DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/10/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 17 is amended. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 and 17 are elected.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-8 and 17, in the reply filed on 08/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the use of a proportional valve in the context of a moistening device in papermaking.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
VINNAY does not teach the valves used are proportional valves. ZARBI teaches an atomizing nozzle assembly that applies liquid for moisture control in the papermaking industry [ABSTRACT]. ZARBI further teaches that the liquid source is connect by a line and proportional valve [col 3 line 60]. ZARBI teaches the advantage to the design is the easier maintenance, lower maintenance costs and overall costs [col 2 line 50]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to simply substitute the proportional valve of ZARBI in for the valve of VINNAY. One would be motivated to use the proportional valve to help control fluid flow based on the easier maintenance, lower maintenance costs and overall costs as taught by ZARBI. This teaches limitation of “the valve being a proportional valve”.
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 7 and 8 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the material web of reduced quality". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VINNAY (US 20100224665 A1) in view of ZARBI (US 6334579 B1).
For claim 1, VINNAY teaches a system that used to control [abstract] a moistening device for a web [0002]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for at least one of regulating and controlling at least one dampening device suitable for dampening a material web”. VINNAY teaches moistening device uses multiple nozzles [abstract] and valves [0035]. The examiner understands the valve to only be operable with a valve body. VINNAY teaches the use of a pressure regulator [0048]. The examiner understands pressure is analogous to force (force over area) and a transmitter to be a component within a regulator. The examiner understands the language teaches the instant claim limitation of “the method comprising the steps of: providing that the dampening device includes a valve which includes at least one electromagnetic force transmitter, a reset force transmitter, a valve body”. VINNAY teaches a control unit is used to control the system [0067]. VINNAY uses multiple nozzles to moisten the web [0034]. These nozzle apply the moisture. This teaches the limitation of “the dampening device further including a control unit and an application nozzle”. VINNAY also teaches the moistening device is cleaned [0072]. This teaches the limitation of “and performing, by the dampening device, a cleaning cycle,”. VINNAY teaches the valve [0048] is used to maintain a flow rate of the moistening device [0049]. The examiner understands that to maintain a flow rate the value of the flow rate is also maintained and the valve position is used to maintain this value. This teaches the limitation of “the proportional valve pulsing about a set target value, a deviation from the set target value occurring by way of a timing such that the deviation from the set target value results, the deviation being at least one of a positive deviation and a negative deviation”.
VINNAY does not teach the valves used are proportional valves. ZARBI teaches an atomizing nozzle assembly that applies liquid for moisture control in the papermaking industry [ABSTRACT]. ZARBI further teaches that the liquid source is connect by a line and proportional valve [col 3 line 60]. ZARBI teaches the advantage to the design is the easier maintenance, lower maintenance costs and overall costs [col 2 line 50]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to simply substitute the proportional valve of ZARBI in for the valve of VINNAY. One would be motivated to use the proportional valve to help control fluid flow based on the easier maintenance, lower maintenance costs and overall costs as taught by ZARBI. This teaches limitation of “the valve being a proportional valve”.
For claim 2, VINNAY and ZARBI teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. VINNAY does not teach the time needed to rebound the valve. Neither VINNAY nor ZARBI teach “wherein the proportional valve is configured for being opened and closed at least partially and pulsating rapidly about the set target value, wherein the deviation from the set target value lasts less than 0.3 seconds, and the proportional valve is configured for pulsating repeatedly, wherein the material web is a paper web, a cardboard web, or a fibrous web”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 which is taught by VINNAY and ZARBI as above.
For claim 3, VINNAY and ZARBI teaches the method according to claim 2, as above. VINNAY does not teach the time needed to rebound the valve. Neither VINNAY nor ZARBI teach “wherein the deviation from the set target value lasts less than 0.1 seconds”. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 which is taught by VINNAY and ZARBI as above.
For claim 4, VINNAY and ZARBI teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. VINNAY teaches the use of multiple spray devices [0043] that are controlled by a control unit [0067]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the method includes providing at least two of the dampening device each of which is at least one of controlled and adjusted”. VINNAY teaches the spray nozzles (element 302) are displaced adjacent to one another [FIG 11]. These same nozzles are used to clean [0072]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a respective one of the dampening device that pulsates in the cleaning cycle is arranged adjacent to at least one other of the dampening device which is configured for performing a pulsation in an opposite direction”.
For claim 5, VINNAY and ZARBI teaches the method according to claim 4, as above. VINNAY teaches the use of multiple spray devices [0043]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the method includes providing more than three of the dampening device”.
For claim 6, VINNAY and ZARBI teaches the method according to claim 4, as above. VINNAY and ZARBI do not teach the rebound time and amplitude of the valve pulsation. VINNAY and ZARBI do teach the dependent claim on which the limitation of “wherein the pulsation in the opposite direction exhibits only half an amplitude or a time duration of the deviation from the set target value” depends.
For claim 7, VINNAY and ZARBI teaches the method according to claim 4, as above. VINNAY and ZARBI do not teach the limitation of claim 7. VINNAY and ZARBI do teach the dependent claim on which the limitation of “wherein at least one of the cleaning cycle and a pulsating is performed at a time (a) when the material web of reduced quality is being produced, or (b) when a machine for producing the material web is in a specific operating state” depends.
For claim 8, VINNAY and ZARBI teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. VINNAY and ZARBI do not teach the limitation of claim 8. VINNAY and ZARBI do teach the dependent claim on which the limitation of “wherein when the proportional valve is pulsing the proportional value is performing a pulsation, wherein at least one of the cleaning cycle and the pulsation deviates only in one direction from the set target value, wherein at least one of the cleaning cycle and the pulsation can also be started when the proportional valve is fully closed or fully open” depends.
For claim 17, VINNAY teaches a system that used to control [abstract] multiple [0043] moistening device for a web [0002]. This teaches the limitation of “A method of using at least two dampening devices, the method comprising the steps of: providing that each of the at least two dampening devices is suitable for dampening a material web”, VINNAY teaches moistening device uses multiple nozzles [abstract] and valves [0035]. The examiner understands the valve to only be operable with a valve body. VINNAY teaches the use of a pressure regulator [0048]. The examiner understands pressure is analogous to force (force over area) and a transmitter to be a component within a regulator. The examiner understands the language This teaches the instant claim limitation of “each of the at least two dampening devices including respectively: a valve including at least one electromagnetic force transmitter, a reset force transmitter, a valve body”. VINNAY teaches a control unit is used to control the system [0067]. VINNAY uses multiple nozzles to moisten the web [0034]. These nozzle apply the moisture. This teaches the limitation of “a control unit; and an application nozzle”.
VINNAY does not teach the valves used are proportional valves. ZARBI teaches an atomizing nozzle assembly that applies liquid for moisture control in the papermaking industry [ABSTRACT]. ZARBI further teaches that the liquid source is connect by a line and proportional valve [col 3 line 60]. ZARBI teaches the proportional valve operates according to control signals and feedback from the control system [col 5 line 62]. ZARBI teaches the advantage to the design is the easier maintenance, lower maintenance costs and overall costs [col 2 line 50]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to simply substitute the proportional valve of ZARBI in for the valve of VINNAY. One would be motivated to use the proportional valve to help control fluid flow based on the easier maintenance, lower maintenance costs and overall costs as taught by ZARBI. This teaches limitation of “the valve being a proportional valve and having a control range”. The examiner understands the valve is not operated in a full on state as such the valve operates in stages. This teaches the limitation of “the valve being configured for enabling the control range to be set to a target value in at least 16 steps”. VINNAY teaches the spray device is used in cleaning as well [0072]. VINNAY teaches the valve [0048] is used to maintain a flow rate of the moistening device [0049]. The examiner understands that to maintain a flow rate the value of the flow rate is also maintained and the valve position is used to maintain this value. This teaches the limitation of “the dampening device, by way of the control unit, being configured for performing at least one of a cleaning cycle and a pulsation such that the proportional valve pulses about the target value, a deviation from the target value occurring by way of a timing such that the deviation from the target value results, the deviation being at least one of a positive deviation and a negative deviation”.
VINNAY teaches moistening device uses multiple nozzles [abstract] and valves [0035]. VINNAY teaches the spray device is used in cleaning as well [0072]. VINNAY teaches the valve [0048] is used to maintain a flow rate of the moistening device [0049]. This teaches the limitation of “using each of the at least two dampening devices in a method for at least one of regulating and controlling the at least two dampening devices, the method for at least one of regulating and controlling the at least two dampening devices comprising the steps of: performing, by the at least two dampening devices, the cleaning cycle”. The examiner understands that to maintain a flow rate the value of the flow rate is also maintained and the valve position is used to maintain this value. This teaches the limitation of “the proportional valve pulsing about the target value, the deviation from the target value occurring by way of the timing such that the deviation from the set target value results, the deviation being at least one of the positive deviation and the negative deviation”. VINNAY teaches the spray devices are arranged along the full width of the device [0076]. This teaches the limitation of “the at least two dampening devices being arranged over a width of the material web”. VINNAY teaches the controller is configured to allow for variable flow rates from the flow controller. This teaches the limitation of “and being configured for applying a plurality of different moistening levels to a plurality of different zones”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748