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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 03 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 6, it is reasonably clear from the disclosure that the “width of the pressing area” is referring to the gap between adjacent rollers. Since the terms “gap” or “gap width” are more commonly used in the related art, the interpretation of this limitation has been noted here.
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 limitations are:
i. Claims 1-2 and 8, “substrate outputting module”, which has been interpreted as the combination of an inputting part as interpreted below, a heating part as interpreted below and an outputting part as interpreted below, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 14).
ii. Claims 1 and 4, “fiber material outputting module”, which has been interpreted as a roll, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 16; Figure 2).
iii. Claim 2, “inputting part”, which has been interpreted as a hopper, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s Figure 2, which provides a schematic shape 12 commonly used for indicating a hopper.
iv. Claim 2, “heating part”, which has been interpreted as a conductive threaded rod. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 14).
v. Claims 2-3, “outputting part”, which has been interpreted as a shaping die, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s Figure 3, which provides element 14 which would have been understood by the person of ordinary skill in the art to indicate a shaping die. See also (Applicant’s published application, paragraph 14).
vi. Claim 4, “resistance mechanism”, which has not been described in the specification or illustrated in the figures with sufficient corresponding structure to perform the function of providing resistance. Paragraph 17 of Applicant’s published application describes this limitation in general terms, but does not provide any description of structure.
vii. Claim 6, “adjustment unit”, which has been interpreted as the combination of a screw and a thread bore, or a gear set, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 20).
viii. Claim 8, “trimming module”, which has been interpreted as an edge trimmer, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 20).
ix. Claim 8, “cleaning module”, which has not been described in the specification or illustrated in the figures with sufficient corresponding structure to perform the function of cleaning. Paragraph 20 of Applicant’s published application describes this limitation in general terms, but does not provide any description of structure.
x. Claim 8, “stretching module”, which has not been described in the specification or illustrated in the figures with sufficient corresponding structure to perform the function of “stretching”, which is disclosed as providing resistance. Paragraph 20 of Applicant’s published application describes this limitation in general terms, but does not provide any description of structure.
xi. Claim 8, “rolling module”, which has been interpreted as a take-up roll, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 20; Figure 2).
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. Additional limitations which are not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are:
xii. Claims 1 and 5-7, “pressing module”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recited structure of the first and second rollers.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, as noted above, the “resistance mechanism”, “cleaning module” and “stretching module” limitations invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). However, as detailed above, the specification and drawings fail to disclose sufficient structure for performing the corresponding functions of each of these limitations. Accordingly, the original disclosure fails to show possession of the corresponding structure sufficient to perform the functions of these limitations at the time the application was filed, as required by 35 USC 112(f).
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 2-4 and 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.
Regarding claim 2, line 4, it is unclear if “orderly disposed” was intended to indicate the recited parts are sequentially disposed in the recited order in the output direction. The examiner suggests --sequentially in the recited order in the output direction;--.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, as noted above, the “resistance mechanism”, “cleaning module” and “stretching module” limitations invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). However, as detailed above, the specification and drawings fail to disclose sufficient structure for performing the corresponding functions of each of these limitations. Accordingly, it is unclear what corresponding structure is required for each of these limitations.
Regarding claim 8, lines 5-7, it is unclear if “orderly disposed toward a direction of the pressing module away from the substrate outputting module” was intended to indicate the recited modules are sequentially disposed in the recited order in the output direction. The recited direction here appears to be the same as the output direction of claim 1, and thus it is unclear if the recited direction is referring to the output direction or is meant to be different from the output direction. The examiner suggests --sequentially in the recited order in the output direction--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (TW M630324 U, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a thermoplastic fiber composite film manufacturing mechanism comprising a substrate outputting module 10 configured to continuously output a plastic substrate 11 formed in a film shape and in a molten status along an output direction; a fiber material outputting module 20 disposed on one side of the substrate outputting module, the fiber material outputting module having a rolled-up fiber sheet material 21, the fiber material outputting module configured to continuously output the fiber sheet material; and a pressing module 30 disposed on one side of the fiber material outputting module away from the substrate outputting module, the pressing module comprising a first roller 31 and a second roller 32 neighboring each other, with a pressing area formed between the first roller and the second roller, the pressing module receiving the plastic substrate and the fiber sheet material, the plastic substrate and the fiber sheet material moving to the pressing area, such that the first roller and the second roller press the plastic substrate and the fiber sheet material together in parallel to form a composite film 34 (Figures 2-3; page 3, lines 3-36).
Regarding claims 2-8, Wu clearly teaches these additional limitations (Figures 2-3; pages 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745