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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I- Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
2. 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:
“Forming Unit” in claim 1 line 3. “Forming” is a function, “unit” is a generic placeholder, and the claims do not add structure to perform said function. Structure is found in pg. 11 lines 29-31 of Applicant’s Specification filed 07/24/2024 as a “forming drum” and will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
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.
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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 112972120A; hereafter Gong) in view of Jönegren et al. (US 2021/0251814; hereafter Jonegren) and Tabuchi (US 6,234,229).
Regarding claim 1, Gong teaches an apparatus for producing an absorbent sanitary article (pg. 2 lines 1-2) comprising a support surface (surface of material forming concave roller- 4) that is part of a forming unit (material forming concave roller 4 and material forming convex roller 3), whereon a multilayer web of an absorbent sanitary article is formed (pg. 9 lines 28-34). Several compression rollers adjacent with the support surface with cylindrical outer surfaces (composite heat sealing rollers I, II, III labelled as 6, 7, and 8; pg. 10 lines 7-13) compress said multilayer web on said support surface as seen in Figure 1.
It is not clear if the support surface and compression rollers of Gong are slick. Jonegren teaches that rollers should have slick (noted as smooth) surfaces for complete bonding ([0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that the support surface and outer surfaces of the compression rollers are slick as suggested by Jonegren for the advantage of complete bonding.
Gong does not teach of a glue dispenser. Tabuchi teaches of glue dispenser (slip-preventing-adhesive applying unit- 110 in conjunction with overlaying unit- 120) that dispenses a liquid glue onto the back sheet web (col. 11 lines 17-50). The advantage of this glue dispenser is that the final product now has adhesive on back sheet web that adheres to the user’s underwear to prevent slippage (col. 1 lines 26-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to add the glue dispenser of Tabuchi in the apparatus of Gong for the advantage of having a non-slip product.
The multilayer web, sheets, cores, and glue are considered material or article worked upon by an apparatus. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. In Gong, the absorbent core could have already been placed in material line 1 or 2, in which case the forming unit would be capable of performing the functions claimed. Further, Tabuchi’s glue dispenser uses a nozzle (col. 11 lines 21-22) in which case the glue can be a liquid glue. As such the combined references teach all of the structural limitations of claim 1, and thus render it obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Gong teaches that the compression rollers are provided with adjusting components to adjust the distance between the compression roller and support surface (pg. 5 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, Gong teaches of two compression rollers (composite heat sealing rollers I and II- 6 and 7), which as seen in Figure 1 both are adjacent to the support surface and the second compression roller is downstream of the first compression roller.
Regarding claim 5, Gong teaches that the pressure of each compression roller gradually increases with each successive compression roller (pg. 14 lines 4-6). This is accomplished by the second distance of the second roller from the support surface being less than the first distance of the first roller from the support surface. Further, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2, the distances are adjustable, in which case this limitation is merely a manner of operating a device, which would not differentiate over the prior art- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 6, the support surface of Gong is the cylindrical outer surface of the material forming concave roller 4, which is a supporting drum.
Regarding claim 7, Gong does not teach of a contact surface or sealing roller downstream of the support surface. Tabuchi teaches of a downstream contact surface (anvil roller-61) configured to a multilayer web (sanitary napkin sheet- 1S) with an adjacent sealing roller pressed therein (heat-sealing roller- 62; col. 8 line 58- col. 9 line 22; see Figure 5). The sealing roller comprises a cylindrical bottom surface (nonheating portion- 63) and a raised surface (heating portion- 64). The raised portion is the periphery (col. 9 lines 1-2), while the bottom surface is the cylindrical roller of the heat-sealing roller and is noted as a recess (col. 8 lines 64-37). Consequentially, the cylindrical bottom surface has a first radial distance less than the second radial distance of the raised surface as both have the same rotational axis. The advantage of Tabuchi’s downstream heat-sealing unit is that it establishes a shape for the multilayer web (col. 8 lines 64-67) so that it can be sent to a cutout unit for individualizing products (col. 10 lines 5-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include both the downstream heat-sealing unit and cutout unit of Tabuchi in the apparatus of Gong for the advantage of having individualized products.
It is not clear if the contact surface and raised surface of Tabuchi are slick. Jonegren teaches that rollers should have slick (noted as smooth) surfaces for complete bonding ([0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that the contact surface and raised surface of Tabuchi’s heat-sealing unit are made slick for the advantage of complete bonding.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong, Jonegren, and Tabuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US 2024/0024171; hereafter Deng).
Regarding claim 3, Gong does not teach of a scraper adjacent to the cylindrical outer surface of the at least one compression roller. Deng teaches the inclusion of online roll cleaning equipment for rollers, including a scraper, for the advantage of clearing off fractured material from rollers ([0092]). With the scraper being online, in the context of Gong the scraper would be adjacent to the cylindrical outer surface of the compression rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include scrapers adjacent to the cylindrical outer surface of the compression rollers for the advantage of clearing off fractured material.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong, Jonegren, and Tabuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brisebois et al. (US 2005/0206038; hereafter Brisebois).
Regarding claim 8, in applying Tabuchi as in claim 7, as seen in Figure 5 Tabushi only teaches of a first region that is externally delimited by the raised surface. Brisebois teaches sealing roller (die roller- 600) shown in Figure 7 wherein the raised surface is only on specific parts of linear fields ([0049]-[0050]; see Figure 6), where the raised area externally delimits the a second region of the bottom surface, and the first region of the bottom surface delimits the raised surface, this is being shown as the sealing roller creates only a peripheral seal ([0060]-[0061]). Brisebois explicitly states that this improved die surfacing can be used in conventional sealing rollers ([0061]), specifically showing Tabuchi’s sealing roller configuration as prior art in Figure 2, which establishes modification compatibility. The advantage of Brisebois’ improved sealing roller is even pressure application that prevents puncture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use improved sealing roller of Brisebois in the technique of Tabuchi for the advantage of even pressure application that prevents puncture.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights