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 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 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: “locking form” in claims 1, 4 and 16.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weigert (US 2021/0292946).
Regarding claim 1, Weigert teaches a sleeve (fig. 2, sleeve 11) for a drum (10) for use in forming, pressing or moulding a fibrous web, wherein:
the sleeve comprises at least two parts (fig. 2, rings 12-15),
each part having a form of an open-ended cylinder with two edges, configured to be arranged concentrically on the drum (figs. 1-2),
at least one edge of each part has a peripheral locking form (fig. 5b, 12k, 13k), and wherein adjacent edges of adjacent parts of the at least two parts have corresponding cooperating peripheral locking forms adapted to lock the adjacent parts to each other (para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Weigert teaches wherein parts forming ends of the sleeve have outer edges where a part of points of the outer edges fall on a same plane, which plane is perpendicular to a rotational axis of the sleeve (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Weigert teaches wherein parts forming ends of the sleeve have outer edges where all points of the outer edges fall on a same plane, which plane is perpendicular to a rotational axis of the sleeve (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Weigert teaches the sleeve comprises three parts: a first part (fig. 1, part 12) having a first outer edge and a second end with a peripheral locking form (fig. 5b), a second part (fig. 2, part 15) having a first outer edge and a second edge with a peripheral locking form (para. [0030], the adjacent rings having overlapping oblique areas, which is clamped together by element 26), and a third part (fig. 2, parts 13, 14) arranged between the first and second parts, having peripheral locking forms at both its edges, for locking the parts together (figs. 2 and 5b, para. [0030], the adjacent rings having overlapping oblique areas, which is clamped together by element 26).
Regarding claim 5, Weigert teaches the sleeve comprises several third parts (fig. 2, parts 13, 14) arranged adjacent to one another.
Regarding claim 11, Weigert teaches the at least two parts are manufactured by additive manufacturing (para. [0009], [0024], by laser sintering 3D printing method).
Regarding claim 12, Weigert teaches the parts of the sleeve are manufactured by laser sintering 3D printing method (para. [0024]). It is noted that “the additive manufacturing is stereolithography” is a product-by-process”. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 13, Weigert teaches the at least two parts comprise a pattern (figs. 3, 5b).
Regarding claim 14, Weigert teaches a circular locking form is part of the pattern (fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 16, Weigert teaches a method for securing a sleeve to a drum for use in forming, pressing or moulding a fibrous web, the method comprising:
providing the sleeve (figs. 1-2) according to claim 1;
arranging the at least two parts of the sleeve concentrically on the drum (fig. 1), and
locking adjacent parts of the sleeve to each other by the corresponding cooperating peripheral locking forms of the adjacent parts (figs. 1 and 5b, para. [0030]).
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.
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.
Claims 6-10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigert (US 2021/0292946), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muenstermann (US 2017/0114486).
Regarding claim 6, Weigert does not clearly teach the peripheral locking form is selected from a group consisting of sinusoidal forms, zigzag forms, and wave forms.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Muenstermann teaches a locking form is selected from a group consisting of sinusoidal forms, zigzag forms, and wave forms (fig. 2, recesses 16a and 16b have forms of wave forms).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the peripheral locking form of Weigert with wave forms as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of connecting the segments of the patterning shell detachably and no irregularities result in the pattern-producing surface (Muenstermann, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Weigert does not teach one peripheral locking form comprises at least two protrusions and an adjacent peripheral locking form comprises corresponding recesses.
However, Muenstermann teaches one peripheral locking form comprises at least two protrusions and an adjacent peripheral locking form comprises corresponding recesses (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine locking forms of Weigert with protrusions and corresponding recesses as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of connecting the segments of the patterning shell detachably and no irregularities result in the pattern-producing surface (Muenstermann, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Weigert does not teach one peripheral locking form is a female form and an adjacent peripheral locking form is a corresponding male form.
However, Muenstermann teaches one peripheral locking form is a female form and an adjacent peripheral locking form is a corresponding male form (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine locking forms of Weigert with a female form and a corresponding male form as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of connecting the segments of the patterning shell detachably and no irregularities result in the pattern-producing surface (Muenstermann, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Weigert does not teach a part of the peripheral locking forms are zig-zag forms.
However, Muenstermann teaches a part of the peripheral locking forms are zig-zag forms (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine locking forms of Weigert with zigzag- forms as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of connecting the segments of the patterning shell detachably and no irregularities result in the pattern-producing surface (Muenstermann, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, Weigert does not teach all peripheral locking forms are zig-zag forms.
However, Muenstermann teaches all peripheral locking forms are zig-zag forms (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine locking forms of Weigert with zigzag- forms as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of connecting the segments of the patterning shell detachably and no irregularities result in the pattern-producing surface (Muenstermann, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 15, Weigert does not teach a wall thickness of the at least two parts is at least 1mm.
However, Muenstermann teaches a wall thickness of the sleeve parts is at least 1mm (para. [0032], the patterning shell 10 has a wall thickness of 0.5 to 6mm).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shell of Weigert with wall thickness at least 1mm as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of being fitted onto the circumference of the drum and providing patterning in the fibrous material (Muenstermann, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Weigert teaches a roll (fig. 1) for use in forming, pressing or moulding a fibrous web, comprising: a drum (fig. 1, drum 10) comprising a backplate, a sleeve (fig. 1, shell 11) according to claim 1, arranged concentrically on the drum, a compression collar (fig. 1, clamping elements 26) for compressing the sleeve on the drum.
Weigert does not teach the compression collar as in the claim.
However, Muenstermann teaches a compression collar (fig. 6, elements 19-22) for compressing a sleeve (fig. 6, shell 10) on a drum (fig. 6, drum 5) between the backplate and the collar, the collar comprising: an inner part (fig. 6, element 19) configured to be attached to an end of the drum, an outer part (fig. 6, element 21), and a slip part (fig. 6, element 22) between the inner part and the outer part, which slip part is configured to be engaged with the sleeve (fig. 6, para. [0048])), wherein the inner part, the slip part and the outer part are assembled together in succession along an assembly axis (fig. 6), and the slip part is configured to translate between the inner part and the outer part along the assembly axis (as shell is detachably connected to the drum, the element 22 is configured to translate between the inner part and the outer part along the assembly axis).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the collar of Weigert with the compression collar as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of fastening the patterning shell on a drum in the end region of the drum (Muenstermann, para. [0048]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Weigert does not teach “locking forms adapted to lock the adjacent parts to each other” as the depicted structures merely comprise opposing slits lacking any cooperating geometry capable of engaging or securing the adjacent parts; and parts 12k and 13k are locked to each other with the aid of clamping element 26 (remarks, page 7, first and second para.).
In response, Weigert does not disclose the drawings are to scale, the arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See MPEP 2125, section II.
Further, Weigert teaches in para. [0030], the front edges 12k, 12k of the rings 12, 13 are formed as overlapping oblique areas, which clamping elements 26 connect to each other; and one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to realize that the adjacent edges 12k, 13k comprise complimentary oblique edges which make the edges suitable for locking the adjacent parts together by the clamping elements 26.
The Applicant argues that in Muenstermann, its locking form (16a, 16b) are not peripheral locking forms (remarks, page 9).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Weigert teaches a peripheral locking form as in the claim. Weigert does not teach the locking form is selected from a group consisting of sinusoidal forms, zigzag forms, and wave forms. However, Muenstermann teaches the locking form is selected from a group consisting of sinusoidal forms, zigzag forms, and wave forms (fig. 2, recesses 16a and 16b have forms of wave forms). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the locking form of Weigert with wave forms as taught by Muenstermann for the benefit of connecting the segments of the patterning shell detachably and no irregularities result in the pattern-producing surface (Muenstermann, para. [0007]).
Further, regarding rejection of claim 17, the Examiner does not rely on the teaching of the shape of locking form of Muenstermann. The arguments are not commensurate with the rejected claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
