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
The amendment filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 04/28/2026.
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 claims 4, 6, 11, 13, and 15, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "an intermediate apron".
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 8, 11, 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, after "a layering carriage", the punctuation appears to be a comma instead a colon;
In claim 2, line 2, "said upper strand" appears to read "said upper strand of the apron" for clarity;
In claim 11, line 1, "the outlet" should read "an outlet" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 11, line 2, after "a layering carriage", the punctuation appears to be a comma instead a colon;
In claim 8, "the intermediate is apron air-permeable" appears to read "the intermediate apron is air-permeable";
In claim 13, line 1, "the outlet" should read "an outlet" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 13, line 2, after "a layering carriage", the punctuation appears to be a comma instead a colon;
In claim 15, line 2, "extend(s)" should read "extends".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein said layering carriage is arranged so as to deposit said accumulated web on an upper strand of an apron to form a lap" which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not positively recite the crosslapper comprising the apron, and it is unclear whether the apron is a component of the crosslapper or not. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the crosslapper comprises the apron.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said upper strand moving at a speed V1(t) that varies as a function of time", which render the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an output belt comprising an output belt strand leaving the crosslapper and moving at a speed V2(t) that is different from the speed V1(t)", which render the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear which structure is being referred to as to "leaving", the output belt or the output belt strand. Second, the claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 1 and 3 each recite the limitation "another strand". It is unclear what is being referred to by "another strand" and where the "another strand" is located. 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 of the apron and the output belt strand; and "another strand" is referring to the lower strand of the apron when in use.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said roller". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that claim 3 depends from claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "both rollers", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has previously recited "said roller and another roller". It is unclear whether "both rollers" are referred to "said roller and another roller" or different rollers. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "an input belt moving at the speed V2(t)", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II.
Claim 11 recites a first limitation "wherein said layering carriage is arranged so as to deposit said accumulated web on an upper strand of an apron to form a lap" which render the claim indefinite. The claim does not positively recite the crosslapper comprising the apron, and it is unclear whether the apron is a component of the crosslapper or not. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the crosslapper comprises the apron.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "an output belt comprising an output belt strand leaving the crosslapper and moving at a speed V2(t) that is different from the speed V1(t)", which render the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear which structure is being referred to as to "leaving", the output belt or the output belt strand. Second, the claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim (see MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "an output belt strand leaving the crosslapper and moving at a speed V2(t) that is different from the speed V1(t)", which render the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said apron". The claim has previously defined "an apron" and "an intermediate apron". It is unclear which apron is being referred to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "another strand of said apron". It is unclear what is being referred to by "another strand" and where the "another strand" is located. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "both rollers", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has previously recited "said roller and another roller". It is unclear whether "both rollers" are referred to "said roller and another roller" or different rollers. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 13 recites a first limitation "wherein said layering carriage is arranged so as to deposit said accumulated web on an upper strand of an apron to form a lap" which render the claim indefinite. The claim does not positively recite the crosslapper comprising the apron, and it is unclear whether the apron is a component of the crosslapper or not. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the crosslapper comprises the apron.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said upper strand moving at a speed V1(t) that varies as a function of time", which render the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "an output belt comprising an output belt strand leaving the crosslapper and moving at a speed V2(t) that is different from the speed V1(t)", which render the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear which structure is being referred to as to "leaving", the output belt or the output belt strand. Second, the claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim (see MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "both rollers", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has previously recited "said roller and another roller". It is unclear whether "both rollers" are referred to "said roller and another roller" or different rollers. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "an input belt moving at the speed V2(t)", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "an input belt moving at the speed V2(t)", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively recites a process of practicing the apparatus in the same claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(p), Section II.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 appear to be free of prior art due to a similar reason as discussed in the Office action mailed 01/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: with respect to the objection to the specification due to lacking antecedent basis for the claimed "intermediate apron", Applicant asserts that "intermediate apron" has explicit and implicit support in the drawings (Figs. 4-5) and the specification.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, nowhere in the specification mentions "intermediate apron". If Applicant refers to "intermediate belt" in the specification, Applicant does not define that "intermediate apron" and "intermediate belt" are interchangeable, and one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that "apron" and "belt" are different as to the scope. Second, Figs. 4-5 are schematic side views of a crosslapper, and neither of Figs. 4-5 show an intermediate apron. It is noted that the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description (see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)). The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies (see MPEP 608.01(o)). Therefore, Applicant's argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights