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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 15 July 2025.
Claims 1 – 11 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, the limitation, “a forming path”, should read, “the forming path”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a forming path”, in claim 1, lines 8 – 9.
Regarding claim 10, line 13 and line 15, the limitation, “overheated steam”, should read, “the overheated steam”, referring to its antecedent basis, “overheated steam”, in claim 10, line 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
“a steam distribution system” in claim 1.
“a temperature influencer” in claim 1 and 10
“a pressure influencer” in claim 4
“a temperature control unit” in claim 10
“a plasticizer application device” in claim 10
“a cutting device” in claim 11
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “overheated steam”, is indefinite because the term, “overheated”, is a relative term. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard to ascertain the requisite degree of heat needed for the steam to be considered, “overheated”, thus the term, “overheated”, lacks objective, measurable boundaries, making it difficult for one having ordinary skill in the art to discern the exact scope of the claimed invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean any steam (i.e., the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point). Please note, since claims 2 – 9 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 9 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation, “several injection sites”, is indefinite because the plain meaning of the term, “several”, is “more than two and fewer than many” – Merriam Webster dictionary, thus it is ambiguous as to what amount of injection sites is covered by the term, “several”. Additionally, neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard to define the term, “several”. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean more than two injection sites.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation, “preferably dimmish the pressure”, is indefinite because it is ambiguous whether the "preferred" feature is a strict requirement or merely an optional example. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation as an optional example and not a required limitation of the claimed invention. Please note, since claim 5 depends upon claim 4, claim 5 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “overheated steam”, is indefinite because the term, “overheated”, is a relative term. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard to ascertain the requisite degree of heat needed for the steam to be considered, “overheated”, thus the term, “overheated”, lacks objective, measurable boundaries, making it difficult for one having ordinary skill in the art to discern the exact scope of the claimed invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean any steam (i.e., the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point). Please note, since claim 11 depends upon claim 10, claim 11 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 10 the limitation, “several fluid conduits”, is indefinite because the plain meaning of the term, “several”, is “more than two and fewer than many” – Merriam Webster dictionary, thus it is ambiguous as to what amount of fluid conduits is covered by the term, “several”. Additionally, neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard to define the term, “several”. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean more than two fluid conduits. Please note, since claim 11 depends upon claim 10, claim 11 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “several injection sites”, is indefinite because the plain meaning of the term, “several”, is “more than two and fewer than many” – Merriam Webster dictionary, thus it is ambiguous as to what amount of injection sites is covered by the term, “several”. Additionally, neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard to define the term, “several”. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean more than two injection sites. Please note, since claim 11 depends upon claim 10, claim 11 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “a plasticizer application device”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation, “a cutting device”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gudang Garam (EP 3 123 777 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103 340 220 B).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (B)]
PNG
media_image3.png
292
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Zhang (CN 103 340 220 B)
figure 1)]
Regarding claim 1, Gudang Garam discloses a method for forming a continuous tubular rod from a continuous tow material, the method comprising:
providing a continuous tow material (2A, 2B, annotated fig. 10);
forming the continuous tow material to a continuous tubular rod (2C, annotated fig. 10);
heating the continuous tow material during forming by providing overheated steam from a steam generator (43, fig. 10. [0058]) via a steam distribution system (39, fig. 2 and 35, 40, 41, fig. 10) to the continuous tubular rod, and
providing a temperature influencer (44, fig. 10) in the steam distribution system downstream of the steam generator, the temperature influencer capable of changing a temperature of the overheated steam delivered from the steam generator to the continuous tow material during forming ([0058] – [0059]).
Gudang Garam further discloses the overheated steam in the steam distribution system injected at several injection sites (The examiner deems the sites within a format device 35 having injection channels/blow-in ducts 39, shown in fig. 2, as the claimed, “several injection sites”) to the continuous tubular rod along a forming path (37, fig. 10) of the continuous tow material.
Gudang Garam does not explicitly disclose measuring the temperature of the overheated steam in the steam distribution system at the several injection sites of the overheated steam to the continuous tubular rod along a forming path of the continuous tow material.
However, Zhang, which is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., a control system to maintain a predetermined temperature range and a predetermined pressure range within a system), teaches measuring the temperature of the overheated steam (via air inlet temperature sensors 11) in the steam distribution system at several injection sites (The examiner deems the sites within the machine body having nozzles 8 as the claimed, “several injection sites”, wherein [0034] describes the air intake temperature sensors 11 installed at these nozzles) of the overheated steam to a material along a forming path of that material (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Zhang with the invention of Gudang Garam, injection channels/blow-in ducts 39 that open into the through-passage 30 of a format device 35 in Gudang Garam would have the nozzles 8 and the air inlet temperature sensors 11 of Zhang to measure the temperature of the overheated steam at each of the (several) injection channels/blow-in ducts 39 in Gudang Garam).
Zhang is evidence that measuring the temperature of the overheated steam in the steam distribution system at the several injection sites of the overheated steam to the material along the forming path of that material was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the method for forming a continuous tubular rod from a continuous tow material of Gudang Garam to include the control mechanisms of Zhang comprising the structures of the nozzles, the air inlet temperature sensors, and the control system with the motivation to ensure precise temperature and pressure control in the formation of the continuous tubular rod of tow material.
Regarding claim 2, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Gudang Garam discloses heating (via the steam superheater 44, fig. 10) delivered from the steam generator (42, fig. 10) before delivering the overheated steam (via injection channels/blow-in ducts 39 in the format device 35) to the continuous tow material (2A, 2B, annotated fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Gudang Garam discloses measuring the temperature of the overheated steam at several injection sites (The examiner deems the sites within the format device 35 of Gudang Garam having the injection channels/blow-in ducts 39 as the claimed, “several injection sites”, wherein, with the combination of the teachings of Zhang with the invention of Gudang Garam, the air inlet temperature sensors 11 of Zhang would be at each of the (several) injection channels/blow-in ducts 39 to measure the temperature of the overheated steam) along a forming path (Gudang Garam – 37, fig. 10) of the continuous tow material (2A, 2B, annotated fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Gudang Garam discloses measuring the pressure of the overheated steam (Gudang Garam – [0058] describes a pressure control system 45 regulating the pressure of the steam to 0.4 – 2 bars wherein the term, “regulating”, implies the pressure is measured in some form of closed loop control in order to maintain the pressure of the steam to 0.4 – 2 bars. Alternatively, Zhang – via pressure sensor 4 and/or pressure gauge 5, fig. 1) and providing a pressure influencer (Gudang Garam – 45, fig. 10) in the distribution system, the pressure influencer being capable of changing the pressure of the overheated steam delivered to the continuous tow material (Gudang Garam – [0058] describes the evaporator 43 producing steam having a pressure of 5 – 10 bars wherein [0060] describes a pressure control system 45 reducing and a regulating this pressure to 0.4 – 2 bars).
The modified Gudang Garam discloses the measuring of the pressure of the overheated steam (Zhang – via pressure sensor 4 and/or pressure gauge 5, fig. 1) on the interior of the frame (Zhang – 1, fig. 1 – which is an analogous structure to the format device 35 in Gudang Garam).
Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, does not explicitly disclose measuring the pressure of the overheated steam at at least one of the injection sites.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the location of the pressure sensor of the modified Gudang Garam to be at at least one of the injection sites because it has been held that rearranging known elements to produce predictable results (i.e., measuring of the pressure of the overheated steam) without achieving a new, unexpected function or synergistic effect lacks the necessary inventive step. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) In Japikse, claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Similarly, in the instant application, applicant’s claim to measuring the pressure of the overheated steam reads on the prior art except with regard to where the pressure measurement is taken or, in other words, the position of the pressure sensor and/or gauge, and the position of the pressure sensor and/or gauge does not modify the operation of the pressure sensor and/or gauge or modify the measuring of the pressure of the overheated steam.
Regarding claim 5, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 4.
Gudang Garam discloses the pressure influencer (45, fig. 10) diminishes the pressure of the overheated steam delivered to the continuous tow material (2A, 2B, annotated fig. 10) ([0058] describes the evaporator 43 producing steam having a pressure of 5 – 10 bars wherein [0060] describes a pressure control system 45 reducing and a regulating this pressure to 0.4 – 2 bars).
Regarding claim 6, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Gudang Garam discloses applying plasticizer to the continuous tow material (2A, 2B, annotated fig. 10) before forming the continuous tubular rod (2C, annotated fig. 10) ([0047] describes an application device 22 for applying a plasticizer wherein annotated figure 10 shows the application of plasticizer occurs prior to the formation of the continuous tubular rod 2C).
Regarding claim 7, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Gudang Garam discloses cutting the continuous tubular rod (2C, annotated fig. 10) into individual segments ([0063] describes that after a filter tow strip 2 leaves the format device 35, the filter tow strip 2 is fed to a filter strand machine of type KDF4 or KDF5 from Hauni Maschinenbau AG wherein [0004] describes when the filter tow strip 2 is fed to a filter strand machine of type KDF4 or KDF5 from Hauni Maschinenbau AG, the filter rod is wrapped with paper and cut up).
Regarding claim 8, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Gudang Garam discloses the continuous tow material (2A, 2B, annotated fig. 10) is cellulose acetate ([0061] describes the filter tow strip 2 produced of cellulose acetate).
Regarding claim 9, Gudang Garam, as modified by Zhang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Gudang Garam discloses the continuous tubular rod is a continuous hollow acetate tube (HAT) ([0053] describes the filter tow strip 2 prior to entering the format device 35 as a hollow cylindrical filter tow wherein [0061] describes the filter tow strip 2 produced of cellulose acetate).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Upon examination of the art of record, it has been decided that the art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation, “more than one fluid conduit of the .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
1 April 2026