DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 5/13/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 5/13/2025 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because it contains an apostrophe attached to the final instance of “product”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-14 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 7:
Claim 7 recites “lifting the first wing and second wing through an airflow and a subsequent folding that completes overturning” which is indefinite language because it is unclear if both the lifting and subsequent folding are claimed to be performed by this airflow, or if the airflow only causes the lifting action of the wings and not the subsequent folding.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites “when the folding has been completed” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because the claims include multiple folding steps.
Claims 8 and 10-14 depending from claims 7 and 9 are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. US 2017/0252230.
Regarding claim 1:
Mueller teaches a method for folding a semifinished product of an absorbent product for sanitary use to develop a product having a shape of pants (10), the semifinished product comprising:
a first wing (72l, where “l” indicates left-side) disposed on a first side and at or adjacently to a first longitudinal end of the semifinished product,
a second wing (72r, where “r” indicates right-side) disposed on a second side opposite to the first wing and at or adjacently to the first longitudinal end of the semifinished product, the first wing and the second wing comprising first quick connection elements (68),
a third wing (70l) disposed on a same side as the first wing and at or adjacently to a second longitudinal end of the semifinished product opposite to the first end, and
a fourth wing (70r) disposed on a same side as the second wing and at or adjacently to the second longitudinal end of the semifinished product opposite to the first end, the third wing and the fourth wing comprising second complementary quick connection elements ([0052]),
the method providing for a movement of the semifinished product along a processing path (e.g., [0068] machine direction 101), the method comprising the following steps, along the processing path:
folding the first wing and the second wing so as to lift the first wing and the second wing and overturn the first wing and the second wing on a plane of the semifinished product until reaching an overturned position, thereby causing the first quick connection elements of the first wing and the second wing to face an outside of the plane of the semifinished product (see FIG. 2: ignoring panel 36 for the moment, wings 72l and 72r are shown as folded toward the product plane, where the connection elements 68 face away from the plane);
maintaining the first wing and the second wing in the overturned position (FIG. 1 shows the first and second wings maintained in this state); and
folding the semifinished product transversally so as to respectively engage the first wing to the third wing and the second wing to the fourth wing by causing the first quick connection elements to engage the second complementary quick connection elements (envisaged in FIGS. 2 and 3; cf. [0052]).
Regarding claim 2:
Mueller teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first quick connection elements and the second complementary quick connection elements are of hook and loop connections ([0056]).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller, as applied above.
Regarding claim 15:
Mueller teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising a pressing after coupling of the first wing, the second wing, the third wing, and respectively the fourth wing together, thereby ensuring a better adhesion of the first wing, the second wing, the third wing, and respectively the fourth wing to each other.
However, given that Mueller establishes that pressing the wings and connection elements leads to adhesion (e.g., [0075] and other passages consider pressure bonding and compression rolls for adhesion purposes), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Mueller by further adding a pressing step after coupling of the first wing, the second wing, the third wing, and respectively the fourth wing together, to thereby ensure a better adhesion of the wings and a more compact and secure product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-14 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating claim 3 allowable: in a method that includes folding and overturning first and second wings to expose a connection element, maintaining those wings overturned, then engaging those wings with third and fourth wings via folding, the prior art fails to disclose a step of adjusting a width of at least one portion of the semifinished product so that the folded first wing and the folded second wing are longitudinally aligned with the third wing and the fourth wing. Claims 4-6 are allowable based on their dependencies.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating claim 7 allowable: in a method that includes folding and overturning first and second wings to expose a connection element, maintaining those wings overturned, then engaging those wings with third and fourth wings via folding, the prior art fails to disclose wherein causing the first wing and the second wing to overturn on a surface of the semifinished product comprises lifting the first wing and second wing through an airflow and a subsequent folding that completes overturning, thereby causing both the first wing and second wing to complete rotation until reaching a laid position on the plane of the semifinished product
Claims 8-14 are allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731