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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheets of drawings were received on January 27, 2026. These drawings are approved by the Examiner, with the exception of the following issues:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Note MPEP 608.01(o) states that “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import, and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies.” Therefore, the particular angular relationships as defined in claims 1 and 15-17 of the outer side surface and/or inner side surface and/or sidewall inclined portion must be shown (preferably with reference to particular drawing Figures and specific reference numerals) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 15, the specification fails to describe the subject matter recited in claim 15 in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no description in the disclosure with respect to the inner side surface of the rib, the predetermined direction, or the angular relationship between the outer side surface and inner side surface with respect to the predetermined direction as recited in claim 15. Additionally, it is not clear whether the relationships/structures described in the claim are properly illustrated in the drawing Figures.
With respect to claims 16-17, the specification fails to describe the subject matter recited in claims 16-17 in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no description in the disclosure with respect to the “sidewall inclined portion” and its particular configuration as recited in claims 16-17. Additionally, it is not clear whether the relationships/structures described in the claim are properly illustrated in the drawing Figures.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-7 and 9-17 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.
With respect to claim 1, the language in the last 5 lines of the claim are confusing in meaning and scope. In particular, the language “such that the further away from the conveyance center the outer side surface is, the further away from the second guide member the outer side surface is” is not clear in meaning and is confusing since it appears to be defining the outer side surface of a rib on the first guide member relative to the second guide member. Additionally, it is noted that while this claim language appears to have support in the specification in paragraph [0053] and [0057], the language in the specification does not make it clear as to which way the side surface is inclined. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the drawing figures do not clearly and consistently show the relationship described by the claim language. In particular, while Figure 8 shows a side surface inclined portion 645, it does not clearly illustrate the relationship of that side surface inclined portion relative to the second guide member 65. Additionally, other drawing Figures do not appear to illustrate the side surface having an inclination at all, such as for example, Figures 5-6. Therefore, it is not clear what the particular claimed configuration of the side surface of the rib is intended to be.
With respect to claim 15, this claim is not clear in scope and meaning with respect to the inner side surface and the particular configuration of the angles of the outer side surface and inner side surface relative to the “predetermined direction” as recited. Specifically, as noted above in the rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, there is no description in the disclosure with respect to the inner side surface of the rib, the predetermined direction, or the angular relationship between the outer side surface and inner side surface with respect to the predetermined direction as recited in claim 15. Additionally, from looking at the drawings, it is not clear which structures and what angular relationships are being defined. Thus, the exact scope and meaning of this claim language is not clear.
With respect to claims 16-17, again, as noted in the above rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, there is no description in the disclosure with respect to the sidewall inclined portion and its configuration as recited in claims 16-17. Additionally, from looking at the drawings, it is not clear which structures and what angular relationships are being defined. Thus, the exact scope and meaning of this claim language is not clear. Additionally, the language “a sidewall inclined portion located relatively on one side in the sheet width direction in comparison with most downstream one of the plurality of ribs on the one side” is not clear in meaning or scope, particularly with respect to the “in comparison” language and what that is intended to mean.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Due to the extreme indefiniteness of the claims with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above, an examination of these claims with respect to the prior art could not be completed at this time since the exact scope and meaning of the claims could not be readily determined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections. In particular, note that the claims as amended have raised issues with 35 USC 112, first and second, as set forth in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights