DETAILED ACTION
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the tube in line 4 lack antecedent basis. 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.
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 1-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims 1-8 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 and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the filling box" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vacuum chamber valve" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the monitoring/sensor system" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the filler chamber" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the traction unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tube + substrate" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the biodegradable paper tube" in line 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tube cutting system" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the electronic signals" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the movement signals" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the whole assembly" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the vacuum cylinder filling chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the traction and cutting unit " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "The computer interface " in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the parameters" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuss U.S. 2019/0118981.
In regards to claim 1. Kuss discloses "MACHINE, CONTROL MEANS FOR SUBSTRATE COMPACTION AND PRODUCT OBTAINED" characterized in that it is a machine (fig. 1) having a device (see at least paragraph 34 and 35) that monitors a compaction process (at least paragraph 34, 35, 36, 37, 38) and a sensor (15) to measure pressure in vacuum(paragraph 38 and 43) and that measures the degree of compaction of the final product by checking whether the tube has been filled correctly (see at least paragraph 43 and claim 1).
In regards to claim 3. Kuss further discloses "MACHINE, CONTROL MEANS FOR SUBSTRATE COMPACTION AND PRODUCT OBTAINED", according to claim 1, characterized in that the vacuum chamber, where compaction is done (d) cover the inclusion of a hole to fit the measuring system of the variation of atmospheric pressure (W) inside the vacuum chamber (illustrated in fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuss U.S. 2019/0118981 in view of Ellegaard (U.S. 2015/0135589).
In regards to claim 2. Kuss further discloses "MACHINE, CONTROL MEANS FOR SUBSTRATE COMPACTION AND PRODUCT OBTAINED", according to claim 1, characterized in that the machine contains tube cutting system (see at least element 08 and paragraph 40), paper traction unit + substrate (see at least elements 07, 08, 02, 17 see at least claim 11), filling chamber (07 fig. 3), compaction degree control system (at least elements 15, 7, see at least paragraph 33), tube (f) (see at least fig. 2), and vacuum chamber (g) (see at least fig. 2).
Kuss does not disclose biodegradable paper tube.
Ellegaard teaches biodegradable paper tube (see at least paragraph 11, 20, 22 and 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Kuss to use the biodegradable paper tube as taught by Ellegaard for the purpose of reducing moisture content as discussed in at least paragraph 24 which promotes growth.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claim 4-8. Examiner was unable to determine the meets and bounds of claim 4, the language was unclear if it was reciting steps, structure or other. As such the meets and bounds of the claim could not be determined. When the language is corrected based on the 112 rejection above the claim will be examined at that time
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCAS E A PALMER whose telephone number is (303)297-4779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday 8am-6pm PT.
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 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.
/Lucas E. A. Palmer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights