Detailed Action
The communications received 04/24/2023 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-9 are pending
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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In clam 6 “calcutated” should be “calculated” and “bleeching” should be “bleaching”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
As for claim 1, the control of the drying step is unclear as it can readily include telling a human operator to perform control steps versus directly controlling the papermaking device with a controller. The Examiner notes that should the claim be interpreted to include the directing of a human operator to perform control steps that the claim would readily be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim would amount to a mental process. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamstrom et al (US 6,792,331) hereinafter HAM.
As for claim 1, HAM teaches a method of controlling the drying of cellulose pulp in a drying step of a pulp production process [Abstract], said method comprising:
Measuring a plurality of process parameters in at least one previous process step (paper grade, web speed, and the moisture right after the previous process step) [col. 3 l. 50-53; col. 5 l. 55-65];
Calculating, based on said process parameters, a drying predictive index indicative of the characteristic of a portion of cellulose pulp processed in said previous process step (determining an overall drying power required) [col. 2 l. 49-60];
Determining, based on said drying predictive index, at least one drying parameter for drying of said portion of cellulose pulp (determining how to control one of the control variables) [col. 3 l. 54-67]; and
Controlling the drying of said portion of cellulose pulp using said drying parameter (by adjusting using the calculated limit values) [col. 3 l. 60-67].
As for claim 2, HAM teaches claim 1 and wherein the step of measuring process parameters comprises measuring at least the delignification level of said portion of pulp and/or the pH of said portion of pulp and/or the amount of chemicals used in earlier steps of the pulp production process (by measuring the grade of paper it is understood that this encompasses the delignification of said pulp) [col. 3 l. 47-54].
As for claim 3, HAM teaches claim 1 and wherein the step of determining at least one drying parameter comprises determining at least a web speed [col. 3 l. 47-54].
As for claim 4, HAM teaches claim 1 and wherein said drying predictive index is calculated as a function of said measured process parameters (as a mathematical model) [col. 3 l. 1-5].
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAM as applied to claim 1 in view of Nonni et al (US 2013/0203699) hereinafter NON.
As for claims 5-6, HAM teaches claim 1 but fails to teach that the drying predictive index is based on either one of/all of the process parameters measured in each of a cooking step, an oxygen delignification step, and a bleaching step, however HAM does teach adjusting the drying in accordance with the paper grade.
NON teaches that paper grade is dependent on the kappa number achieved by cooking, oxidizing, and bleaching the cellulose which in turn affect the kappa number through the amounts of time and constituents employed [0048-51; 0184].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the predictive drying index of HAM employing the kappa number influencing parameters of cooking, oxidizing and bleaching the cellulose in order to control the drying process in accordance with the paper grade as taught in HAM. As both HAM and NON [NON: 0017] pertain to the formation of a paper, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAM as applied to claim 1 in view of Lee (US 4,314,878) hereinafter LEE.
As for claims 7-9, HAM teaches claim 1 but does not teach changing a range of drying predictive index by which to operate using normal drying parameters and then lower and upper bounds by which to trigger adapted drying control parameters.
LEE teaches that when controlling a drying, there is a primary motive to maintain overall normal operating conditions [col. 15 l. 37-43] and then to shift to a dynamic control scheme (trial and error) in order to achieve balance [col. 16 l. 22-37]. This is done when parameters in combination are out of certain thresholds [col. 16 l. 23-37] and allow for arriving to a rapid solution to required operational parameters [col. 10 l. 55-65].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the operational control scheme of switching to a dynamic trial and error scheme when outside of a normal operating scheme in order to rapidly arrive to a solution that achieves operational balance. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably select for certain ranges of calculated indexes including upper and lower limits by which to select for dynamically adjusted ranges versus normal operation. It is understood that these limits would occur as merely a consequence of selection of equations and manner of calculating the index (such as by fitting a power of 3 equation to data) and therefore are prima facie obvious [MPEP 2143(I)(E)]. As both LEE and HAM pertain to the drying step of papermaking they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/ELISA H VERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1748