Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9-30-25 has been entered.
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
2. 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.
Regarding claim 3, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed thread feed means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraph [0015] of applicant’s specification the thread feed means is detailed as any possible and conceivable thread feed means is covered by the scope of the present invention. Usually this will be a rotor known from the prior art, which winds the threads around the tie-off points and the tie-off region.
Regarding claim 14, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed thread feed means in that no associated functional language related to the thread feed means is claimed.
Regarding claim 15, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed thread feed means in that no associated functional language related to the thread feed means is claimed.
Regarding claim 15, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed artificial intelligence means in that no corresponding structural features are claimed and the artificial intelligence means is related to the functional language of determining the movement of the thread means and/or displacers. As seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraph [0022] of applicant’s specification the artificial intelligence means is detailed as the present invention provides that a camera is installed, for example in the region of the skin intake, on the rotor housing, which camera takes photographs of the skin and identifies the skin type with the aid of an artificial intelligence means. The artificial intelligence means can clearly assign objects by image comparison. The product quality can also be determined by a corresponding artificial intelligence means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-18 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 1 is 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. It is unclear to whether the formed product detailed in lines 6-7 is the same or different than the product detailed in line 1 and/or the successive products detailed in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether the first tie-off point detailed in line 6 is the same or different than the two tie-off points detailed in lines 4-5. Further, “the thread” in line 15 lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear to whether the food product detailed in line 16 is the same or different than the food detailed in line 2. Further, it is unclear to whether the second tie-off point is the same or different than the two tie-off points detailed in lines 4-5. Further, it is unclear to whether food detailed in line 24 is the same or different than the food detailed in line 2 and the food product detailed in line 16. Further, it is unclear to whether the thread detailed throughout claim 1 is the same or different than the string detailed in line 2.
Regarding claim 2, “the same thread” will need to be made consistent with any amendments to claim 1 related to the claimed thread.
Claim 3 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed thread feed means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the thread feed means is detailed as any possible and conceivable thread feed means is covered by the scope of the present invention. Usually this will be a rotor known from the prior art, which winds the threads around the tie-off points and the tie-off region. The phrase any possible and conceivable thread feed means and the term “usually” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to what thread feed means are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the speed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the winding speed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is 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. It is unclear as to whether the transparent skin detailed in claim 7 is the same or different than the skin detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim 8 is 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. It is unclear to how the food is filled into the skin.
Claim 12 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. It is unclear to whether the tie-off region being wound relates to the wrapping detailed in parent claim 1. Further, “the first displacer” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the movement of the further displacer" in line 2 and “the movement of a thread feed means” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 is 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed artificial intelligence means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the artificial intelligence means is detailed as the present invention provides that a camera is installed, for example in the region of the skin intake, on the rotor housing, which camera takes photographs of the skin and identifies the skin type with the aid of an artificial intelligence means. The artificial intelligence means can clearly assign objects by image comparison. The product quality can also be determined by a corresponding artificial intelligence means. Applicant has not disclosed any specific structural components related to the artificial intelligence means and therefore it is unclear to what encompasses the artificial intelligence means as claimed.
Claim 16 is 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. It is unclear to whether the skin detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the skin detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim 17 is 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. It is unclear to whether the displacer is the same or different than the displacer and/or further displacer detailed in parent claim 9. Further, “the movement of the displacer” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is 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. It is unclear to whether the displacer is the same or different than the displacer and/or further displacer detailed in parent claim 9. Further, “the movement of a rotor” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 9-30-25 obviates the prior art rejections detailed in the last office action dated 6-30-25.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643