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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The amendment to the specification has rendered the objection of the previous office action moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The cancellation of claim 2 has rendered the 112 rejection of the previous office action moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maddaleni et al. (US 8215086).
As to claim 1, Maddaleni discloses a device for manufacturing rolls of web material with outer wrapping (Abstract). Maddaleni disclose that the device comprises of a plurality of material supply rollers 3, 5 (with centers spaced horizontally apart from one another), at least one tape head assembly including a tape hub B (in the form of a reel; C9, L55-60) to support a roll of tape, a plurality of guide rollers 53 spaced from one another in a vertical direction to guide tape to a material roll for wrapping, wherein the plurality of guide rollers are aligned along a vertical axis; wherein the tape hub B is at least partially offset from said vertical axis in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the vertical direction (Fig. 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D below).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
721
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the device of Maddaleni contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maddaleni et al. (US 8215086) in view of Raber (US 2927710).
As to claims 4-6 and 8-9, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Maddaleni fails to specifically teach or disclose the mechanism which holds the reel of tape material in place. It is the position of the Examiner that using a nut, hub bearing and hub block is known and conventional in the art and would have been obvious at the time of the invention. Raber discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use a hub bearing and hub block to hold and control the reel out of a tape material (C5, L72 – C6, L29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the hub bearing and hub block of Raber in the apparatus taught by Maddaleni because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for holding and controlling the reel out of a tape material in a taping apparatus. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, it is the position of the Examiner that using a nut/holding means is well known and conventional in the art to hold a roll of material in place along a rotational axis on a reel and would have been obvious to use in the apparatus of the references as combined, wherein the hub block and nut control the position of the tape reel along the rotational axis.
As to claim 7, the apparatus of claim 6 is taught as seen above. It is the position of the examiner that using a main plate to hold the components of a taping apparatus and it would have been obvious to affix the tape hub components to said main plate.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,559,335 in view of Maddaleni et al. (US 8215086).
Claim 1 of ‘335 recites all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 except that it does not recite that the tape hub is at least partially offset from the vertical axis of the guide rollers and the material support rollers are spaced apart from one another in a horizontal direction. Maddaleni discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to offset a tape hub from any vertical and horizontal axes that the guide rollers reside upon as well as spacing material support rollers apart from one another in a horizontal direction (Fig. 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tape hub placement and material support roller spacing of Maddaleni in the apparatus taught by claim 1 of ‘335 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional tape hub placement and material support roller placement in a taping apparatus. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, none of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited apparatus with first second and third guide rollers aligned along a vertical axis as currently claimed.
As to claim 21, the closest prior art of Maddaleni et al. (US 8215086) fails to teach the use of material support rollers which lie on a common horizontal axis as currently claimed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 10 recites a taping station to apply tape to one or more rolls of material, the taping station comprising: a plurality of material support rollers to support the one or more rolls of material, and at least one tape head assembly including (i) a main plate supporting a tape hub and a plurality of guide rollers, (ii) a mounting post arranged above the main plate in a vertical direction, and (iii) a spring extending in the vertical direction from the mounting post to the main plate to bias the main plate against linear translation in the vertical direction away from the mounting post. None of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited taping station that comprises of a tape head assembly with a main plate with a mounting post arranged above the main plate in a vertical direction, and a spring extending in the vertical direction from the mounting post to the main plate to bias the main plate against linear translation in the vertical direction away from the mounting post as currently claimed.
Claim 17 recites a taping station to apply tape to one or more rolls of material, the taping station comprising: a plurality of material support rollers to support the one or more rolls of material, and at least one tape head assembly including a pair of guide clips to support the at least one tape head assembly for linear movement along a pair of support structures, a main plate supporting a tape hub and a plurality of guide rollers, a mounting post interconnected with one of the pair of guide clips and arranged above the main plate in a vertical direction, and a spring extending in the vertical direction from the mounting post to the main plate to bias the main plate against linear translation in the vertical direction away from the mounting post. None of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited tape head assembly comprising of a mounting post interconnected with one of the pair of guide clips and arranged above the main plate in a vertical direction, and a spring extending in the vertical direction from the mounting post to the main plate to bias the main plate against linear translation in the vertical direction away from the mounting post.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that Maddaleni fails to teach or disclose that the apparatus has support rollers spaced apart from one another in the horizontal direction as currently claimed. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Maddaleni discloses that the taping station has at least two material support rollers 3 and 5 spaced apart from one another in the horizontal direction as currently claimed.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that Maddelani as modified by Raber fails to render claim 4 unpatentable. Applicant further asserts that since amended claim 1 is not anticipated by Maddelani, the rejection of claim 4 fails as well. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Maddaleni discloses that the taping station has at least two material support rollers 3 and 5 spaced apart from one another in the horizontal direction as currently recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 3 is not persuasive for the reasons given in the rejection above.
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 CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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 C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights