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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 07/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method of group II uses the apparatus of group I and therefore shares a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because in order for a technical feature to be considered a special technical feature, it must make a contribution over the prior art. The apparatus of claim 1 is known in the prior art, as detailed in the rejections below, and therefore does not make a contribution over the art and cannot be considered a special technical feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final. Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details of the apparatus as described in the specification. The drawings are pixelated and blurry such that the numbers designating various components of the apparatus and the structures of the components themselves cannot be discerned. Therefore the drawings fail to adequately show the details of the apparatus as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Interpretation
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 limitation(s) is/are: a yarn net forming unit, a yarn net gluing unit, an upper layer medical paper and lower layer medical paper compounding and forming unit, an upper layer medical paper unreeling unit, a lower layer medical paper unreeling unit, and a compounded medical paper reeling unit in claim 1. In each of these limitations, the non-structural term “unit” is modified only by its function and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a yarn net gluing unit (II)” in lines 11-12. Since a yarn net gluing unit is previously recited, the use of the indefinite article “a” makes it unclear whether the yarn net gluing unit in claim 2 is referring to the previously recited yarn net gluing unit or introducing a new yarn net gluing unit.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the lower side" and “the side” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “a an upper layer…compounding and forming unit” in lines 13-15. The use of two articles “a an” is grammatically incorrect and confusing. Also, because a compounding and forming unit is previously recited, the use of the indefinite articles “a an” makes it unclear whether the compounding and forming is referring to the previously recited unit or introducing a new and different unit.
Claim 2 recites “an upper layer of warps (3), a middle layer of wefts (5), and a lower layer of warps (7)” in lines 17-18. Since an upper layer of warps, a middle layer of wefts, and a lower layer of warps are all previously recited, the use of indefinite articles makes it unclear whether such limitations are referring to the previously recited warps and wefts or introducing new warps and wefts.
Claim 2 recites “an upper layer medical paper unreeling unit (IV)” in lines 19-20. Since such a unit is previously recited, the use of the indefinite article “a” makes it unclear whether the upper layer medical paper unreeling unit recited in lines 19-20 is referring to the previously recited unit or introducing a new unit.
Claim 2 recites “a lower layer medical paper unreeling unit (V)” in line 21. Since such a unit is previously recited, the use of the indefinite article “a” makes it unclear whether the lower layer medical paper unreeling unit recited in line 21 is referring to the previously recited unit or introducing a new unit.
Claim 2 recites “a compounded medical paper (21) reeling unit (VI)” in lines 21-22. Since such a unit is previously recited, the use of the indefinite article “a” makes it unclear whether the reeling unit recited in lines 21-22 is referring to the previously recited unit or introducing a new unit.
Claim 2 recites “the compounded medical paper (21)” in lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the phrase “compounded medical paper (21)” is present in line 22, it is only recited as part of “a compounded medical paper (21) reeling unit (VI).” Therefore the compounded medical paper itself is not positively recited in line 22.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein a synchronous driven wheel…drives the synchronous wheel” in lines 6-7. This circular language requires that the synchronous driven wheel drives itself, which is unclear and does not reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the driven shaft” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the driving motor” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of weft hooks” and that such hooks “are connected to the pair of weft hooks via fasteners” in lines 14-15. This is unclear because it requires that weft hooks are attached to themselves with fasteners, which does not reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim. Furthermore, the term “the pair of weft hooks” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “a pair of compounding compression rollers (17)” in line 20. Since compound rollers (17) are previously recited, the use of the indefinite article “a” makes it unclear whether the limitation is referring to the previously recited rollers or introducing a new pair of rollers. Examiner notes that Applicant has alternately used the terms “compound” and “compounding” to describe the rollers. Consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims to avoid confusion and issues of indefiniteness.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the transverse support (12.2) drives the transverse support (12.2)” in lines 4-5. This circular language requires that the transverse support drives itself, which is unclear and does not reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the linear driving motor” in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes that the numeral (12.3) is used to denote both “…driving mechanisms (12.3)” in line 6 and “the linear driving motor (12.3)” in line 17. While numeral designations are not considered to be part of the claim and are only used to help clarify recited components, the use of the same numeral for multiple different components is unnecessarily confusing and should be corrected.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation “the tensile force of the elastic traction member is set and memorized by the angle sensor” in lines 7-8 and lines 6-7, respectively. These limitations are unclear because an angle sensor is generally understood in the art to measure or detect an angular position of a component and convert such measurements into electrical signals. It is unclear how such a sensor performs setting and memorization functions as claimed, as sensors are generally unable to perform these functions themselves.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the driven gear (14.5)” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the driven gear (14.5)” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the roller surfaces” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the position where the roller surfaces of the driving glue roller (14.2) are tangent to the driven glue roller (14.6)” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the position where the yarn net (18) is arranged” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the reeling support (22) and the upper and lower unreeling supports (19,20) as being part “of the compounded medical paper” in lines 1-3. This is unclear because these components are part of the production apparatus rather than being part of the compounded medical paper produced by the apparatus. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
The claims are generally indefinite and are replete with errors and inconsistencies, apparently due to translation of the invention into English from foreign patent documents. Examiner has made an earnest attempt to find and explain all such issues, however Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the claims to ensure that they are clear and definite in scope and conform to U.S. practice.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 107263935) in view of Lee (US 2020/0153015) and Demers (US 2014/0124237).
Li teaches an apparatus comprising a drive unit (1), a warp feeder (2), first and second warp splitters (3,4), a weft feeder (5), an adhesive applicator (6), an upper paper feed roller (81), a lower paper feed roller (82), a paper pressing device (9), and a roll forming device (10) (See Figures; [0023]-[0034]). The drive unit, warp feeder, warp splitters, and weft feeder collectively read on the instantly claimed yarn net forming unit (I). The adhesive applicator (6), paper pressing device (9), upper paper feed roller (81), lower paper feed roller (82), and roll forming device (10) read on the instantly claimed yarn net gluing unit, upper layer medical paper and lower layer medical paper compounding and forming unit (III), upper layer medical paper unreeling unit (IV), lower layer medical paper unreeling unit (V), and compounded medical paper reeling unit (VI), respectively.
Li does not expressly disclose that the units are successively mounted on a frame and connected to a programmable logic controller (PLC) as claimed.
Regarding the use of a frame, Lee teaches an apparatus in which various layers unwound from supply rollers, adhesively bonded, and then rewound on a take-up roller (See Figures; Summary), wherein the various components of the apparatus are supported on a main frame (200) (See Figures; [0063]-[0065]).
The various components of Li would need to be supported in some fashion, and Lee teaches that a frame is recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose. Therefore the use of a frame to support the various components of Li would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding the PLC, Demers teaches an apparatus for laminating a textile material between encapsulating films, which may be made from paper, the apparatus including a PLC which can control all of the various components of the apparatus (See Figures; [0181]-[0194]; [0249]-[0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to electrically connect the apparatus components of Li to a PLC controller as taught by Demers in order to provide feedback and control of the apparatus for improved consistency and efficiency.
Conclusion
Examiner notes that a prior art rejection has not been made for claims 2-9. This should not be taken as an indication that any subject matter in such claims is absent in the prior art or that any such subject matter has been deemed allowable over the prior art. Instead, the omission of such a rejection is reflective of the indefinite claim scope and unclear drawings detailed above, which render the application of a prior art rejection impracticable at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
