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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on November 14, 2025, has been entered. The amendment overcomes the claims objections, as well as the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b), previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed on October 10, 2025. Said rejections/objections are hereby withdrawn. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claims 1, 3 – 10, and 12 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 11 are canceled. Claim 12 is withdrawn. Claims 1, and 3 – 10 are pending and under examination.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIGUCHI (US 2020/0173105 A1, of record), in view of WILKE et al. (GB 1,091,080, of record), and Urich (US Pat. No. 5,082,188).
Regarding claim 1, HIGUCHI teaches a method for producing a nonwoven product [0026] from cellulose fibres (“cellulose fibers may have the compound cellulose as the main component and be fibrous, and may include, in addition to the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin.” [0026]) laid randomly in an air flow [0058]-[0061], comprising fraying the cellulose fibres [0032] in bonded form in at least one mill (defibrating section 13) [0031]-[0036] and
delivering the resulting fibres in an air flow from the at least one mill (13) to at least one depositing sieve [0034]-[0035] (e.g., mesh belt 151 [0041]-[0043]; second web forming section 19 [0058]-[0063]) and
laying the resulting fibres randomly on the at least one depositing sieve (e.g., mesh belt 191 in second web forming section 19 [0058]-[0063]), such that the nonwoven product (M8) is formed on the at least one depositing sieve (191) (see FIG. 1),
wherein the cellulose fibres (“feedstock” M1 [0026], “first web” M5 [0041]) are broken down in a pre-shredding device (e.g., “crushing section” 12 [0022], “subdividing section” 16 [0050]; see FIG. 1) into a pre-shredded cellulose fibre material (“crushed pieces” M2 [0028], “subdivided matter” M6 [0050]; see FIG. 1) deliverable in an air flow and the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material [0034]-[0035] is transferred to a buffer storage (chute 122 [0029]-[0031], housing section 162 [0050]-[0052]; see FIG. 1) to form a pre-shredded cellulose fibre material stockpile (see FIG. 1), and
wherein the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material (“crushed pieces” M2 [0028], “subdivided matter” M6 [0050]; see FIG. 1) is removed from the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material stockpile (e.g., chute 122, housing section 162) so formed with multiple removal devices (e.g., blower 173, blower 261, see [0023], [0035], [0052], [0057]), and
delivered to the at least one mill (e.g., defibrating section 13, see FIG. 1 [0034]-[0035]).
HIGUCHI does not explicitly disclose the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material being removed from the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material stockpile (e.g., from chute 122) so formed with multiple removal devices multiple removal devices being operated in parallel (e.g., HIGUCHI discloses a single removal device 261), wherein the cellulose fibres in bonded form being constituted as continuously bonded blocks or bales, or an entire block of stacked sheets without being segregated into individual sheets or subsets of sheets, or an entire roll of a wound web without being unwound, and the cellulose fibres in bonded form as thus constituted are fed as a whole to the pre-shredding device, the pre-shredding device being configured to shred as a whole the cellulose fibres in bonded form as thus constituted.
However, duplicating HIGUCHI’s removal device 261 would have been within the skill set of a person of ordinary skill in the art, with good expectation of predictably yielding no new and unexpected results. For example, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the removal device 261 and tube 242 in the method of HIGUCHI, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B):
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
One would have been motivated to duplicate the removal device 261 and tube 242 in the method of HIGUCHI for the purpose of scaling up the delivery of defibrated matter to the sorting section 14, for example.
Furthermore, the prior art of WILKE et al. teaches a method for producing a nonwoven product (“random asbestos web”, p. 2, lines 1-16) from cellulose fibres (e.g., cotton, see p. 2, lines 12-118) laid randomly in an air flow (p. 2, lines 8-16), wherein a fibre material is broken down in a pre-shredding device (“grinding mill 1”) into a pre-shredded fibre material deliverable in an air flow (p. 3, lines 4-9) and the pre-shredded fibre material is transferred to a buffer storage (“vertical opener 2”) to form a pre-shredded fibre material stockpile (p. 3, lines 4-13), and wherein the pre-shredded fibre material is removed from the pre-shredded fibre material stockpile (inside opener 2) so formed with multiple removal devices (e.g., see FIG. 1, air blast conveyor 3 ending in multiple removal devices on top of supply containers 4) operated in parallel (see FIG. 1), and delivering in the air flow to at least one mill (e.g., p. 3, lines 56-60 “The fibres separated by the sets of beater bars 17 of the Kirschner beater are carried by a current of air through a narrowing air duct 18 to a pair of perforated roll 19.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify in the same way the multiple removal devices (e.g., modified HIGUCHI with duplicated removal devices 261, tubes 242) in the method of HIGUCHI so that the multiple removal devices be operated in parallel, as suggested and taught by WILKE et al., and the result of the rearrangement would have produce the successful and predictable result of defibrated material being delivered to the sorting section by parallel removal devices, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C):
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.
As to the limitation “wherein the cellulose fibres in bonded form being constituted as continuously bonded blocks or bales, or an entire block of stacked sheets without being segregated into individual sheets or subsets of sheets, or an entire roll of a wound web without being unwound, and the cellulose fibres in bonded form as thus constituted are fed as a whole to the pre-shredding device, the pre-shredding device being configured to shred as a whole the cellulose fibres in bonded form as thus constituted.
HIGUCHI, however, discloses that for the feedstock M1 (analogous to the claimed “cellulose fibers in bonded form”), “It is possible to use a sheet-like material formed from fiber-containing matter containing cellulose fibers for the feedstock M1. The cellulose fibers may have the compound cellulose as the main component and be fibrous, and may include, in addition to the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. The form of the feedstock M1, such as woven textiles and non-woven textiles, is unimportant.” [0026].
Urich teaches an apparatus for reducing the particle size of various materials, e.g., grains, forage materials, waste wood, paper, waste products (such as spoiled food, e.g., fruits and vegetables), plant and animal waste products, compost, metal, glass, etc. (Col. 1, lines 15 – 32), “capable of processing several tons per hour of bulk material such as baled hay, straw and the like, very efficiently and smoothly” (Col. 10, lines 66 – 68, cont. Col. 11, lines 1 – 3), that “can be made in various sizes” (Col. 11, lines 4 – 10), and that “can be adapted to process materials of all types and sizes. For example, it may be used to reduce particle size of small particulate material, or materials of intermediate size (e.g., ear corn), or materials of large size, including stringy, entangled and fibrous materials such as hay, straw, paper, cardboard, etc. Even very large bales of material may be fed to the apparatus in whole form (e.g., square bales as large as 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet, or round bales up to 8 feet in diameter). Various other types of materials may also be processed, e.g., tree branches, bark, coal, PC boards, refuse, etc.” (Col. 12, lines 32 – 43).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the pre-shredding device (HIGUCHI “crushing section 12”) in the method for producing a nonwoven product from cellulose fibres of HIGUCHI/WILKE, with the apparatus of Urich, so that the cellulose fibres in bonded form being constituted as continuously bonded blocks or bales (e.g., “square bales”), or an entire block of stacked sheets (e.g., of paper, cardboard) without being segregated into individual sheets or subsets of sheets, or an entire roll of a wound web without being unwound (e.g., “round bales”), as suggested by the prior art of Urich (Col. 12, lines 32 – 43), and the cellulose fibres in bonded form as thus constituted are fed as a whole to the pre-shredding device, the pre-shredding device being configured to shred as a whole the cellulose fibres in bonded form as thus constituted, as suggested by the prior art of Urich (Col. 12, lines 32 – 43), since Urich teaches that Even very large bales of material may be fed to the apparatus in whole form (Col. 12, lines 32 – 43). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 3, HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cellulose fibres in bonded form are constituted as continuously bonded blocks or bales (as taught by Urich) and are fed block-by-block or bale-by-bale to the pre-shredding device (Urich Col. 12, lines 32 – 43), except for explicitly disclosing, with feed pauses between two successive blocks or bales, and wherein the removal of the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material is at least substantially continuous.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to split the feeding step by pausing between a determined amount of blocks or bales have been fed, for example if there is a need to slow or retard the rate of feeding, as suggested by Urich Col. 6, lines 18 – 22), since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes.” Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Furthermore, as per MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(E), “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes.” Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Regarding claim 5. HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the buffer storage (e.g., WILKE et al. supply containers 4) comprises an upper feed zone (e.g., see WILE et al. FIG. 1 having an upper feed zone being fed by an air blast conveyor 3 to supply containers 4), which passes into multiple lower removal zones (e.g., WILKE et al. FIG. 1 lower part of supply container 4) lying next to each other in parallel and extending vertically in a height direction (e.g., see WILKE et al. FIG. 1), and wherein the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material would be compacted in a removal zone (WILKE et al. 6), at least by the force of gravity (see WILKE et al. FIG. 1), and the compacted pre-shredded cellulose fibre material is removed at a the lower end of the removal zone (6), by a removal device (WILKE et al. delivery rolls 6) associated with the removal zone (see WILKE et al. FIG. 1) and fed to an air flow, by which the transfer of the shredded cellulose fibre material so removed to the at least one mill occurs (e.g., modified HIGUCHI/WILKE as discussed in claim 1, wherein modified HIGUCHI’s removal devices arranged in parallel to each other, remove the cellulose fiber material from defibrating (“mill”) section 13, HIGUCHI FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7. HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the air delivery flow by which the cellulose fibres are delivered from the at least one mill to the at least one depositing sieve is greater than the air delivery flow by which the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material is delivered from the buffer to the at least one mill, for which purpose a further air flow is added, upstream or downstream from the mill, to the air flow moving through the mill or moving past the mill and serving for the feeding of the pre-shredded cellulose fibre material to the mill (e.g., notice that HIGUCHI discloses a blower 261 making possible to suction the crushed pieces M2 from the tube 241 to the defibrating section 13, and which generates an air current heading toward the sorting section 14, and that a blower 262 (e.g., a further air flow) is installed in the middle of the tube 245, by which it is possible to generate a suction force in the suction section 153. “Accordingly, the formation of the first web M5 on the mesh belt 151 is promoted.” [0034]-[0035], [0047]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIGUCHI (US 2020/0173105 A1, of record), in view of WILKE et al. (GB 1,091,080, of record), and Urich (US Pat. No. 5,082,188), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of HEGG et al. (SE 414950 B, of record).
Regarding claim 4, HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich teaches the method according to claim 3, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein there is supplied to the buffer storage (e.g., HIGUCHI’s 122, 162; WILKE et al. 2), at least in a level-increasing phase, non-continuously over a predetermined span of time, more pre-shredded cellulose fibre material than is at least substantially removed, from the buffer storage in the same span of time.
In the same field of endeavor, HEGG et al. teaches a method and an apparatus for automatically controlling the amount of dry-torn or dry-defibrated cellulosic material which is transported per unit time to and/or from a storage container serving as a buffer storage in order to be continuously conveyed to an apparatus for further processing of the cellulosic material (lines 14-22). HEGG et al. discloses suppling a pre-shredding device with cellulose fibre material as continuously bonded blocks or bales made of multiple stacked sheets (see HEGG et al. FIG. 1, lines 85-97, lines 151-163).
HEGG et al. discloses that a number of modifications of the device may occur within the scope of the inventive concept, e.g., the controller can be arranged both for stepless control of the mass quantity in the storage container, in accordance with the exemplary embodiment, and for a control in stages. In the latter case, the control takes place by feeding the pulp to the container with a certain excess and interrupting when the amount of pulp has reached a predetermined, upper level in the container. When the mass quantity has dropped to a certain, lower level in the container, the supply to it was started again. This control method also means that the mass is maintained within a certain, quantity range in the container and the forming device is continuously supplied in a quantity well adapted to the purpose. (See HEGG et al. lines 207-216).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller in the method of HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich to supply more pre-shredded cellulose fibre material than is at least substantially removed, from the buffer storage in the same span of time for the purpose of avoiding, so that the mass of pre-shredded cellulose fibre material is maintained within a certain, quantity range in the container (e.g., buffer) and the forming device is continuously supplied in a quantity well adapted to the purpose, as taught by HEGG et al. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIGUCHI (US 2020/0173105 A1, of record), in view of WILKE et al. (GB 1,091,080, of record), and Urich (US Pat. No. 5,082,188), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nistri et al. (US Pat. No. 4,650,409, of record), OGUCHI (US 2021/0372047 A1, of record), and WESTPHAL et al. (DE 19835090 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 6. HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich teaches the method according to claim 1, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the at least one mill is one of the following: d. a hammer mill (4a); e. a disc mill (4b); f. an eddy current mill (4c).
Nistri et al. teaches a method for the dry-forming of paper, of the kind in which cellulose fibers suspended in a stream of air are deposited onto an air-pervious web under the action of vacuum, thus forming a layer of fibers (Col. 1, lines 1-14). Nistri et al. discloses a mill 1, such as a hammer mill, receiving the cellulosic material from 2, “said cellulosic material being desegregated into fibers which are entrained out of the mill suspended in a stream of air created by an exhauster 3, and such a suspension of fibers and air is fed through the conduit 4 into the formation head 5.” (Col. 3, lines 65 – 68, cont. Col. 4, lines 1-5).
OGUCHI teaches a fiber structure manufacturing apparatus and a fiber structure manufacturing method based on dry-type fiber processing technology [0002]. OGUCHI discloses a defibrator 30 (analogous to the claimed “at least one mill”; analogous to HIGUCHI defibrating section 13) for example, a disc refiner (analogous to the claimed “disc mill”), a turbo mill, a Ceren Miller, or a wastepaper defibrator including a wind generating mechanism, etc. can be used as the defibrator 30 [0027].
WESTPHAL et al. teaches a method for producing cellulose insulation and an image analysis method for error analysis of cellulose insulation materials, and discloses that it is known that cellulose insulation from wastepaper, cardboard or natural fiber materials and additives for fire protection and against biological attack can be produced in an eddy current mill with variable speed and frequency, adjustable grinding gap and variable material and air throughput (lines 19-24), so that the cellulose insulation material is homogeneous and consists of flakes with cores of approximately the same fibers and additives area (lines 49-59).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the at least one mill in the method of HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich with one of a hammer mill, as suggested and taught by the prior art of Nistri et al. (Col. 3, lines 65 – 68, cont. Col. 4, lines 1-5), a disc mill, as suggested and taught by the prior art of OGUCHI [0027], and/or an eddy current mill, as suggested and taught by the prior art of WESTPHAL et al. (lines 19-24, 49-59), since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify at least one mill in the method of HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich with e.g., an eddy current mill for the purpose of producing nonwoven product comprising a cellulose material which is homogeneous and consists of flakes with cores of approximately the same fibers and additives area, as taught by WESTPHAL et al. (lines 49-59). See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Claim(s) 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIGUCHI (US 2020/0173105 A1, of record), in view of WILKE et al. (GB 1,091,080, of record), and Urich (US Pat. No. 5,082,188), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WESTPHAL et al. (DE 19835090 A1).
Regarding claim 8. HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich teaches the method according to claim 7, except for, wherein the mill is an eddy current mill and a rotary speed or power of the eddy current mill is set or regulated such that speck-free cellulose fibres are produced in dependence on the quantity of the cellulose fibres delivered per unit of time and/or the type of the cellulose fibres.
WESTPHAL et al. teaches a method for producing cellulose insulation produced in an eddy current mill with variable speed and frequency, adjustable grinding gap and variable material and air throughput (lines 19-24), so that the cellulose insulation material is homogeneous and consists of flakes with cores of approximately the same fibers and additives area (lines 49-59).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mill in the method of HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich with an eddy current mill, as taught by WESTPHAL et al., for the purpose of producing nonwoven product comprising a cellulose material which is homogeneous and consists of flakes with cores of approximately the same fibers and additives area, as taught by WESTPHAL et al. (lines 49-59). See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 9. HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich/WESTPHAL teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein an optical measurement device (e.g., WESTPHAL et al. camera 11, lines 153-160) for determining a number of specks per unit of surface or volume in the nonwoven product produced is provided (see WESTPHAL et al. lines 161-165), and wherein a rotary speed or power of the mill is set in dependence on a measurement value of the optical measurement device (see WESTPHAL et al. lines 161-165).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIGUCHI (US 2020/0173105 A1, of record), in view of WILKE et al. (GB 1,091,080, of record), and Urich (US Pat. No. 5,082,188), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BCA VERTRIEBSGESELLSCHAFT MBH (AT 520236 A1; “AT’236”, of record).
Regarding claim 10. HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the nonwoven product (e.g., HIGUCHI M8) produced is removed from the at least one depositing sieve (HIGUCHI 191) and taken through two calendering rolls (HIGUCHI calender rollers 203, heating rollers 204 [0068]) in which the cellulose fibres of the nonwoven product are subjected to local pressure and bonded (e.g., see HIGUCHI [0066]-[0067], FIG. 1), except for the two calendaring rolls are knobbed.
AT’236 teaches a method for producing a continuous fiber nonwoven sheet (Abstract), and discloses that during calendering, the knobs formed by the connection points 3 are pressed together in the continuous fiber fleece 4 and the fibers 2 are melted together to form a film 5 by the preferably increased temperature of the rollers of the calender. In addition, as can be seen from a comparison of FIGS. 1 and 2, the height of the knobs formed by the connection points 3 is reduced, which also leads to a reduction in the overall height of the continuous fiber fleece film 1 compared to the continuous fiber fleece 4 (lines 169-179). AT’236 discloses that the roller combination is in the form of steel/steel or steel/plastic, in particular rubber. Other materials can also be provided for the rollers. The material of the roller determines, among other things, the pressure conditions acting on the continuous fiber fleece. By varying the material of the rollers, for example, a different shape of the knob structure defined by the connection points can be achieved. It is also possible to smooth the surface of the continuous fiber fleece film with steel rollers, for example (lines 120-126).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the calendaring rollers (e.g., HIGUCHI 203, 204) in the method of HIGUCHI/WILKE/Urich with a knobbed surface, as taught by AT’236, for the purpose of producing a nonwoven product of a desired thickness, since AT’236 teaches that the overall height of a continuous fiber fleece film (e.g., an nonwoven product) could be controlled by the height of the knobs formed on the calendaring rollers (AT’236 lines 169-179). See MPEP 2143 (I)( (Rationale G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MAURIZIO MEALLI (IT-1212608-B): “The object of the present invention is to obviate these drawbacks by proposing a machine for cutting roughly the baled textile waste in the IRA as the bales can be fed whole with a common elevator means, e.g. a fork carriage, and from which the processed material can be conveyed to another cutter for the next fine cut.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742