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 . Claims 1-10 are being treated on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/22/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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 "an intermediate apron";
In claim 10, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for " a further processing device arranged directly downstream of the crosslapper (1), and having an input belt moving at the speed V2(t)”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to as it sets forth a plurality of elements; however, the plurality of elements are not separated by a line indentation. 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m) require each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 1, "the outlet" should read "an outlet" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 1, lines 12-14, "the opposite direction" should read "an opposite direction" as it is the first time the limitation is recited,
In claim 2, line 3, "the horizontal direction" should read "a horizontal direction" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 10, a period is missing at the end.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 10 recites "a further processing device arranged directly downstream of the crosslapper (1)". However, the original disclosure fails to set forth the feature as to "directly". Applicant, in the original disclosure, describes a compensation machine 3 is positioned between a crosslapper (1) and a further processing device (fig. 1; para. 0030). Therefore, claiming the limitation constitutes new matter.
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 recite the phrase "in particular" with multiple instances, which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the limitation following "in particular" is recited as being optional in the claims.
Claim 1 is set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the claim positively recites a significant amount of process limitations, such as "a front belt carrying the web of fibers", "a rear belt carrying the accumulated web", "the lap (N) leaves the crosslapper at a speed V2(t) that is different from the speed V1(t)", "the lap (N) undergoing at least one turn in particular through 180 degrees, around a roller (3.2'; 4.1"; 3.7"') mounted such that it can move in translation along the output belt strand (20'; 20"; 20"')" and "the lap (N) being sandwiched between another strand, turned in the opposite direction to the upper strand (2'), of the apron and the output belt strand (20') and/or between another strand, turned in the opposite direction to the upper strand (2"; 2"'), of the apron and an upper strand of an intermediate apron (30"; 30"') and/or between a lower strand of an intermediate apron (30"; 30"') and the output belt strand (20"; 20"')", which appear to be claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the accumulator carriage". The claim has previously set forth "an infeed or accumulator carriage". In a scenario of "accumulator carriage" is not selected, "the accumulator carriage" would lack antecedent basis. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a rear belt carrying the accumulated web to a layering carriage and an apron on an upper strand (2'; 2"; 2"') of which the layering carriage deposits the web accumulated by the accumulator carriage alternately on the bias in one direction and in the other direction to form a lap (N) moving at a speed V1(t) that varies as a function of time", which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation is lengthy including a plurality of terms and is obscure as to the claimed concept. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the accumulated web" and "the accumulator carriage" in the claim. Second, it is unclear whether "a layering carriage", "an apron" and "an upper strand" are parts of the crosslapper or not. Third, it is unclear what is "on an upper strand". The accumulated web? the layering carriage? Or the apron? Fourth, it is unclear which structure is being referred to as "of which". Fifth, it is unclear what is being referred to as to "on the bias". Sixth, the claim does not previously define two directions and it is unclear which direction is being referred to "the other direction". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the crosslapper comprises a rear belt being configured to carry a web accumulated by the accumulator carriage to a layering carriage, the layering carriage being configured to deposit the accumulated web on an upper strand of an apron alternatively in one direction and in another direction to form a lap moving at a speed that varies as a function of time.
Claim 1 recites two instances of "another strand". First, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same strand or different. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with "said" or "the" when referring back. Second, it is unclear what is being referred to by "another strand" as the claim has not set forth any strand of the apron. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that that the apron comprises an upper strand and a lower strand, the crosslapper is configured to form the lap on the upper strand, and the crosslapper is configured to have the lap being sandwiched between the lower strand and an output belt strand; and "another strand" is referring to the lower strand when in use.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an intermediate apron" with two instances. First, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same intermediate apron or different. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with "said" or "the" when referring back. Second, it is unclear what is being referred to as to the term "intermediate" and which structures the apron is intermediate of. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as an intermediate belt positioned between the apron and the output belt strand.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said other strand". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the "another" strand(s) in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the term "which". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claim 3 recites the term "they". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claims 3-6 each recite the limitation "a translationally fixed manner", which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to. The term "translationally" describes a movement. Then how can the movement be "fixed"? For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be a translational manner.
Claim 4 recites the term "which". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claim 4 recites the term "they". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claim 5 recites the term "which". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claim 5 recites the term "they". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claim 6 recites the term "that". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claim 6 recites the term "they". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the two rollers.
Claim 10 is set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the claim positively recites "an input belt moving at the speed V2(t)", which appears to be claiming a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
For examination purposes, all the process limitations in the apparatus claims are considered to only limit the apparatus as being functional to perform the processes.
The examiner further notes that the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. Effort has been made to identify all the indefinite issues; however, the above list is not necessarily to be comprehensive. In addition, the interpretations aforementioned do not necessarily constitute suggestions, especially in light of the plethora of potential inconsistencies and indefiniteness throughout the claims. Applicant is recommended to review the claims in full and make proper amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, as interpreted above, appear to be free of prior art. None of the prior art of record alone or in combination teaches a crosslaper comprising both an apron configured for forming a lap and an output belt strand configured to discharge the lap out of the crosslapper, wherein the crosslapper is configured to have the lap being sandwiched between a lower stand, turned in the opposite direction to the upper strand, of the apron and the output belt strand and/or between another strand, turned in the opposite direction to the upper strand, of the apron and an upper strand of an intermediate apron and/or between a lower strand of an intermediate apron and the output belt strand when in use.
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(b) rejections as discussed above; and substantive amendments to the claims may result in prior-art-based rejections in a future Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Jourde (US 6,550,107 B1) and Laune (EP 1897979 A2) each disclose a crosslapper comprising a front belt, an accumulator carriage, a rear belt, a layering carriage and an apron, wherein the crosslapper is configured to form a lap on an upper stand of the apron, wherein each of the front belt, the rear belt, and the apron is configured to vary a moving speed, and wherein the layering carriage is configured to translate in opposite directions.
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.
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, 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.
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