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 .
The election and amendment are noted.
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 5-7, 12-14 and 36 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.
In claim 36, ‘matching’ is unclear as to by what criterion. By length?
In step 2, ‘non-woven technology’ is unclear as to what that apparatus/process is and is merely a tautology because ‘non-woven sheets’ was already recited. See also similar language in step 2.2, in which ‘the’ web-forming technology does not appear to have antecedent basis. What, if anything, is the difference between these technologies?
The phrase ‘opening … to disperse’ is unclear. How does mere opening form a dispersion and what exactly is meant by opening? Is it cutting a cylindrical nanotube along its length so it can be made into a flat surface?
The phrase ‘short cutting … into long fibers’ is inconsistent and unclear. Further, ‘the fiber’ is inconsistent because in step 1, two diverse things are matched.
In claim 5, ‘high speed’ is subjective.
Allowable Subject Matter
The written opinion is noted, however the reference cited is not sufficient in the recitation of the details (in so far as comprehended) to warrant a rejection thereover. Thus, the claims are allowable over the prior art, as no other reference teaches or suggests the elements of match, cutting, opening, mixing the fibers as claimed and the specific parameters of the process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights