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
The amendment filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 12/19/2025.
Drawings
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: "drafting section", "a downstream drafting section point", "an upstream drafting section point", "a suction device", "a downstream suction section point", "an upstream suction section point" and "said downstream drafting section point being same as said upstream suction section point" in claims 1 and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that Applicant has elected Species 1 as depicted in Figure 1 in the reply filed 12/02/2024. 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
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 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein said drafting device is configured to submit said at least one fiber web to drafting in said direction of conveyance at every point of the drafting section, which extends between a downstream drafting section point and an upstream drafting section point, where said at least one fiber web is not drafted downstream of said downstream drafting section point and upstream of said upstream drafting section point";
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein said drafting device comprises a suction device configured to produce suction to hold said at least one fiber web by suction in a suction section of the drafting device extending between a downstream suction section point and an upstream suction section point and wherein said downstream drafting section point is the same as said upstream suction section point";
In claim 3, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the drafting device is a drafting roller having an outer surface that includes said suction section";
In claim 16, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "a suction section extending between a downstream suction section point and an upstream suction section point";
In claim 16, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "the at least one fiber web held against the suction section is variably stretched over time at every point of the drafting section in said direction of conveyance, said drafting section extending between a downstream drafting section point and an upstream drafting section point, where said at least one fiber web is not drafted downstream of said downstream drafting section point or upstream of said upstream drafting section point, said downstream drafting section point being same as said upstream suction section point";
In claim 17, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the drafting section extends from said one or more output belts of said fiber web forming device".
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 16, "the drafting section" appears to read "a drafting section" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 1, line 18, "where" appears to read "wherein";
In claim 6, line 1, "claims 5" should read "claim 5";
In claim 10, line 1, "the suction component" appears to read "the suction device" for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 16, line 10, "the drafting section" appears to read "a drafting section" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 16, line 12, "where" appears to read "wherein".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "where said at least one fiber web is not drafted downstream of said downstream drafting section point and upstream of said upstream drafting section point". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the above feature. Although the original disclosure describes "a drafting roller", the original specification is silent about whether there is any other drafting device in the apparatus in addition to the draft roller. It is noted that Fig. 1 of the elected Species 1 is only a diagram and does not show the entire apparatus. For example, Fig. 1 does not show the fiber web-forming device and the cross-lapper. As such, one cannot exclude the possibility of the at least one fiber web being drafted at location(s) upstream or downstream of the drafting roller 10. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said drafting device comprises a suction device". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the above feature. The suction device is not shown in the elected Fig. 1, and is not described in the original specification for the elected Species 1 either. The original disclosure only states "the system can also be improved by arranging that roller 10 employs suction to assist guidance of the two webs 5 and 6 between rollers 3 and 4 and the input belt 7". As such, the suction device is not necessarily comprised by the drafting device. Instead, the suction device may be a standalone device or included by another device. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein said downstream drafting section point is the same as said upstream suction section point". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the above feature. As discussed above, the original disclosure fails to set forth where the suction device is located. The original disclosure fails to set forth wherein said downstream drafting section point is the same as said upstream suction section point. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the drafting device is a drafting roller having an outer surface that includes said suction section". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the above feature. The original disclosure only states "the system can also be improved by arranging that roller 10 employs suction to assist guidance of the two webs 5 and 6 between rollers 3 and 4 and the input belt 7", which means that the suction is not necessarily applied to an outer surface of the drafting roller. Instead, the suction can be applied anywhere between rollers 3, 4 and the input belt 7. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "at least one fiber web is routed in a direction of conveyance between an output belt of the web-forming device and the cross-lapper by passing it over a suction section extending between a downstream suction section point and an upstream suction section point". The limitation appears to be claiming that the routing of the at least one fiber web in a direction of conveyance between an output belt of the web-forming device and the cross-lapper is a result of passing it over a suction section due to term "by". However, the original disclosure only states "the system can also be improved by arranging that roller 10 employs suction to assist guidance of the two webs 5 and 6 between rollers 3 and 4 and the input belt 7", which indicates that the suction is not even a major cause of the routing. As such, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "where said at least one fiber web is not drafted downstream of said downstream drafting section point and upstream of said upstream drafting section point". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the above feature. Although the original disclosure describes "a drafting roller", the original specification is silent about whether there is any other drafting device in the apparatus. It is noted that the elected Species 1 (Figure 1) does not show the entire apparatus; e.g., Fig. 1 does not show the fiber web-forming device and the cross-lapper. As such, one cannot exclude the possibility of the at least one fiber web being drafted at location(s) upstream or downstream of the drafting roller 10. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein said downstream drafting section point is the same as said upstream suction section point". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the above feature. As discussed above, the original disclosure fails to set forth where the suction device is located. The original disclosure fails to set forth wherein said downstream drafting section point is the same as said upstream suction section point. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the term "in particular", which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether the limitation following "in particular" is recited as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This rejection has been set forth in the previous Office action. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the limitation following "in particular" is recited as optional in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the drive surface" and "the drive component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that "a drive surface" and "a drive component" have been removed from claim 1 in the amendment. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, claim 10 is not examined in this Office action.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the drive component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that "a drive component" have been removed from claim 1 in the amendment. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the upper output belt and lower output belt configured to output the upper fiber web and lower fiber web to come together anywhere around the drafting device.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said drive component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that "a drive component" has been removed from claim 1 in the amendment. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, claim 13 is not examined in this Office action.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the drive component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that "a drive component" have been removed from claim 1 in the amendment. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, claim 13 is not examined in this Office action.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are currently free of prior art rejections. None of the prior art discloses, teaches, or reasonably suggests said downstream drafting section point being same as said upstream suction section point.
However, the claims should NOT be construed as reciting allowable subject matter. It is noted that all the pending claims are subjected to 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections as discussed above; and substantive amendments to the claims may result in prior-art-based rejections in a future Office action.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Further, Applicant's arguments filed on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: As to Bernhardt, Applicant asserts that the intermediate belt 10 is not part of the drawing equipment because Bernhardt makes it clear the drawing equipment 3 is separate from the intermediate belt 10 that is "connected downstream", and the intermediate belt 10 is only necessary in Bernhardt to maintain the nonwoven for storage and is not necessary for the drawing function of Bernhardt.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bernhardt clearly describes "a cyclically operating drawing equipment" (para. 0044), where the cyclically operating mechanism includes "the outlet-sided drawing roller 8a of the drawing equipment and the first intermediate belt 10 are cyclically accelerated to a higher speed than the constant circumferential speed of the inlet-sided drawing roller [8b], and are subsequently braked to the original speed" (para. 0039). As such, the first intermediate belt 10 participates the cyclically drafting process, therefore is reasonably a part of the "cyclically operating drawing equipment". Therefore, Applicant's argument is not persuasive and the examiner's position is maintained.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to modify Dilo with Collotte since Collotte teaches a longitudinal condensing of a web while Dilo teaches a transversal drafting of a web and Dilo and Collotte are of different arts.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Dilo and Collotte teach an apparatus for manufacturing a nonwoven product from two fibrous webs, the apparatus including a carding machine for producing the two fibrous webs and at least a draft roller for stretching the two fibrous webs; therefore, Dilo and Collotte are in the same field of endeavor and they are analogous art even if they are addressing different specific problems. One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that Collotte's suction sector A in the draft roller 21 would assist to hold at least one fibre web against the outer surface of the draft roller by suction thereby facilitating drafting and transporting the at least one web. Therefore, Applicant's argument is not persuasive and the examiner's position is maintained.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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