DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 05/19/2025, claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 8 are currently amended. No claim is canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn. Claims 5-8 are considered in this Office 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 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:
“a processing roll supporter” (claim 8 line 3)
“separation preventor” (claim 8 line 6)
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.
“a processing roll supporter that supports the processing rolls in a manner that a distance between the processing rolls is changeable” (claim 8 lines 3-4) with corresponding structure/scope disclosed in at least paragraphs [0084-0087] and figs. 4A-B (Instant Specification, as published).
“separation preventor for disengageably fixing or suppressing within a predetermined range an amount of engagement between the irregular portions of the processing rolls” (claim 8 lines 6-8) with corresponding structure/scop disclosed in at least paragraphs [0090-0093]: air cylinders 80 with a lock mechanism 60; [0095-0098]: a processing roll holding device 80; [0099-0102]: the bearing portions of the processing rolls 12, 14 themselves; and figs. 4A-B, 5A-B (Instant Specification, as published).
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 5-8 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 5 recites the limitation “rotation” in line 16. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “rotation” (claim 5 line 11), or (2) another new rotation. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claims 6-8 are rejected as being dependent from claim 5.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims 5-8 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (JP 2013072162 A).
Regarding claim 5, Bando teaches a sheet processing device (manufacturing apparatus 11) comprising a pair of processing rolls (a pair of gear rolls 22, 23) arranged to sandwich a conveyance path on which a base material sheet (a continuous fiber sheet 10) is conveyed, the processing rolls rotating in a manner that irregular portions (teeth 25, 26) formed along respective outer peripheral faces engage with each other with a clearance ([0012, 0015, 0017] and figs. 1-4),
wherein the base material sheet is conveyed in a manner that the base material sheet is in contact with and along the outer peripheral face of one processing roll of the processing rolls immediately prior to passing between the processing rolls ([0012, 0033, 0035] and figs. 1-4), and
the following are further provided:
a driving roll (a first drive roll 20) disposed along the conveyance path until the base material sheet reaches the one processing roll, and rotationally driven to send out the base material sheet ([0015-0016], figs. 1, 2); and
a tension control device (a feed-off drive unit 12 for the first gear roll 20 and multiple guide rolls 21a-c, driving means of the rotation shafts 30, 31 of the gear rolls 22, 23, and driving means for second driving roll 19) that controls rotation of one or both of the driving roll and the processing rolls so that a tension in the conveyance direction applied to the base material sheet immediately before the base material sheet reaches the one processing roll (A) [becomes less than 10% of a breaking load of the base material sheet in the conveyance direction prior to processing] ([0015-0016]: feed-off drive unit 12 for adjusting the supply amount of the sheet 10 while applying a constant tension; [0018]: the rotation shafts 30, 31 of the gear rolls 22, 23 are provided with driving means (not shown) for independently transmitting driving force; [0018]: the continuous fiber sheet 10 in a relaxed and substantially unstretched state is supplied to the meshing portion 28 between the gear rolls 22, 23 by the delivery drive unit 12, the "substantially unstretched state" of the continuous fiber sheet 10 means that the sheet itself is not stretched, and includes the case where slight distortion occurs during the process of transporting the continuous fiber sheet 10, and the elongation ratio of the non-stretchable sheet 10 in such a state is approximately 1.05 times or less),
wherein the tension control device (a feed-off drive unit 12 for the first gear roll 20 and multiple guide rolls 21a-c, driving means of the rotation shafts 30, 31 of the gear rolls 22, 23, and driving means for second driving roll 19) controls rotation of one or both of the driving roll and the processing rolls (B) [in a manner that the base material is stretched in the conveyance direction and subjected to stretching processing when passing through between the processing rolls] ([0017-0022]: pleated formation; figs. 1-4).
Bando does not explicitly disclose the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above – i.e., the deficiency (A) and (B). However, such limitations are directed to intended use or capability of the claimed apparatus as shown below:
Regarding the deficiency (A), when the relaxed and substantially unstretched state (e.g., elongation ratio is 1.05 time or less) is continuously fed into the meshing portion of the system ([0018]), it means a tension applied to the sheet 10 is less than a braking load (i.e., less than 100 % of the braking load as not being broken), and thus, the tension of Bando has an overlapping range with the recited range at less than 10 % of a breaking load. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the tension control device (i.e., driving device for each of the gear rolls 20, 22 and 23) is capable of applying less than 10% of a breaking load, or the specific load would be considered as intended use ([0016, 0021]: the peripheral speed V1 of the first driving roll 20 and the peripheral speed V2 of the gear rolls 22, 23, and the ratio of the V1/V2 is 101 to 200 %, and the supply amount (i.e., represented as the ratio) is proportional to the depth D of the meshing portion between the teeth 25, 26 of the gear rolls 22, 23 and can be increased or decrease appropriately according to the depth D). Thus, the limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding the deficiency (B), the limitation “in a manner that the base material is stretched in the conveyance direction and subjected to stretching processing when passing through between the processing rolls” is directed to intended use or capability of the claimed apparatus. Bando teaches the sheet processing device comprising the tension control device (i.e., a feed-off drive unit 12 for the first gear roll 20 and multiple guide rolls 21a-c, driving means of the rotation shafts 30, 31 of the gear rolls 22, 23, and driving means for second driving roll 19) as claimed (Bando: [0015-0022], figs. 1-4). Thus, the peripheral speeds of each rolls are capable of being manipulated or can be controlled for its intended use. See MPEP 2114. Although the respective speeds of the rolls 20, 22, 23, and 19 of Bando are directed to impart flexibility on the base material in a sustainably unstretched state ([0016]: V1/V2 is approximately 101 to 200%; [0017-0022]: pleated formation; figs. 1-4), the respective speeds of the rolls 20, 22, 23 and 19 can be adjusted to stretch the base material in a certain level by controlling the respective speeds – e.g., by increasing the speed V2 of rolls 22, 23 relative to the speed V1 of roll 20, and/or increasing the speed of roll 19 relative to the speed of roll 20. Of note, the Bando’s ratio of V1 to V2 (101 to 200%) anticipates the corresponding ratio of 1.5 times (i.e., 150%) as disclosed in Instant Specification (Instant Specification: [0040]: the circumferential velocity of the first driving roll 16 is made 1.5 times that of the processing rolls 12 and 14; as published). Thereby, Bando teaches all the limitations regarding the sheet processing device as recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Bando teaches the sheet processing device according to claim 5, further comprising a heater (a heating means) that heats the one processing roll so that the temperature of the outer peripheral face of the one processing roll becomes not less than 10 °C and not more than 60 °C ([0022]: both or either one of the gear rolls 22, 23, may be heated to a predetermined temperature by a heating means, the heating temperature is at least below the heat welding temperature, approximately 100 °C or less when polyethylene is used as a thermoplastic fiber). Here, although the disclosed temperature range does not anticipate the recited temperature range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 10 °C and 60 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, the heating means is capable of controlling the heating temperature in a specific range, or the specific range would be considered as intended use. The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2114.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (JP 2013072162 A) in view of Nakamura (US 20190224053 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bando teaches the sheet processing device according to claim 5, wherein the base material sheet is conveyed in a manner that the base material sheet is along the outer peripheral face of the one processing roll ([0012, 0015-0021], figs. 1-2) [within a range of not less than 180° and not more than 270° with a rotation center line of the one processing roll as the center].
Bando does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation as presented above, but Nakamura teaches the limitations as follows:
Nakamura teaches a stretchable sheet manufacturing apparatus ([0001]). Nakamura teaches that the regulating roll (first roll) 61 regulates the range of the contact angle θ over which the elastic members F are wound around the guide roll (second roll) 62, typically, the contact angle θ is preferably about 90° to about 270°, and this is for preventing the elastic members F from coming off the second guide grooves G2 ([0135], fig. 13A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the contact angle of the base sheet wound around the gear roll 22 of Bando to be about 90° to about 270° as taught by Nakamura in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of contacting the base sheet around the gear roll without being coming off from the outer surface of the gear roll (Nakamura: derived from [0135]). Upon the modification, although the disclosed angle range does not anticipate the recited angle range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between about 180° and 270°. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (JP 2013072162 A) in view of Azuma (JP 2011004817 A).
Regarding claim 8, Bando teaches the sheet processing device according to claim 5, further comprising:
[a processing roll supporter that supports the processing rolls in a manner that a distance between the processing rolls is changeable];
a processing roll moving device that moves at least one of the processing rolls ([0018]: the rotation shafts 30, 31 of the gear rolls 22, 23 are provided with driving means (not shown) for independently transmitting driving force); and
[separation preventor for disengageably fixing or suppressing within a predetermined range an amount of engagement between the irregular portions of the processing rolls].
Bando does not specifically teach the bracketed limitations as presented above, but Azuma teaches the limitations as follows:
Azuma teaches a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a sheet for an
absorbent article ([0001]). The manufacturing apparatus 20 comprises a pair of stretching rolls 31 ([0032], figs. 2, 3), a processing roll supporter that supports the processing rolls in a manner that a distance between the processing rolls is changeable (fig. 3, [0032]: the stretching roll 31 is rotatably supported in the housing 40 via chocks 38, and using an actuator 39 such as a hydraulic cylinder, the amount of meshing between the toothed portions 34 can be easily adjusted; ; of note, the disclosed structure corresponds to the one(s) of Instant Specification. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation); and separation preventor for disengageably fixing or suppressing within a predetermined range an amount of engagement between the irregular portions of the processing rolls (fig. 3, [0032]: each of these end portions 35e, 35e (of the rotating shaft portion 35 of the stretching roll 31) is provided with a chock 38, 38 that houses a bearing 37 that rotatably supports the rotating shaft portion 35 of the stretching roll 31; of note, the disclosed structure corresponds to the one(s) of Instant Specification. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation)
Both Bando and Azuma teaches a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a stretchable sheet (Bando: [0001]; Azuma: [0001]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the pair of processing rolls of Bando to be movably and adjustably fixed using the known configuration/arrangement of the roll support mechanism and the separation prevention means as taught by Azuma in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forcing the sheet into a desired angle to be formed between patterns on the outer peripheral surfaces of the rolls so as to allow the sheet to have a variety of desired shapes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the applicants have modified the claims with the latest amendment dated 05/19/2025, and wherein the arguments are based on these changes.
RE: Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The amended limitations of “a processing roll supporter” (claim 8 line 3) and “separation preventor” (claim 8 line 6) are still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the limitations 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 a structural modifier.
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.
RE: The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5
The Applicant argues (see pages 6-10) that Bando does not specifically teach the limitation “base material is stretched in the conveyance direction and subjected to stretching processing when passing through between the processing rolls” as Bando does not teach stretching processing but forming a flexible sheet by imparting a 3D structure (e.g., pleats) in a substantially unstretched state.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5).
At first, the limitation “in a manner that the base material is stretched in the conveyance direction and subjected to stretching processing when passing through between the processing rolls” is directed to intended use or capability of the claimed apparatus. Bando teaches the sheet processing device comprising the tension control device (i.e., a feed-off drive unit 12 for the first gear roll 20 and multiple guide rolls 21a-c, driving means of the rotation shafts 30, 31 of the gear rolls 22, 23, and driving means for second driving roll 19) as claimed (Bando: [0015-0022], figs. 1-4). Thus, the peripheral speeds of each rolls are capable of being manipulated or can be controlled for its intended use. See MPEP 2114. Although the respective speeds of the rolls 20, 22, 23, and 19 of Bando are directed to impart flexibility on the base material in a sustainably unstretched state ([0016]: V1/V2 is approximately 101 to 200%; [0017-0022]: pleated formation; figs. 1-4), the respective speeds of the rolls 20, 22, 23 and 19 can be adjusted to stretch the base material in a certain level by controlling the respective speeds – e.g., by increasing the speed V2 of rolls 22, 23 relative to the speed V1 of roll 20, and/or increasing the speed of roll 19 relative to the speed of roll 20. Of note, the Bando’s ratio of V1 to V2 (101 to 200%) anticipates the corresponding ratio of 1.5 times (i.e., 150%) as disclosed in Instant Specification (Instant Specification: [0040]: the circumferential velocity of the first driving roll 16 is made 1.5 times that of the processing rolls 12 and 14; as published).
Secondly, such claimed stretchability of the base material (i.e., “the base material is stretched”) would be also driven from the base material itself. When the base material is made of a fibrous sheet which is substantially inelastic (Bando: [0001, 0013]), the base material may not be subjected to stretching process as much as another base material made of a stretchable nonwoven fabric (c.f. Instant Specification: [0068], as published) under the same tension applied thereto. Thus, the claimed limitation is also directed to articles worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and it does not effect the structure of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2115.
Thereby, the newly added limitations does give patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention, and thus, Bando teaches all the limitations regarding the sheet processing device as recited in claim 5.
Therefore, claim 5 remains rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morita (US 20120181722 A1) teaches a method for producing a flexible sheet with respectively controlled peripheral velocities of first drive rollers, corrugated rollers, and second drive rollers (claims 1-5).
Morita (US 20090133180 A1) teaches a sheet processing apparatus 1 having a pair of rolls 2 and 3 with teeth on their periphery, and the stretchability of a base sheet 10 can be imparted by tension means 5 and 6 disposed upstream and downstream of the pair of the rolls 2 and 3 (abstract, fig. 1, [0023-0029]).
Krumm (US 20030067091 A1) teaches a method and a device for production of a web with good breathing properties (abstract, figs.1, 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744