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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the cut having a corner form in the direction of the movement of the fiber webs formed in the meeting location of the side part of the cut.” “Meeting location” implies that there should be at least two elements meeting at the location. The claim as presently written recites “the side part of the cut” only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz et al. (DE 41 24 022 A1) (“Herz”), as understood from the provided translation of the reference and drawings of the reference, with citations to the translation.
With respect to claim 1, Herz discloses a joint for joining together ends of two fiber webs (p. 2, par. 1), wherein the joint comprises a cut penetrating through the ends of the fiber webs, the fiber webs being in an overlapping position (p. 2, par. 1-3, Figs. 1, 3a, and 3b). The cut has a side part and forms a flap, the flap remaining attached to the fiber webs by a folding line (p. 2, last paragraph, Figs. 3a and 3b). The folding line of the flap being substantially aligned with the direction of the movement of the fiber webs (p. 2, last paragraph), the cut having a corner form in the direction of the movement of the fiber webs formed at the location where the side part of the cut and the folding line meet – an area where the flap and folding line meet is interpreted as the corner form (Figs. 3a and 3b).
Herz is silent regarding the at least one substantially straight part extending from the side part. Herz discloses that the tool used to form the cut – the stamping punch S – is bevelled or tapered on one side (p. 2, paragraph 3, and last two paragraphs, Fig. 1), and that the cuts can have various shapes (p. 2, paragraph 3), the cuts providing interlocking of the two webs (p. 3, paragraph 7). Herz discloses that the shape of the tool S, and thus, the resulting cut, depends on the kind of the cut that is desired (p. 2, paragraph 2), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cut of Herz with at least one substantially straight part extending from the side part if a cut of such shape was desired, as changes in shape are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04), using a tool with an appropriate shape to obtain a cut with at least one substantially straight part.
Regarding the recitation “the cut having a corner form in the direction of the movement of the fiber webs formed in the meeting location of a side part of the cut and the folding line configured to form a carrying part of the joint” in lines 8-11, which is discussed above in the 35 USC 112(b) section of the Office Action, the recitation was interpreted as relating to the corner form configured to form the carrying part of the joint. The recitation “configured to form a carrying part of the joint” has been interpreted as a recitation of intended use. Since the reference teaches all the elements of the joint, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the joint according to the reference is capable to perform as intended.
Regarding claim 2, Herz teaches the joint of claim 1. The claim relates to how the tension of the fiber webs affects the joint, thus, the claim does not provide further structural limitations with respect to the joint. Since Herz discloses the ends of the fiber webs are effectively bonded together (abstr.), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tension of the fiber webs would tighten the joint.
With respect to claim 3, Herz teaches the joint of claim 1. Hertz discloses that the cut has an arched side part (Figs. 3a and 3b), but does not specify that the cut has two opposite arched side parts and between them there extends a substantially straight part, the cut including two flap parts, which are separated from each other by the substantially straight part extending between the side parts, the flap parts being attached to the fiber webs by the folding lines.
Herz discloses that the tool used to form the cut – the stamping punch S – is bevelled or tapered on one side (p. 2, paragraph 3, and last two paragraphs, Fig. 1), and that the cuts can have various shapes (p. 2, paragraph 3), the cuts providing interlocking of the two webs (p. 3, paragraph 7). Herz discloses that the shape of the tool S, and thus, the resulting cut, depends on the kind of the cut that is desired (p. 2, paragraph 2), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cut of Herz, using a tool with an appropriate shape, the cut having two opposite arched side parts and between them extending a substantially straight part, the cut including two flap parts, which are separated from each other by the substantially straight part extending between the side parts, the flap parts being attached to the fiber webs by the folding lines, if a cut of such shape was desired, as changes in shape are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 4, Herz teaches the joint of claim 1, wherein several cuts are provided for the ends of the fiber webs to be joined (abstr.).
With respect to claim 5, Herz teaches the joint of claim 5. Herz discloses that no adhesive or tape are used to join the ends of the fiber webs (abstr.).
Regarding claim 6, Herz teaches the joint of claim 1, wherein the fiber webs are pulp webs – raw cellulose (abstr.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 3, 2026. have been fully considered.
The Examiner notes that on the paper of the newly submitted claims and in the Remarks’ section a wrong application number has been provided in the upper left corners.
The Applicant argued in Herz the folding lines run normally to the conveying direction of the webs, that is they are perpendicular to the movement of the fiber webs, and thus are not “substantially aligned with the direction of the movement of the fiber webs.”
The Examiner notes claim 1 recites only “direction of the movement of the fiber webs” but does not describe what does the movement relate to. The limitation “direction of the movement of the fiber webs” is a very broad limitation.
The Applicant discussed the benefit of the folding lines being substantially aligned with the direction of the movement of the fiber webs, meaning in the conveying direction of the webs, which provides for improved securing of the joint as no additional movements of the fiber webs are needed. However, claim 1 is a product claim, not a process claim, and the Applicant’s discussion relates to the matter of making the joint.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783