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
Claims 1 – 6 are pending.
In view of Applicant’s response, filed on 02/24/2026, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 11/24/2025.
Rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejection of claims 1-6 under Double Patenting
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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites “a measurement unit that measures a weight or volume of the resin fiber fragments discharged from the container through the outlet port” wherein specification defines “a conveyor belt that conveys the resin fiber fragments discharged from the reservoir unit, and a load cell that measures a load applied to the conveyor belt.” (see claim 4)
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.
The following rejections are maintained for the reason of records as given in the previous office action. The bases of these rejections are the same as given in the office action, mailed on 11/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al. (US 2020/0149219) in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 2021088783), the prior art and the English Translation submitted by applicant.
Nakata et al. (US ‘219), as to claim 1, disclose a fiber structure manufacturing apparatus, comprising:
a defibrated material supplying unit (a feedstock supply section 11 and a crushing section 12, a defibration section 13, a sorting section 14, a first web forming section 15, a shredding section 16, a mixer 17, see ¶ [0024]) including:
PNG
media_image1.png
329
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fiber defibrator (a defibration section 13, ¶ [0024]) that defibrates a material that contains fibers to supply a defibrated material (M3, M6, ¶ [0033] and ¶ [0053]);
a web forming unit (a first web forming section 15, ¶ [0024]) including a mesh belt (151, ¶ [0044]: the first web forming section 15 includes a mesh belt 151) on which the defibrated material (M3, ¶ [0033]; M6, ¶ [0053]) is accumulated to form a web (a first web M5, ¶ [0044]; a second web M8, ¶ [0064]), and
a first fragmenting unit (a shredding section 16, ¶ [0024]) that includes a propeller (a rotatably supported propeller 161, ¶ [0053]) and fragments the web into material fragments (coarse fragments M2, [0029]) by rotating the propeller (a rotatably supported propeller 161, ¶ [0053]);
a resin supplying unit (a resin feeder 171, ¶ [0055] and [0057]) that is disposed downstream relative to the first fragmenting unit (a shredding section 16, ¶ [0024]) in a transport direction of the material fragments and supplies resin fibers (the resin P1, ¶ [0057] - ¶ [0057]),
the resin supplying unit (a resin feeder 171, ¶ [0055] and [0057]) including:
a second fragmenting unit (a disentangling section 18, ¶ [0060]) that includes at least one rotating body (a drum 181, ¶ [0061] - [0062]) and produces resin fiber fragments by the at least one rotating body (a drum 181, ¶ [0061] - [0062]),
a mixing unit (a mixer 17, ¶ [0057] recites the mixer 17 is the section where the mixing process is performed, in which the shreddings M6 and a resin P1 are mixed together) that includes a blower (173, ¶ [0055]) and produces a mixture by mixing the material fragments (coarse fragments M2, ¶ [0029] – [0033]) with the resin fiber fragments (coarse fragments M2, [0029]);
an accumulation unit (a mesh belt 191, ¶ [0065] discloses the mesh belt 191 is an endless belt for the mixed material M7 to accumulate on) that includes a mesh belt (191) and produces an accumulated material by causing the mixture to accumulate;
a shape molding unit (a press section 201 includes a pair of calendar rollers 203, ¶ [0072]) that includes a pair of rollers (203) and produces a fiber structure by performing shape molding of the accumulated material; and
a control unit (a control section 28; ¶ [0024]) that controls operation of the resin supplying unit (¶ [0024] discloses each of these sections is electrically coupled to the control section 28, and the respective operations thereof are controlled by the control section).
Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) fail to disclose a reservoir unit that includes a container with an outlet port and stores the resin fiber fragments in the container; and a measurement unit that measures a weight or volume of the resin fiber fragments discharged from the container through the outlet port; and the control unit adjusting an amount of discharging the resin fiber fragments from the reservoir unit, as claimed in claim 1.
In the analogous art, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) disclose a fiber supply device (1, 2) that supplies fibers (f) sent from the lower supply port (4a) of the fiber storage unit (4) by a feed roller (3) onto a measuring conveyor (5) via a shooter (6) and controls the rotation speed of the feed roller (3) according to the weight of the fibers measured by the measuring conveyor (5); and a fiber supply device (1, 2) characterized in that a presser roller (7) for pressing the fibers (f) on the extension surface and feeding the fibers (f) onto the measuring conveyor (5) is provided above the extension surface (22), wherein the presser roller (7) has a rotation speed whose rotation speed is controlled according to the fiber weight measured by the measuring conveyor (5). (see claims)
PNG
media_image2.png
216
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as to claim 1, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) discloses a reservoir unit (a fiber storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]) that includes a container (a storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]) with an outlet port (a lower part feeding port 4a, ¶ [0011]) and stores the resin fiber fragments (f), and a measurement unit (a measuring conveyor 5, ¶ [0011]) that measures a weight or volume of the resin fiber fragments (f) discharged from the container (a fiber storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]), through the outlet port (a lower part feeding port 4a, ¶ [0011]) and based on a measurement result of the measurement unit (a measuring conveyor 5, ¶ [0011]), the control unit (15, ¶ [0025]) adjusts an amount of discharging the resin fiber fragments (f) from the reservoir unit (a fiber storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]).
As to claim 2, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) disclose the reservoir unit (a fiber storage unit 4) further includes an opening-and-closing unit (drive motor 16; ¶ [0019]) that adjusts a degree of opening of the outlet port (lower supply port 4a), and based on the measurement result, and the control unit (15, ¶ [0025]) controls operation of the opening-and-closing unit (drive motor 16, ¶ [0019]).
As to claim 3, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) disclose the reservoir unit (a fiber storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]) discharges the resin fiber fragments (f) through the outlet port (lower supply port 4a, ¶ [0011]) intermittently, and based on the measurement result, the control unit (15, ¶ [0025]) adjusts a length of time for which the opening-and-closing unit (drive motor 16; ¶ [0019]) is in an open state.
As to claim 4, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) teach the measurement unit (a measuring conveyor 5, ¶ [0011]) includes a conveyor belt that conveys the resin fiber fragments (f) discharged from the reservoir unit (a fiber storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]), and a load measurement unit (weighing conveyor 5) that is a load cell type (¶ [0011]) and measures a load applied to the conveyor belt. (¶ [0020])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify a fiber structure manufacturing apparatus, as taught by Nakata et al. (US ‘219) through providing a reservoir unit that includes a container with an outlet port and stores the resin fiber fragments in the container and a measurement unit that measures a weight or volume of the resin fiber segments discharged from the reservoir unit through the outlet port so for the control unit to adjust an amount of discharging the resin fiber fragments from the reservoir unit wherein the resin fiber fragments form a cotton-like lump of the resin fibers in order to improve the workability of the apparatus to reduce the fabric weight variation of fiber supplied on measurement conveyor, as suggested by Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783).
As to claim 5, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) disclose the second fragmenting unit (16: a shredding section, ¶ [0053]) further includes a housing (162) in which the at least one rotating body (a drum 181, ¶ [0061] - [0062]) is housed, the at least one rotating body (a drum 181, ¶ [0061] - [0062]) includes a plurality of blades (121, ¶ [0028] - ¶ [0029]), and due to rotation of the rotating body, the resin fibers are broken into the resin fiber fragments (M6, ¶ [0053]) by the blades (121, ¶ [0028] - ¶ [0029]).
As to claim 6, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) teach the resin fibers (P1, ¶ [0058] recites the resin P1 is employed to bind fibers together in a later process) each are capable to include a core, and a cover layer that covers an outer circumferential portion of the core and has a melting point lower than a melting point of the core. Said recitation in claim 6 do not further provide limitations for the claimed “hybrid orientation substrate” and are more directed to the process of using the substrate; therefore, the limitations do not get further patentable weight and are treated as "intended use".
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 02/24/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Nakata et al. publication fails to disclose or suggest the claimed arrangement in which the defibrated material supplying unit includes the fiber defibrator, the web forming unit, and the first fragmenting unit, the resin supplying unit is disposed downstream in a transport direction of the material fragments relative to the first fragmenting unit of the defibrated material supplying unit, and the resin supplying unit includes the second fragmenting unit that includes the second fragmenting unit that includes at least one rotating body and produces resin fiber fragments by performing fragmentation of a cotton-shaped lump of the resin fibers by the rotating body, the reservoir unit, and the measurement unit”. See remarks: page 9, first paragraph.
This is not found persuasive. Nakata et al. (US ‘219) discloses a fiber defibrator (a defibration section 13, ¶ [0024]) that defibrates a material that contains fibers to supply a defibrated material (M3, M6, ¶ [0033] and ¶ [0053]); a web forming unit (a first web forming section 15, ¶ [0024]) including a mesh belt (151, ¶ [0044]: the first web forming section 15 includes a mesh belt 151) on which the defibrated material (M3, ¶ [0033]; M6, ¶ [0053]) is accumulated to form a web (a first web M5, ¶ [0044]; a second web M8, ¶ [0064]), and a first fragmenting unit (a shredding section 16, ¶ [0024]) that includes a propeller (a rotatably supported propeller 161, ¶ [0053]) and fragments the web into material fragments (coarse fragments M2, [0029]) by rotating the propeller (a rotatably supported propeller 161, ¶ [0053]); a resin supplying unit (a resin feeder 171, ¶ [0055] and [0057]) that is disposed downstream relative to the first fragmenting unit (a shredding section 16, ¶ [0024]) in a transport direction of the material fragments and supplies resin fibers (the resin P1, ¶ [0057] - ¶ [0057]), the resin supplying unit (a resin feeder 171, ¶ [0055] and [0057]) including: a second fragmenting unit (a disentangling section 18, ¶ [0060]) that includes at least one rotating body (a drum 181, ¶ [0061] - [0062]) and produces resin fiber fragments by the at least one rotating body (a drum 181, ¶ [0061] - [0062]). Further, Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) discloses a reservoir unit (a fiber storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]) that includes a container (a storage unit 4, ¶ [0011]) with an outlet port (a lower part feeding port 4a, ¶ [0011]) and stores the resin fiber fragments (f), and a measurement unit (a measuring conveyor 5, ¶ [0011]) that measures a weight or volume of the resin fiber fragments (f) discharged from the container (a fiber storage unit 4, ¶ [0011])
Further, in response to applicant’s arguments that neither Nakata et al. (US ‘219) nor Hayashi et al. (JP ‘783) disclose the limitation of “…produces resin fiber fragments by performing fragmentation of a cotton-shaped lump of the resin fibers by the rotating body, the reservoir unit, and the measurement unit”, the arguments are moot as the limitation has been deleted from the claim.
Moreover, in response to applicant’s arguments that “Hayashi et al fails to provide cure for deficiencies of the Nakata et al. publication, since the Hayashi et al. is silent regarding the limitations relating to the claimed arrangement in which the defibrillated material supplying unit includes the fiber defibrator, the web forming unit, and the first fragmenting unit…”, the arguments are not persuasive because Hayashi et al has been used as a secondary reference and as it was discussed earlier, Nakata et al. (US ‘219), as a primary reference, already discloses said limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to Double Patenting rejection of claims 1-6, see remarks: page 10, last paragraph and page 11, over co-pending application No. 18/768,071 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections of the claims 1-6 under Double Patenting Rejection have been withdrawn.
Finally, after a full review of submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest if Applicant’s Counsel believes that an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights