CTNF 18/425,538 CTNF 94150 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-19 and 21-23 are pending in this application. Claims 13-17 have been previously withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 18-19 and 21-23 are being treated on the merits. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 12/16/2025. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed features "each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first roller includes a plurality of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller" and "each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the second roller includes a plurality of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller" in claim 2 as to scenarios each tooth including three or more unevenly spaced radial projections must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification Applicant, in the Amendment filed on 06/04/2025, stated that the amendments to the specification are made to "the substitution specification filed on May 15, 2024"; however, the record does not show a substitute specification filed on May 15, 2024. Applicant is required to carefully review all the submitted files in the prosecution history, and correct possible errors in the specification. No new matter should be added. The amendment to the Specification filed 06/04/2025 is objected to because: The amendment includes paragraph 0058, while the previous version of the specification as filed, that is the original Specification filed 01/29/2024, does not have paragraph 0058; The text in paragraphs 0039, 0043, 0044 and 0046 do not match the corresponding paragraphs in the original Specification. Appropriate correction is required. 07-44 AIA The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In claim 22, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "a spacing between one tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first roller and a pair of adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth of the second roller is non-uniform" . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 4-5 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 4, "the base" appears to read "a base" as it is the first time the limitation is recited; In claim 5, line 6, "the base" appears to read "a base"; In claim 21, multiple instances of "radial protrusions " should read "radial projections " for consistency; In claim 21, line 4, "the base" appears to read "a base" . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 7, 9, 19 and 23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the roller is a first roller, the apparatus further comprising a second roller having radial projections intermeshed with the radial projections of the first roller such that a pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller lies between a pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller where the rollers oppose each other at a roller the gap ", which renders the claim indefinite. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the roller" in the claim. Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has already defined "a first roller" having a plurality of teeth intermeshed with a plurality of teeth of "a second roller". It is unclear which roller is being referred to. Second, due to the same reason, it is unclear whether "a first roller" in claims 1 and 7 is referring to the same first roller and whether "a second roller" in claims 1 and 7 is referring to the same second roller. Third, it is unclear what is being referred to by "at a roller the gap" due to the grammar. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "wherein a pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller lies between a pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller where the rollers oppose each other at the gap". Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein the roller is a first roller, the apparatus further comprising a second roller having radial projections intermeshed with the radial projections of the first roller such that a plant stem passed between the rollers is subjected to , during the four-point bending in which, the plant stem spans a distance…", which renders the claim indefinite. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the roller" in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has already defined "a first roller" having a plurality of teeth intermeshed with a plurality of teeth of "a second roller". It is unclear which roller is being referred to. Second, due to the same reason, it is unclear whether "a first roller" in claims 1 and 9 is referring to the same first roller and whether "a second roller" in claims 1 and 9 is referring to the same second roller. Third, it is unclear what the plant stem "is subjected to" in the context of the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "wherein the first roller and the second roller are configured such at a plant stem passed between the rollers is subjected to the four-point bending in which, the plant stem spans a distance…". Claim 19 recites the limitation " wherein the roller is a first roller and the apparatus further comprises a second roller , the apparatus being configured to subject a plant stem to , during the four-point bending between the first and second rollers, during which the plant stem spans a distance…", which renders the claim indefinite. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the roller" in the claim. Claim 19 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has already defined "a first roller" having a plurality of teeth intermeshed with a plurality of teeth of "a second roller". It is unclear which roller is being referred to. Second, due to the same reason, it is unclear whether "a first roller" in claims 1 and 19 is referring to the same first roller and whether "a second roller" in claims 1 and 19 is referring to the same second roller. Third, it is unclear what Applicant is referring by "subject a plant stem to", and what the plant stem is subjected to in the context of the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "wherein the apparatus is configured to subject a plant stem to the four-point bending between the first and second rollers, during which the plant stem spans a distance…". Claim 23 recites the limitation "wherein a span ratio of each roller is in a range from 2.5 to 4.0, the span ratio being a ratio of a support span to a load span, the support span being defined between the second pair of unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller , and the load span being defined between the first pair of unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller ", which renders the claim indefinite. As the limitation recites a span ratio of each roller , the span ratio being a ratio of a support span to a load span, the support span and the load span should be features of the same roller. How can the support span and the load span be defined with respect to different rollers? As no reasonable interpretation can be made, this limitation is not examined in this Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomb (US 2024/0117527 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Newcomb discloses a stem breaking apparatus (roller system 400; fig 8A; paras. 0030, 0045, 0047; claim 9) comprising a first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A; para. 0047) having unevenly spaced radial projections (as provided by W-shaped teeth; fig. 8A; para. 0048) provided by a plurality of teeth (teeth 414-1, 414-2…, 414T; fig. 8A; para. 0048) of the first roller intermeshed with a plurality of teeth (W-shaped teeth 424-1…, 424-R; fig. 8A; para. 0048) of a second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A; para. 0047) having unevenly spaced radial projections (see fig. 8A; para. 0048) provided by the plurality of teeth of the second roller (see fig. 8A; para. 0048), wherein the first and second rollers are arranged such that a plant stem passed through a gap (see annotated fig. 8A) between the first and second rollers in a lengthwise direction of the plant stem (see annotated fig. 8A; paras. 0045, 0047) is subjected to four-point bending (see annotated fig. 8A) in which the plant stem is loaded by the rollers at only four distinct points along said lengthwise direction (see annotated fig. 8A). PNG media_image1.png 354 876 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 8A from US 2024/0117527 A1 Newcomb does not explicitly disclose wherein in the four-point bending, the plant stem is loaded by the rollers at only four distinct points along said lengthwise direction. However, Newcomb does disclose the span distance is in a range from four to seven times the diameter of the stems (para. 0005). Given the curvature of the two rollers, the distance between the two rollers, and the required the span distance for effectively bending and breaking the stem, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the W-shaped teeth of the second roller as disclosed by Newcomb, by adding an exact same "V" part external to the existing "V" part therefore obtaining a "W" structure resembling the "W" shape of the second roller, in order to use an easy approach to obtain W-shaped teeth at the first roller which meet the processing requirements. Such a configuration is within the level of the one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 2 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first roller includes a plurality of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (see annotated fig. 8A) and each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the second roller includes a plurality of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller (see annotated fig. 8A). Regarding claim 3 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein an angular spacing between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A) is greater than an angular spacing between at least one pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (roller 420; fig. 8A). Regarding claim 4 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A) extending from a minor diameter (extending to a base of the teeth; fig. 8A) to a major diameter (extending to a distal end of the projections) of the first roller (fig. 8A), each of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller extending to the major diameter (fig. 8A), wherein the minor diameter is a diameter of the first roller defined along the base (see annotated fig. 8A) of each of the plurality of teeth of the first roller (fig. 8A), and the major diameter is a diameter of the first roller defined along a distal end of each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first roller (fig. 8A). Regarding claim 5 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A) extends from a minor diameter (extending to a base of the teeth; fig. 8A) to a major diameter (extending to a distal end of the projections; fig. 8A) of the first roller, and wherein at least one radial projection of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller has a surface that intersects an adjacent radial projection of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller at a diameter between the minor and major diameters (within a W-shaped tooth; fig. 8A), wherein the minor diameter is a diameter of the first roller defined along the base of each of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (fig. 8A), and the major diameter is a diameter of the first roller defined along a distal end of each of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (fig. 8A). Regarding claim 7 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A) lies between a pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A) where the rollers oppose each other at the gap (see fig. 8A). Regarding claim 8 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller are arranged in an angular pattern (as discussed for claim 1; see annotated fig. 8A; para. 0048) and the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller are arranged in the same angular pattern (as discussed for claim 1; see annotated fig. 8A; para. 0048). Regarding claim 9 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first roller and the second roller are configured such that a plant stem passed between the rollers is subjected to the four-point bending (as discussed for claim 1) in which, the plant stem spans a distance between a first radial projection (see annotated fig. 8A) of the unevenly spaced projections of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A) and a second radial projection (see annotated fig. 8A) of the unevenly spaced projections of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A) and additionally spans a distance between a third radial projection (see annotated fig. 8A) of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A) and a fourth radial projection (see annotated fig. 8A) of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A). Regarding claim 11 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the third radial projection and the fourth radial projection (see annotated fig. 8A) of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A) extend between the first radial projection and the second radial projection (see annotated fig. 8A) of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A). Regarding claim 12 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 9, and further discloses wherein two of the four distinct points are provided by the third and fourth radial projections (see annotated fig. 8A) of the second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A), and wherein two of the four distinct points are provided by the first and second radial projections (see annotated fig. 8A) of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A). Regarding claim 18 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses the apparatus being configured to bend plant stem by an amount of bending sufficiently high to break a woody core of the plant stem (para. 0030; claim 9). Newcomb does not explicitly disclose wherein the amount of is sufficiently low to prevent formation of kinks in a majority of the bast fibers surrounding the woody core. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that long bast fibers are generally desired for fabric and textile use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured apparatus with as disclosed by Newcomb, with the apparatus being configured to bend a plant stem comprising bast fibers by an amount of bending sufficiently low to prevent formation of kinks in a majority of the bast fibers surrounding the woody core, by selecting a suitable tooth size for the first and second rollers and/or a suitable gap between the first and second rollers, in order to obtain long bast fibers without breaking the bast fibers during a decortication process thereby obtaining long bast fibers desired for making fabric. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art. Regarding claim 19 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to subject a plant stem to the four-point bending between the first and second rollers (as discussed for claim 1), during which the plant stem spans a distance between adjacent projections of the unevenly spaced projections of the first roller provided by a tooth of the first roller (see annotated fig. 8A) and spans a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth of the second roller (see annotated fig. 8A). Regarding claim 21 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the unevenly spaced radial protrusions provided by the plurality of teeth of each of the first and second rollers are the only radial protrusions extending from a minor diameter of each of the first and second rollers (fig. 8A; para. 0048), wherein the minor diameter of each of the first and second rollers is a diameter defined along the base of each of the plurality of teeth of the respective first and second roller (fig. 8A; para. 0048). Regarding claim 22 , Newcomb discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second rollers comprises a recess at a distal end of each of the respective plurality of teeth (as the shape of the teeth is W-shape; fig. 8A; para. 0048) such that a spacing between one tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first roller and a pair of adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth of the second roller is non-uniform (the spacing is not the same in all areas; see annotated fig. 8A), said one tooth and said pair of adjacent teeth being centered on a line defined between centers of the first and second rollers (see annotated fig. 8A). Regarding claim 23 , Newcomb discloses a stem breaking apparatus (roller system 400; fig 8A; paras. 0030, 0045, 0047; claim 9) comprising a first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A; para. 0047) having unevenly spaced radial projections (as provided by W-shaped teeth; fig. 8A; para. 0048) and a second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A; para. 0047) having unevenly spaced radial projections (as provided by W-shaped teeth; not shown in fig. 8A; para. 0048) intermeshed with the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (see fig. 8A; para. 0048), wherein the unevenly spaced radial projections of each of the first and second rollers are arranged such that a plant stem passed through a gap (see annotated fig. 8A) between the first and second rollers in a lengthwise direction of the plant stem (see annotated fig. 8A) simultaneously contacts a first adjacent pair (first and second radial projections; see annotated fig. 8A) of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller (roller 410; fig. 8A) and a second adjacent pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections (third and fourth radial projections; see annotated fig. 8A) of the second roller (roller 420; fig. 8A), the first adjacent pair of the unevenly spaced radial projections of the first roller being located between the second adjacent pair of unevenly spaced radial projections of the second roller (see annotated fig. 8A) . Response to Arguments In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments as to the prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra. It is noted that Applicant, in page 8 of the Remarks filed 12/16/2025, states that the claim amendment is supported by a "substitution specification"; however, there is no such a substitute specification on file in the prosecution history. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. 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. /AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732 Application/Control Number: 18/425,538 Page 2 Art Unit: 3732
Prosecution Insights