A) (clear from Page 8 lines 51-60 of Machine Translation of CN 116141424 A).
Although Karelin and Bae individually teach different limitations of independent claim 1, Karelin and Bae, taken alone or in combination with themselves or the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fail to teach or render obvious the combination of limitations shown in quotation marks above.
Regarding claims 2-20, they are indicated as being allowable solely because they depend from claim 1 which is allowable as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hendrik (US 2008/0022821) also teaches cutting a blank (6 in Figure 1) in a pressing station (2 in Figure 3) of a cardboard processing machine (100 in Figure 1) according to a model layout of a job recipe (the “job” described in Paragraph 0037) to obtain a trial sheet (6 after being cut by 2) comprising cuts (Paragraphs 0036 and 0037).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights