Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 19/206,126

Apparatus for producing folded underwear pads

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 13, 2025
Priority
May 15, 2024 — IT 102024000010978
Examiner
WITTENSCHLAEGER, THOMAS M
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Gdm S P A
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
408 granted / 570 resolved
+1.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
596
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 570 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Status This Office action is in response to the amendments filed of 5/11/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-17 are currently pending. The cancelation of claims 4, 7, and 18-22 are currently pending. Specification The amendment filed 5/11/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the last sentence added to para. 0147. Applicant has not previously indicated that such transversal folding means are known and disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 7,3,99,266. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. 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. In this case, the following limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): the “folding means” of claim 1 and corresponding to the combination of the nozzle (also called airflow in the specification) (10 – Fig. 5) and the one or more fingers (20 – Fig. 5); and the “narrowing means” of claim 14 and corresponding to shiftable shoes (30 – Fig. 6). 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 limitations use 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 limitations are: the “path of forward motion” of claim 1 and corresponding to roller or wheel (200 – Fig. 5); and the “transversal folding devices” of claim 1 corresponding to tapered arm 40 and the new matter added to para. 0147 in the amendments to the specification dated 5/11/2026; and the “overturning and maintaining devices” of claim 9 and corresponding to the fingers (20 – Fig. 5). Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 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 1-3, 5-6, and 8-17 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “transversal folding devices” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as indicated above. Applicant has linked the corresponding structure to the type of transversal folding means described in U.S. Patent No. 7,399,266. However, this passage to the specification is new matter as also indicated above. Since the subject matter that provides the corresponding structure for the limitation “transversal folding devices” comprises new matter, the limitation “transversal folding devices” is also new matter. Hence, it is not clear that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-17 are also rejected for including this new matter. Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/11/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending application 19,206,123 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 112b rejection of the limitation “transversal folding devices,” applicant argues that those types of devices are known and do not need to be described in detail. Applicant has also noted that the specification has been amended to indicate that they are known and to provide an example. In response, it is noted that since applicant is invoking 112(f) with the limitation “transversal folding devices” they need to be clearly described in the specification, even if they are well known. There may be several types of transversal folding devices. Which ones are applicant referring to? Furthermore, as indicated above, stating that they are known and providing a specific example constitutes new matter. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive. 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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00. 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. /THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 6/29/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 11, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 02, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 04, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703595
PHARMACEUTICAL PACKAGING APPARATUS, METHOD OF DETERMINING REMAINING QUANTITY OF PHARMACEUTICAL PACKAGING PAPER AND PHARMACEUTICAL PACKAGING PAPER ROLL
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703166
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR WEB-FED DRY FORMING OF FIBER-BASED PRODUCTS
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703072
RECIPROCATING TOOL, AND METHOD FOR DETECTING OCCURRENCE OF MALFUNCTION ASSOCIATED WITH POSITION DETECTION OF RECIPROCATING MEMBER IN RECIPROCATING TOOL
1y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12697795
BOX FORMING APPARATUS
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12698113
Gripper-bender device and modular gripper assembly
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 11m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 570 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month