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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Note Para. 0005 of the Specification outlines a publication “BO2005A000360 of 25/5/2005” but this reference is not listed within the IDS and a copy thereof is not provided.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- Para. 0005 outlines a publication “BO2005A000360 of 25/5/2005” but it is unclear if this is a publication number and further “25/5/2005” should instead read as “5/25/2005” and should outline whether this is a publication date or a filing date.
-Para. 0022 recites “the whole with a process” but this is unclear what this is intended to mean.
-Para. 0023 recites “in accordance with claim 1”, however, reference to specific claims should be avoided as the subject matter of the claims and/or claim numbering will readily change throughout prosecution.
-Throughout the specification there are multiple recitations of “folding means of the wings (10, 20)” but this would be better recited as “folding means (10, 20) of the wings ”.
-the “Summary of the Invention” section recites several reference numbers without reference to a Figure number. It is recommended that reference numbers referred to in the summary be removed to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Velcro”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “transversal folding devices” (Claim 1), “at least three rotatable wheels” (Claim 4), “a chord” (Claim 8), “cam system” (Claim 10) must be shown 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, line 5, “fold the semifinished product transversely” would be better recited as “fold the semifinished product about a transverse line”.
-Claims 3, 5, and 9 each recite “integrated on board” which would be better recited as “positioned along”.
-Claim 10, line 4, “being connected to the path” would be better recited as “positioned along”.
-Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 and 22 of copending Application No. 19/206,126 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant Application, Claim 1 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct. Although Claim 1 of the instant Application recites the wings “emerging from” the respective flank and Claim 1 of Application 19/206,126 recites the wings “extending from” the respective flank, this difference does not patentably distinguish the claims from one another.
Regarding Claim 2 of the instant Application, Claim 2 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 3 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 3 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 4 of the instant Application, Claim 4 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 5 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 5 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 6 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 6 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 7 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 7 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 8 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 8 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 9 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 9 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 10 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 10 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct. Note that the difference in the location of the fingers is not a patentably distinguishable feature.
Regarding Claim 11 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 11 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 12 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 12 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 13 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claim 15 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 10 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct and although Claim 10 of reference Application 19/206,126 does not outline the fingers being shaped to not fully cover the wings to not interfere with a coupling thereof such a feature is not viewed as patentably distinguishable as in order to properly couple the wings while maintaining the wings in overturned configuration.
Regarding Claims 16 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 14 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claims 17 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 15 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
Regarding Claims 18 of the instant Application, although not identical, Claim 22 of reference Application 19/206,126 renders the claim patentably indistinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 11-12 recites “folding means of the wings…configured to overturn, and maintain in a laid position”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the Applicant is intending to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as although Claim 1 appears to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), subsequent claims (Claims 5 and 9-15) recite structure defining the means for performing the function. Further, there is no clear link within the specification of the means to structure for performing the function. For example, Paragraph [0046] recites “said folding means of the wings (10, 20) comprise at least one airflow (10)” but Paragraph [0058] outlines “said folding means of the wings (10, 20) comprise, in combination with said airflow (10), overturning and maintaining devices (20)”. Even further, it is unclear as to what structure “airflow” would be intending to encompass. Therefore, it is not readily clear as to what is the intended scope of the “folding means” even if the Applicant is intending to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is not readily clear if the Applicant is merely intending to encompass any structure configured to perform the claimed functions, or if the folding means is intended to encompass either the “airflow” or “the overturning and maintaining device” or both or if Applicant is further trying to claim the nozzle providing the “airflow” and/or the fingers for overturning/maintaining the wings.
Regarding Claim 5, lines 1-2 recite “folding means comprise an airflow”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what structure is being claimed by “airflow”.
Regarding Claim 6, lines 5-6 recite “the at least two side shoes being equipped with holes for a passage of the airflow”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “the airflow” is intending to refer to the “airflow” of the folding means which does not readily appear to be consistent with the specification as the folding means as the “airflow” is described as coming from an “air jet” or “nozzles” (Para. 0117).
Regarding Claim 16, it is unclear if “narrowing means…configured to narrow” is intending to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). This is because Claim 17 further defines the “narrowing means” and further there is not a clear link of the means to structure within the specification. Paragraphs [0077] and [0096] outline the means can “for example” comprise “at least one shiftable suction” and “at least one pair of shoes”, respectively.
Further with respect to Claim 17, the claim recites “suction shiftable” which is unclear as to what structure this is referring to and what scope of structure this is intended to encompass.
Claims 2-4, 7-15, and 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as the claims depend from at least one of the claims outlined above.
Due to the lack of clarity on what is attempting to be encompassed by the claimed “folding means”, the Examiner might speculate as to what is meant by the claim language, however, the uncertainty provides the Examiner with no proper basis for making the comparison between that which is claimed and the prior art. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based upon considerable speculation as to the meaning of terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims. In re Steele, 134 USPQ 292. When no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, but rather the claim becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 165 USPQ 494.
However, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the “folding means” as invoking 35 USC 112(f) and is interpreted as below and a comparison to the prior art is attempted.
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.
As outlined above claim limitations “folding means of the wings…configured to overturn, and maintain in a laid position” (Claim 1) has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear as to whether “folding” is viewed as a structural modifier to the “means”, subsequent claims outline structures of the “folding means” and further there is no clear link of the means to the structure for carrying out the function within the specification. Similarly, it is unclear as to whether the “narrowing means…configured to narrow” (of Claim 16) is intending to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as claim 17 outlines details and further there is no clear link within the specification. The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes:
- folding means of the wings…configured to overturn, and maintain in a laid position” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and will be interpreted in light of Para. 0058 as comprising “airflow” and “the overturning and maintaining device” and equivalents thereof.
- “narrowing means…configured to narrow” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and will be interpreted in light of Para. 0077 as comprising “at least one shiftable suction” structure.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeyer (US Patent 6,250,357), in view of LaVon (US PGPUB 2013/0072887).
Regarding Claim 1, Niedermeyer discloses an apparatus (1; Figure 1) for folding a semifinished product (S; Figures 9, 11) of an absorbent product for sanitary use to form a product shaped as pants (see abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a path of forward motion for the semifinished product (S; shown in Figure 11),
the path of forward motion comprising transversal folding devices (formed by rolls 60, 63) configured to fold the semifinished product transversally (about fold line F1-F1’; Figure 9) with respect to the path of forward motion so as to fold the semifinished product (S) into two parts (61, 62) overlapping each other to form the product shaped as pants (Col 5, lines 37-50), and
the semifinished (S; Figure 9) having wings (83) comprising a first wing emerging from a flank of the semifinished product (S), a second wing (“S2”; Figure 9) opposite the first wing (83) and emerging from an opposite flank of the semifinished product, a third wing (“S1”), and a fourth wing (“S3”; see “Annotated View of Figure 9” below); and
folding means (apertures for airflow 67, folding and maintaining edges/plates 84, 85, plate 82; Figure 8) of wings (83, S1-S3) configured to overturn, and maintain in a laid position on a surface of the semifinished product (S via 84, 85), the first wing (83) and the second wing (S2) until completion of formation of the product shaped as pants (shown in Figure 11; see Col 5, lines 59-64 and Col 6, lines 24-32).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
289
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 9
However, Niedermeyer does not readily disclose the folding means is disposed upstream of the transversal folding devices.
Attention is brought to the teachings of LaVon which outlines a folding means (ear folder 2008T; Figure 8; Para. 0120) for folding wings (108, 110, 104, 106; Figure 1) laterally inward onto an inner surface (132) of the product (100T), wherein such folding means is arranged upstream of transverse folding devices (306, 308 at 2010; Figure 8; Para. 0134-0135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have arranged the folding means of Niedermeyer to be upstream of the transversal folding devices (i.e. roll arrangement) as taught by LaVon as such a modification readily allows the wings/ears to be folded inward and the product to be folded in surface to surface contact without being connected as taught by LaVon (Para. 0092). Note such a result allows the folded product to comprise less width for packaging and further allows for the connection portion to not be used/worn prior to reaching the consumer.
Regarding Claim 2, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the folding means (67, 84, 85, 82) are configured to fold the first wing (83) and the second wing by 180° or about 180° and keep the first wing (83) and the second wing (S2) in a folded position (see Col 5, lines 59-64 and Col 6, lines 24-32).
Regarding Claim 3, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the folding means (67, 84, 85, 82) are integrated on board the path of forward motion (on/about roll 63; Col 5, lines 59-64 and Col 6, lines 24-32; see Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 4, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the path of forward motion is formed by at least three rotatable wheels (60, 65, 63; Figure 11) arranged to form the path of forward motion (see Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 5, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the folding means means (67, 84, 85, 82) comprise an airflow (via 67) integrated on board (on roll 63) the path of forward motion and adapted to fold one of the wings of the semifinished product (S) by lifting the one of the wings with respect to the surface of the semifinished product (S) by an angle of 90° or about 90° (see Col 5, lines 59-64).
Regarding Claim 9, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the folding means (67, 84, 85, 82) comprise, in combination with the airflow (of 67), overturning and maintaining devices (84, 85) integrated on board the path of forward motion and configured to completely overturn the one of the wings (83) to lay the one of the wings on the surface of the semifinished product (S) and maintaining the one of the wings (83) in the laid position (throughout 84, 85; Col 6, lines 24-32).
Regarding Claim 10, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the overturning and maintaining devices (84, 85) comprise one or more fingers (formed by plates 85) configured to overturn the one of the wings at least on the surface of the semifinished product (S), the one or more fingers being connected to the path of forward motion (along roll 63; Col 6, lines 24-32).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeyer (US Patent 6,250,357), in view of LaVon (US PGPUB 2013/0072887), as applied to Claim 5, and in further view of Reinsch (US PGPUB 2019/00708846).
Regarding Claim 6, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses a shoe (formed by surface of 63 comprising ports 64) comprising holes (64) along the path of forward motion (as shown; Figure 8) but does not disclose at least two side shoes connected to edges of the path of forward motion, one of the at least two side shoes being arranged on a flank of the path of forward motion and another one of the at least two side shoes is arranged on an opposite flank of the path of forward motion so as to intercept the first wing (83) and the second wing (S2), the at least two side shoes being equipped with holes (64) for a passage of the airflow.
Attention is brought to Reinsch which teaches apparatus (1; Figure 1) for handling a sheet product including a suction drum (32; Figure 10-11) for transferring sheets between conveyors (17, 27) wherein the drum comprises several shoes (rings 76; Figure 21) wherein the shoes (76) comprise suction ports and are adjustable in an axial direction (Para. 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated adjustable suction portions as taught by Reinsch in the apparatus of Niedermeyer such that the shoes/suction elements can be adjusted based on the format (size) of the product being conveyed as taught by Reinsch (Para. 0096).
Regarding Claim 7, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the path of forward motion is formed by at least three rotatable wheels (60, 63, 65), and wherein the at least two side shoes (as incorporated above) are disposed on board at least one (63) of the at least three rotatable wheels (60, 63, 65).
Regarding Claim 8, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses the at least two side shoes (76 of Reinsch) have a circular geometry configured to follow an arc of a circumference of the at least one of the at least three rotatable wheels (63; note the rings of Reinsch are mounted about the same shaft as the drum and therefore in order to provide suction must follow the arc thereof).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeyer (US Patent 6,250,357), in view of LaVon (US PGPUB 2013/0072887), as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Reising (US PGPUB 2003/0119641).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose a narrowing means arranged on an opposite side of the folding devices of the wings with respect to a longitudinal length of the semifinished product, the narrowing means being configured to narrow a portion of the semifinished product longitudinally opposite to the first wing and the second wing, wherein the narrowing means comprise at least a suction shiftable so as to drag the portion of the semifinished product, thus causing a transversal narrowing thereof.
Attention can be brought to Reising which teaches a drum (222; Figure 7) comprising a narrowing means formed by shiftable locators (232; Figures 8-9) which engage tab/wing portions (44) and move the portions transversely to engage/align (to target position 230) with other tab members (42; Para. 0044) and therefore are capable of narrowing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the vacuum ports of the drum (63) of Niedermeyer to be able to transversely move the tab/wing portions as taught by the shiftable locators of Reising such that the tab portions can align by reaching a target transverse position as taught by Reising (Para. 0044).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeyer (US Patent 6,250,357), in view of LaVon (US PGPUB 2013/0072887), as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Schoon (US PGPUB 2013/0130879)
Regarding Claim 18, Niedermeyer, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose lateral compression wheels for pressing the semifinished product when the semifinished product has been closed to form the product shaped as pants through the transversal folding devices.
Attention is brought to Schoon which teaches a set of lateral compression wheels (110; Figures 8-9) for compressing a formed product (50; Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated such lateral compression wheels as taught by Schoon into the apparatus of Niedermeyer in order to further ensure that the folded product does not return to an unfolded form due to elastic memory thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter / Examiner Note
Claims 11-15 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, and the Double Patenting rejection is overcome as set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 11-15, while the specific features outlined in the dependent claims, themselves, may not be allowable, the features in combination with the features of the claims in which the claims depend from renders the claims as allowable subject matter as it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified Niedermeyer to obtain such a claimed invention without improper hindsight and/or significant structural modifications.
Examiner notes the following proposal to Claim 1 below would appear to overcome the prior art rejections above.
1 (Proposed). An apparatus for folding a semifinished product of an absorbent product for sanitary use to form a product shaped as pants, the apparatus comprising:
a path of forward motion for the semifinished product,
the path of forward motion comprising transversal folding devices configured to fold the semifinished product about a transverse line with respect to the path of forward motion so as to fold the semifinished product into two parts overlapping each other to form the product shaped as pants, and
the semifinished having wings comprising a first wing emerging from a flank of the semifinished product, a second wing opposite the first wing and emerging from an opposite flank of the semifinished product, a third wing, and a fourth wing; and
folding means of the wings disposed upstream of the transversal folding devices and configured to overturn, and maintain in a laid position on a surface of the semifinished product, the first wing and the second wing until completion of formation of the product shaped as pants,
wherein the folding means comprises a nozzle for providing an air jet and one or more fingers movable along the path of forward motion to overturn, and maintain the wings in the laid position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 1/23/2026