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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 3, “with vertex” should read --with a vertex--
Claim 12, final line, “a pair of opposite rollers and.” should read --a pair of opposite rollers.--
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.
The following element(s) is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1, “first and second movement means… configured for feeding,” referring to first 14 and second 15 movement means shown in at least Fig. 2
Claim 1, “first joining unit… configured to join,” referring to the first joining unit 17 shown in at least Fig. 1
Claim 1, “second joining unit… configured to join,” referring to the second joining unit 18 shown in at least Fig. 1 Claim 1, “first and second movement means… configured for feeding,” referring to first 14 and second 15 movement means shown in at least Fig. 2
Claim 15, “first joining unit… configured to join,” referring to the first joining unit 17 shown in at least Fig. 1
Claim 15, “second joining unit… configured to join,” referring to the second joining unit 18 shown in at least Fig. 1
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.
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(s) 1-17 is/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, introduction of “wherein each first joining unit is configured to join a final end of the first strip, when it is not fed by the first movement means, with an initial end of a new first strip coming from a new first reel, and each second joining unit is configured to join a final end of the second strip” in the second from final paragraph renders the claim indefinite because the limitations “each first joining unit” and “each second joining unit” seem to suggest that there are multiple first joining units and multiple second joining units, while only a single first joining unit and a second joining unit were previously recited, causing confusion. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are interpreted as “wherein the first joining unit…, and the second joining unit…”.
Claim 15, limitations “each first joining unit” and “each second joining unit” are rejected for being indefinite for essentially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, introduction of “wherein said first and second reel said the carousel” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation as written is grammatically erroneous, and it is unclear what information the limitation conveys. For the purposes of examination, it is to be interpreted as “wherein said first reel, said second reel, and the carousel”.
Regarding claim 14, introduction of “wherein said first and second reel said the carousel are positioned on vertical, coplanar and contiguous planes” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation as written suggests there are multiple planes that are vertical, coplanar, and contiguous, while physically, there exists only one plane that is vertical and coplanar (any other vertical and coplanar “plane” would be a subset of the original plane.); meanwhile contiguous planes are multiple distinct planes. Therefore, vertical, coplanar and contiguous planes cannot exist. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is construed as “…are positioned on a single vertical plane.”
All dependent claims of the above claims inherit all of the limitations and thus are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims in this application have been allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed invention including the following features:
Claim 1, “a first and a second joining unit, respectively for the first and the second strip, positioned between the respective first and second reel and the respective first and second movement means, along a corresponding first and second path of the first and second strip; wherein each first joining unit is configured to join a final end of the first strip, when it is not fed by the first movement means, with an initial end of a new first strip coming from a new first reel, and each second joining unit is configured to join a final end of the second strip, when it is not fed by the second movement means, with an initial end of a new second strip coming from a new second reel”.
Claim 15, “preparing a first and a second joining unit, respectively for the first and the second strip, positioned between the respective first and second reel and the respective first and second movement means, along a corresponding first and second path of the first and second strip; wherein each first joining unit is configured to join a final end of the first strip, when it is not fed by the first movement means, with an initial end of a new first strip coming from a new first reel, and each second joining unit is configured to join a final end of the second strip, when it is not fed by the second movement means, with an initial end of a new second strip coming from a new second reel”.
Closest prior art of record, Stevenson to US 5,951,452, discloses a similar machine for forming filter bags for infusion product. However, Stevenson fails to disclose the machine having two reels for two strips (Stevenson has a single strip 7 coming from a single reel shown in Fig. 8). While Yamashita to GB 2141108 A (see a copy mailed herewith) discloses two strips T_1 and T_2 coming from two reels 1 and 1’ with a selector (72/81, Fig. 4), Yamashita fails to disclose the machine comprising a first and a second joining unit. Therefore, arriving at the claimed limitation without teachings or suggestions from prior art of record would be impermissible hind sight reconstruction of the applicant's invention.
The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant's claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Himchan Song whose telephone number is (571)272-4142. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
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.
/HIMCHAN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights