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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “applies” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “first adhesive application unit” in claims 1 and 8; “die cutting unit” in claims 1-2, 5-6, 14-16, and 19; “debulking unit” in claims 4-7; “folding unit” in claims 10 and 17; “second adhesive application unit” in claims 11-13; and “ultrasonic bonding unit” in claims 15 and 18.
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 limitation “first adhesive application unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “application” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 138, shown in figure 1, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “die cutting unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “cutting” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 170 and 172, shown in figure 1B, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “debulking unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “debulking” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 166 and 168, shown in figure 1B, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “folding unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “folding” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 288, shown in figure 6, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “second adhesive application unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “application” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 248, shown in figure 6, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “ultrasonic bonding unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “bonding” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 679 and 681, shown in figure 26A, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim limitations “thermal bonding unit” and “pressure bonding unit” in claims 15 and 18 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant does not provide any structure defining a thermal bonding unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VARONA et al. (US 2019/0290505).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 14, and 16, VARONA teaches a core former (SAP App 1; fig. 5), first adhesive application unit (adhesive 1; fig. 5), and a die cutting unit (para. 79) that is capable of performing the functions claimed.
Regarding claim 12, VARONA teaches a second adhesive application unit capable of performing the functions claimed (adhesive 2; fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARONA, as applied to claim 1, further in view of MAVINKURVE et al. (US 2004/0254554).
Regarding claim 2, VARONA does not teach the die cutting unit comprises a die with a continuous cutting edge and first roller that rotates in coordination with the die. MAVINKURVE teaches an apparatus for producing absorbent core materials, wherein the die cutting unit comprises a die 503 and a first roller 505 that rotates in coordination against the die (MAVINKURVE; para. 66; fig. 6), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize such a die cutting unit in the apparatus of VARONA because opposing die and anvil rollers were a well-known continuous die cutting mechanism in the art.
Regarding claim 3, VARONA teaches a debulking unit (VARONA; referenced as “bulking unit”; paras. 9 and 224).
Regarding claim 4, VARONA teaches the debulking unit (rollers 520 upstream adhesive applicator 3, fig. 5) comprising a second roller which turns in conjunction with the first roller (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, VARONA teaches the debulking unit is position upstream the die cutting unit (VARONA; para. 98).
Regarding claim 6, VARONA teaches a conveyor between the debulking unit and the die cutting unit (VARONA; fig. 5; para. 98).
Regarding claim 7, VARONA teaches the debulking unit (rollers 520) comprises a second and third roller (fig. 5).
Claim(s) 8, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARONA as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of PIANTONI et al. (US 2021/0145652).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, VARONA does not teach that the application unit does not apply adhesive to a channel portion of a form-on web. PIANTONI teaches another absorbent article manufacturing apparatus wherein the first adhesive application unit 9 does not apply adhesive to the channel portion of the absorbent article (paras. 54, 79, 85, 88, and 113), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize such an applicator as the applicator of VARONA so that adhesive material does not remain in the channel after application (PIANTONI; para. 21).
Regarding claim 15, VARONA does not teach an adhesive applicator or bonding unit downstream the die cutting unit configured to bond the form-on web to the cover web within the channels. PIANTONI teaches an ultrasonic bonding unit 14 located downstream of the die cutting unit that is configured to bond the form-on web to the cover web within the channels (PIANTONI; para. 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include such a bonding unit in the apparatus of VARONA in order to bond the form-on web to the cover to surround the absorbent portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 17, and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a folding unit as construed that can fold the form-on web around a portion of the core material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: VAN INGELGEM et al. (US 2021/0161727) and BIANCHI et al. (US 2016/0175169).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights