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 1-14 and 16-28 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected for the recitation of “the blast layer has fewer entanglements of said staples than the distal zone”. Applicant argues applying barbed needles to only one side creates higher density in the distal zone. This does not provide support for such an amendment from the specification as originally filed. While applying barbed needles from one side of the fabric may create higher density, this is not always the case and the specification as originally filed does not state this occurs. Higher density on the distal side may not occur if the fibers move to an area other than the distal layer, depends on the needle density and needle size, if the density of the web is already high, and/or depending on the type of needle used. Therefore, support for such an amendment is not found in the specification as originally filed. Applicant is advised to point to support or amend or cancel the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected for the recitation of “the multitude of staples has neutral or positive buoyancy”. Applicant points to claim 2 and page 30, line 27 through page 31 line 2 for support of such an amendment. Support for such an amendment is not found in the locations pointed to by Applicant nor anywhere else that The Office has found in the specification as originally filed, Applicant is advised to point to support or amend or cancel the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected for the recitation of “A flexible macroparticulate structure comprising a multitude of adjoining macroparticles”. Applicant has pointed to several passages for support of such an amendment. The Office has not found support to recite both the entire structure is a microparticulate structure and that such a structure comprises a multitude of adjoining macroparticles. The original claim language of particles and particulate structure is supported. Applicant is advised to point to support or amend or cancel the claim.
Claim 22-24 is rejected for the recitation of adjoining macroparticles are substantially semi-spherical and points to several passages for support of such an amendment. The Office has not found support for such an amendment is not found in the locations pointed to by Applicant nor anywhere else that The Office has found in the specification as originally filed, Applicant is advised to point to support or amend or cancel the claim.
Claim 25 is rejected for the recitation of the filler being non-elastomeric and points to several passages for support of such an amendment. The Office has not found support for such an amendment is not found in the locations pointed to by Applicant nor anywhere else that The Office has found in the specification as originally filed, Applicant is advised to point to support or amend or cancel the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789