DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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 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.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 1, “means for feeding a ply in a feed direction” (because A – “means” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “for feeding a ply in a feed direction” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a perforated belt (5) (see page 9 of the specification and figure 1) or equivalent.
Regarding claim 1, “’come and go’ alternating movement means” (because A – “’come and go’ alternating means” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “movement” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “’come and go’ alternating movement means” is understood as equivalent to “means for effecting ‘come and go’ movement”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a connecting rod (13) and a crank (14) (see page 12, lines 20-23 of the specification and figure 8) or equivalent.
Regarding claim 4, “adjustment means” (because A – “adjustment means” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “for adjusting the reciprocal position of said lateral walls” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “adjustment means” is understood as equivalent to “means for adjusting the reciprocal position of said lateral walls”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is stop plates (35) (see page 11 of the specification and figure 4) or equivalent.
Regarding claim 8, “selective fixing means for said connecting rod” (because A – “selective fixing means” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “to adjust the range of the “come and go” alternating movement of said screen” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “selective fixing means” is understood as equivalent to “means for adjusting the range of the “come and go” alternating movement of said screen”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is an adjustment screw (41) (see page 13 of the specification and figure 8) or equivalent.
Regarding claim 11, “blade shuttering means” (because A – “blade shuttering means” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “for adjusting the opening of a suction inlet” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “blade shuttering means” is understood as equivalent to “means for adjusting the opening of a suction inlet”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is two plates (22) sliding on the plane that contains said suction inlet (21) (see page 14 of the specification and figure 9) or equivalent.
Regarding claim 14, “control means” (because A – “control means” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “control… for said shutters” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “control means” is understood as equivalent to “means for controlling said shutters”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure a slot (42), a control pin (43) passing through said slot, and locking means (see pages 14-15 of the specification and figures 10 and 11) or equivalent.
If the 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 §112(b)
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “functionally in contact” is ambiguous. It is unclear if the brushes are in physical contact with the screen or merely in close proximity sufficient to perform a function. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art, and the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(b). For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as physical contact as described in the specification.
Regarding claims 2-16, these claims are also rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome, claim 1 would be deemed allowable.
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome, claims 2-16 would be 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Rosani (US 2020/0330286 A1) teaches an apparatus for forming an absorbent pad including an absorbent material disposed between first and second layers, including a spreader (figure 2, #6) of absorbent material on a web (NW1) of material. However, Rosani does not teach means for feeding cellulose flakes comprising at least a duct designed to convey a flow of cellulose flakes towards said ply; means for feeding a ply in a feed direction; a perforated belt designed to support said ply as it is fed forward; a suction hood, positioned below said belt, designed to suck said cellulose, causing it to lie flat on said ply, characterised in that it comprises: a plurality of horizontal axis rotating brushes, arranged transversally to the feed direction of said ply; a screen comprising a plurality of holes arranged between said brushes and said ply; "come and go" alternating movement means for said screen parallel to the feed direction of said ply; wherein said brushes are functionally in contact with said screen and said cellulose flakes are designed to pass through said holes of said screen facilitated by said suction hood and by the combined movement of said brushes and said screen, as is claimed in claim 1.
Perneborn (US 5,415,717) teaches an apparatus for depositing “superabsorbent particles” or cellulose fibers (figure 1, #1) from a dispensing device (#3) through a masking web (#5) and onto a first material web (#6), the apparatus further including a suction device (#15) for removing particles from the masking web, and a screen (#16) for preventing the particles from being removed from the first web of material. However, Perneborn does not specifically teach a perforated belt designed to support said ply as it is fed forward; a suction hood, positioned below said belt, designed to suck said cellulose, causing it to lie flat on said ply, characterised in that it comprises: a plurality of horizontal axis rotating brushes, arranged transversally to the feed direction of said ply; a screen comprising a plurality of holes arranged between said brushes and said ply; "come and go" alternating movement means for said screen parallel to the feed direction of said ply; wherein said brushes are functionally in contact with said screen and said cellulose flakes are designed to pass through said holes of said screen facilitated by said suction hood and by the combined movement of said brushes and said screen, as is claimed in claim 1.
Laursen (US 4,640,810) teaches a system for producing an air-laid web of fibers (cellulose) on a foraminous carrier (#62, perforated belt) including a rotatably brush (#70) with a plurality of wire-like members (#72) to cause a flow of graded material from drums of material and onto the carrier (#62). However, Laursen does not specifically teach a perforated belt designed to support said ply as it is fed forward; a suction hood, positioned below said belt, designed to suck said cellulose, causing it to lie flat on said ply, characterised in that it comprises: a plurality of horizontal axis rotating brushes, arranged transversally to the feed direction of said ply; a screen comprising a plurality of holes arranged between said brushes and said ply; "come and go" alternating movement means for said screen parallel to the feed direction of said ply; wherein said brushes are functionally in contact with said screen and said cellulose flakes are designed to pass through said holes of said screen facilitated by said suction hood and by the combined movement of said brushes and said screen, as is claimed in claim 1.
Gualtieri (WO 2022/034468 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for producing absorbent cores for a sanitary product, wherein loose fibers are deposited on an array of blanks. However, Gualtieri does not specifically teach a perforated belt designed to support said ply as it is fed forward; a suction hood, positioned below said belt, designed to suck said cellulose, causing it to lie flat on said ply, characterised in that it comprises: a plurality of horizontal axis rotating brushes, arranged transversally to the feed direction of said ply; a screen comprising a plurality of holes arranged between said brushes and said ply; "come and go" alternating movement means for said screen parallel to the feed direction of said ply; wherein said brushes are functionally in contact with said screen and said cellulose flakes are designed to pass through said holes of said screen facilitated by said suction hood and by the combined movement of said brushes and said screen, as is claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731