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 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:
“Processing unit” in claims 1, 8-9, and 12, because (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “processing” designates a function performed by the unit, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “processing” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for processing. Examiner is interpreting “processing unit” to be a drilling unit, a tufting unit, a milling unit, a grinding unit, or an equivalent structure based on the definition of “processing unit” in paragraph 0023 of Applicant’s specification.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Processing unit” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boucherie (DE102020109780A1), provided by Applicant in IDS filed 6/29/2023 and resubmitted as a PDF in office action filed 9/29/2025 for ease of referencing.
Regarding claim 1, Boucherie discloses an apparatus for producing bristle products (0039, where “a machine for producing brushes” corresponds to an apparatus for producing bristle products), the apparatus comprising: at least two stations (Fig. 3 elements 16 and 18); a transport apparatus (Fig. 3 element 11) with which at least one of bristle product bodies or the bristle products (Fig. 3 element 32) to be processed are movable from one said station to another said station (0040); at least two transport planes on the transport apparatus (Fig. 5, where each element 12 corresponds to a single transport plane and therefore there are two transport planes), the at least two transport planes are independent of one another (0041) and in which the at least one of the bristle product bodies or the bristle products are independently suppliable to the stations for at least one of processing or handling (0046 where stuffing with bristles corresponds to processing and 0041 where the transport planes (12) being operated independently of each other means that at least one of the bristle product bodies or the bristle products are also independently suppliable to the stations for processing); and at least one movably guided processing unit (Fig. 3 element 52) on at least one said station (0046), the at least one processing unit moves axially up and down to access the processing positions at each of the transport planes (Fig. 3, where the element P shows the up/down direction, 0046), and the at least one processing unit is adjustable in processing positions assigned to the transport planes in order to process the at least one of the bristle products or the bristle product bodies on each of the transport planes (Fig. 3, 0046).
Regarding claim 2, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least one of a) the apparatus comprises a carousel machine or b) the transport planes in each case have a closed transport track (Fig. 5, 0008 and 0041, where “a track” corresponds to a closed transport track).
Regarding claim 3, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses in each transport plane, at least one transport holder (Fig. 3 element 30) for at least of one said bristle product body or at least one said bristle product (Fig. 3, 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the at least one transport holder is movable in a plurality of axes (0011 and 0042).
Regarding claim 5, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses a plurality of said transport holders of at least one said transport plane are movable independently of one another along a respective transport track of the respective transport plane or a plurality of said transport holders of at least one said transport plane are rigidly interlinked (Figs. 3 and 5 show the plurality of transport holders (30) being rigidly interlinked through element 12).
Regarding claim 6, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses at least one of a) the transport planes each have at least one of a transport guide or a rack for the transport holders, or b) the apparatus further comprises a transport drive (Fig. 3 element 28, 0007 and 0041).
Regarding claim 8, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least one said station has a guide along which the at least one processing unit is movable into the processing positions assigned to the transport planes (Fig. 3, 0046, where the structure of the at least one station (18) which the at least one processing unit (52) is “mounted so as to be adjustable (see arrow P)” corresponds to a guide).
Regarding claim 9, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least one transport holder (Fig. 3 element 30) that is mounted movably along a movement axis (Fig. 5 element M, 0041) which is oriented at least one of transversely or at a right angle with respect to a transport direction of the transport apparatus (Fig. 5, 0057, where the movement axis (M) is oriented transversely or at a right angle with respect to the counter clockwise rotation direction shown Fig. 5 and discussed in 0057 which corresponds to a transport direction) or parallel to a movement of the processing unit of one said station between the processing positions assigned to the different transport planes.
Regarding claim 10, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least two stations comprise at least one of a drilling station (Fig. 3 element 16), a tufting station (Fig. 3 element 18), a final processing station or a handling station.
Regarding claim 11, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one processing unit comprises a drilling unit, a tufting unit (Fig. 3 element 52), a final processing unit, a milling unit, or a grinding unit.
Regarding claim 12, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses at least one positioning drive for at least one of the at least one transport holder or the at least one processing unit (0046, where the structure which provides the motion to the processing unit (52) corresponds to at least one positioning drive).
Regarding claim 13, Boucherie discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least one controller configured for activating at least one of the transport apparatus or the at least two stations (0016, where “a control” corresponds to at least one controller configured for activating at least one of the transport apparatus).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Boucherie fails to disclose two independent transport levels. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Boucherie does disclose “at least two transport planes on the transport apparatus (Fig. 5, where each element 12 corresponds to a single transport plane and therefore there are two transport planes), the at least two transport planes are independent of one another (0041)”. See rejection of claim 1 above. Applicant seems to element 26 of Boucherie as the transport plane, but Applicant did not argue examiner’s interpretation of two independent transport planes supplied in office action filed 9/29/2025 and even agrees that elements 12 (which examiner interpreted as at least two transport planes) are indeed “moved independently from each other” (see the last paragraph on page 7 of Arguments/Remarks) and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Examiner notes that it appears that Applicant is attempting to argue that examiner’s interpretation of independent movement is different than that of the instant application. If this is the case, examiner notes that Applicant has not supplied any further limitations on how the independent movement occurs or any structural differences which cause this different independent movement and that examiner has interpreted independent movement under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to simply mean that movement of two objects is capable of occurring independent from one another.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723