DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 9th 2026 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.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “former member” in lines 2 and 6.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “actuating device” in lines 5 and 20.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “cutting device” in lines 9 and 11.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “support device” lines 11, 12, 14, 19 and 24.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “holding device” lines 16
Claim 2 recites the phrase “holding device”.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “support device”.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “holding device”.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “support device”.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “support device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kotaki et al. (US 4,897,273; “Kotaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Kotaki discloses a packaging machine (Fig. 7) comprising:
a former member (88) that is configured to receive a continuous film (85) which is supplied in a film supplying direction and to generate a film tube (see annotated diagram 1 below) from the film (85), the film tube (see annotated diagram 1 below) having an inner surface (Fig. 7);
an actuating device (90) that is configured to cause contact between a contact surface of the film (see annotated diagram 1 below) and an absorbent material portion (25; col. 5 ll. 46-47) at a location upstream of the former member (88) with respect to the film supplying direction (Figs. 6 and 7), the contact surface of the film (see annotated diagram 1 below) being the inner surface of the film tube (see annotated diagram 1 below) after the film tube (see annotated diagram 1 below) has been generated;
a cutting device (65, 66) that is configured to transversely cut a continuous absorbent material (10) to obtain the absorbent material portion (25; Fig. 6); and
a support device (20, 73, 94) arranged downstream of the cutting device (65, 66) in an absorbent material supplying direction (Fig. 6), the support device (20, 73) being configured to support the absorbent material portion (25) prior to the absorbent material portion (25) being placed in contact with the contact surface of the film (see annotated diagram 1 below), the support device (20, 73) including:
a support surface (20) that is configured to support the absorbent material portion (25; Fig. 6),
a holding device (73) configured to hold the absorbent material portion (25) on the support surface (20; Fig. 6), and
an actuator (94) configured to cause the absorbent material portion (25) supported on the support device (20, 73) to move towards the contact surface of the film (see annotated diagram 1 below; col. 9 ll. 59-62),
the actuating device (90, 92) being configured to heat-seal the contact surface of the film (see annotated diagram 1 below) to the absorbent material portion (25) through the use of a sealing tool (92) that is configured to press at least a part of the contact surface of the film (see annotated diagram 1 below) against the absorbent material portion (25) arranged on the support surface (20) of the support device (20, 73, 94; Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaki et al. (US 4,897,273; “Kotaki”) in view of Hitchcock (US 3,864,897).
Regarding claim 2, Kotaki discloses wherein the holding device (73) is configured to hold the absorbent material portion (25) against the support surface (20) of the support device (20, 73, 94).
Kotaki fails to disclose the holding device is configured to hold the absorbent material portion against the support surface of the support device by suction.
However, Hitchcock teaches a holding device (100) configured to hold a container (40) by suction (col. 7 ll. 62-64).
It would have been obvious, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the holding device of Kotaki with the suction of Hitchcock, in order to maintain the position of the absorbent material portion and support surface, prior to insertion in the packaging.
Regarding claim 3, Kotaki discloses the holding device (73).
Kotaki fails to disclose wherein the holding device is configured to be activated and deactivated to cause the absorbent material portion to be intermittently held against the support surface.
However, Hitchcock teaches the holding device (100) is configured to be activated and deactivated to cause the container (40) to be intermittently held against the holding device (100; col. 7 ll. 54-64)
It would have been obvious, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the holding device of Kotaki with the activation and deactivation of the holding device of Hitchcock, in order to hold and release multiple absorbent material portions during the processing function.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaki et al. (US 4,897,273; “Kotaki”) in view of Kamigaito (US 2012/0311975).
Regarding claim 7, Kotaki discloses wherein the sealing tool (92).
Kotaki is silent regarding the sealing tool is configured to be moved between a rest position in which it does not contact the film and an actuating position in which it contacts the film.
However, Kamigaito explicitly teaches a sealing tool (2, 21, 22) is configured to be moved between a rest position (para. [0028]) in which it does not contact a film (F; para. [0028]) and an actuating position in which it contacts the film (F; para. [0028]; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the sealing tool of Kotaki with the rest and actuating position of Kamigaito, in order to prevent improper sealing during rest.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaki et al. (US 4,897,273; “Kotaki”) in view of Yeager (US 5,839,572).
Regarding claim 8, Kotaki discloses an actuator (61, 62, 63) configured to cause displacement of the continuous absorbent material (10) in the absorbent material supplying direction (Fig. 6).
Kotaki fails to disclose a reel holder configured to support a reel of continuous absorbent material.
However, Yeager teaches a reel holder (shaft on which the reel is supported; Fig. 8) configured to support a reel (327) of continuous absorbent material (col. 9 ll. 7-8).
It would have been obvious, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the continuous absorbent material of Kotaki with the reel holder of Yeager, in order to support and prevent the loss of the continuous absorbent material.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 4, Kotaki et al. (US 4,897,273; “Kotaki”) is the most relevant prior art.
Kotaki discloses the support device (20, 73, 94) comprising a support surface (20).
Kotaki fails to discloses wherein the support device comprises a conveyor belt, the support surface being a part of the conveyor belt.
It would not have been obvious to modify Kotaki with the aforementioned limitation because making the support surface of Kotaki a conveyor belt would prevent the absorbent material portion from attaching to said support surface. The support surface, in this case, is a backing to hold said absorbent material portion. The support surface is removed and placed in the packaging with the absorbent material portion. The conveyor would need to remain in the apparatus for further processing.
Regarding claim 5, Kotaki et al. (US 4,897,273; “Kotaki”) is the most relevant prior art.
Kotaki discloses the support device (20, 73, 94) comprising a support surface (20).
Kotaki fails to discloses wherein the support device comprises a conveyor belt, the support surface being a part of the conveyor belt.
It would not have been obvious to modify Kotaki with the aforementioned limitation because making the support surface of Kotaki a conveyor belt would prevent the absorbent material portion from attaching to said support surface. The support surface, in this case, is a backing to hold said absorbent material portion. The support surface is removed and placed in the packaging with the absorbent material portion. The conveyor would need to remain in the apparatus for further processing.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. 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.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights