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 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 1-15 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 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.
Regarding claim 1, the structure of the claim is confusing, as recites a first second and third variant in lines 10-11, and further includes alternative language (denoted by sections b1-b7/c1-c7) within each variant section. Are these variants different embodiments that are intended to be alternatives? In sections beginning in lines 11, 33 53, each respective variant is claimed, but there is no alternative “or” language present so as to show that the variants are being claimed in the alternative, so it is unclear if these variants are being claimed in the alternative, or in combination, as the current presentation appears to be claimed in combination. If they are being claimed in combination, the claims would be further indefinite, as the variants cannot be combined, as they are referring to variant/alternative manufacturing methods. If they are being claimed in the alternative, Applicant should make clear which language is alternative or optional, and which is required. Applicant should amend the claims to more clearly recite these variants if they are in fact alternatives, and not being claimed in combination as currently presented. Additionally, sections “d” and “e” appear after the three variant sections, and it is unclear if these sections are part of the third variant, or if they are required parts of the claim, separate from the variant sections. It is noted that if the claims are amended to include alternative variant sections, they will be subject to restriction, as opposed to claiming a single variant.
Further regarding claim 1, in the phrase “VON nonwoven” in line 6, it is unclear what “VON” means. There does not appear to be a common meaning for “VON”, and Applicant does not define what it means. Further, in line 27, the term “a film” is indefinite, as it is unclear if this instance of “a film” is referring to the same “a film” stated in line 5, or if it is a different claim element.
Regarding claim 2, in line 3, the phrase “b6. And” renders the claim improper as it is unclear if the claim has a period in the middle of the claim and begins a new sentence with the capitol “A” in the word “And.” Claims must be written as a single sentence with one period at the end. Additionally, the phrase “wherein the heating in at least one of steps bl., b2., b3., b4., b5., b6. And b7 can alternatively and/or additionally be carried out with contact heating or non-contact heating or infrared heating” is indefinite as it is unclear how these different heating methods are used in combination if they are used “additionally”. Further, if the methods are used as alternatives, they would fail to further limit claim 1, as claim 1 positively establishes heating methods, and claiming an alternative in a dependent claim would be destroying what is claimed in the independent claim, rendering it indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, because it is unclear if variant 2 is required in claim 1, it is further unclear if the language of claim 4 is required or optional.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation "the additional carrier" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “chemically compatible” is indefinite. It is unclear what compatibility Applicant is referring to, nor is it defined in the disclosure.
Regarding claim 7, in line 6, the phrase “a film as a vapor and airtight, flowtight layer” is indefinite, as it is unclear what “vapor” is referring to. It appears that Applicant is intending to claim “vapor-tight” as presented in independent claim 1. Further, in lines 17-18, the phrase “they form a deformable surface element after tearing and renewed nonwoven formation” is indefinite, as the phrase “after tearing and renewed nonwoven formation” is unclear. Is Applicant claiming a tearing step? If so, it is unclear what that is or how it occurs. Further, the reference to “renewed nonwoven formation” is wholly undefined and it is unclear what this means. The Specification recites the same language of the claim in a single instance without defining what this limitation means. Still further, line 19 recites “and/or” language, and then from line 20 through the end of the claim, recites a series of limitations separated by commas, and it is unclear if each of these limitations beginning in line 20 are individually being claimed as “and/or” language, or if the grouping of limitations as a whole is being claimed as “and/or” language in relation to the limitations of lines 1-18 which precede the “and/or” language. Additionally, in line 20, the phrase “all components of the materials used are fully bonded as additives in a heavy layer” is indefinite as it is unclear what this means. The Examiner cannot tell if this is indefinite as a result of a translation from another language, or if this language was intended to be presented in this manner. Applicant should further clarify what this limitation means.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation " the insulation component manufacturing method according to the invention " in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the limitation “wherein the insulation component can be manufactured in particular by the insulation component manufacturing method according to the invention” is indefinite, as it is unclear what “the insulation component manufacturing method according to the invention” means. Claim 8 is an apparatus claim that depends from apparatus claim 7. No manufacturing method is claimed in any relation to claim 8, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, in lines 2 and 3, respectively, the phrase “a vapor- and airtight flowtight layer” is indefinite, as it is unclear what “vapor-” is referring to. It appears that Applicant is intending to claim “vapor-tight” as presented in independent claim 1.
Regarding all claims, the use of hyphens (-) to separate limitations instead of commas or semicolons is confusing and makes it difficult to separate claim limitations. Applicant should eliminate the hyphens used through the claims and instead use commas or semicolons to separate limitations within a claimed. Further, the use of “and/or” language throughout the claims renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) preceding and following the “and/or” language are part of the claimed invention.
Further regarding claims 1-7, the use of numbers and a period (a., b1., b2., etc..) to separate groups of claim limitations is confusing, while it is acceptable to use periods in a claim as part of an abbreviation, some of the dependent claims referring to various “b” sections from claim 1, such as in claim 2, are presented in a way that looks like a period forming more than one sentence within the claim. Since a patent claim must be written in a single sentence with one period at the end, the current presentation of the claims causes confusion, and in the case of claim 2, appears to be improper as indicated above.
Due to the numerous indefiniteness issues note above, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the claim limitations; therefore, a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 has not been applied at this time, as such rejection would require speculation as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights