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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendments have overcome the previously applied 112 rejections.
Applicant has amended the claims to introduce a zone wise control of the elements and a delivery nozzle subdivided into several sections with the discharge zones.
This will be addressed in the rejections below.
Applicant further argues that the Davydenko reference discloses a device for applying an application medium and not a device for smoothing a paper. They further argue that the press nip of the reference forms a hydraulic pressure in the press nip.
Applicant further argues that the current invention utilizes the pressure in at least nip for smoothing, and that the act of leveling the web and penetrating the treatment application technologically jointly has a surprising benefit.
This argument is not held to be persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
In response to applicant's argument that the device is for smoothing, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the limitation for smoothing is only a description int eh preamble, which has bene held to not hold patentable weight unless the body of the claim breaths life into the limitations. There is no claimed act of smoothing that occurs. The claim requires that at least one nip is formed for surfacing the thickness transverse profile to control the application of a treatment substance from a nozzle. This is what is taught by Davydenko. Controlling pressure zones as the new limitations require is not an act of smoothing as much as it is a way of controlling the pressure applied by the nip, which is what is taught int eh reference to control the thickness of the product.
If there is an aspect of the device that allows for a surprising benefit to coating the paper while smoothing the fibers in a joint action as argued, there must be presence of that in the claims. Currently the claims only require the act of controlling the thickness of the profile of the paper.
The remining arguments are focused on the dependency on the other claims for the reasons discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydenko et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0189660 in view of Tietz et al, USP 6,235,160.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Davydenko teaches a device for smoothing a paper or board web (see abstract), having at least one nip which is formed between two rolls (see figures and claim 1), at least one of the rolls being a deflection-adjustable [0027] and zone-controlled [0013 and claim 1] roll for controlling a thickness transverse profile of the paper or board web in the web transverse direction [0027] in order to set a line load distribution over the roll width which can be selected in the at least one nip [0027], wherein the at least one nip is provided for surfacing the thickness transverse profile of the paper or board web by means of an adjustable line load profile [0027] and simultaneously bringing a treatment substance into the paper or board web (see claims and [0027]), for which purpose at least one coater having a delivery nozzle [0030] for applying a treatment substance, in particular starch (see claim 1), is arranged in such a way that the application of the treatment substance to at least one of the two rolls of the nip is provided and is designed for indirect applying of the treatment substance to at least one side of the running paper or board web (see figures) and the at least one coater has at least one delivery nozzle with a device for cross-profile adjustment [0027] of a volume flow of the treatment substance which can be adjusted zone by zone over the web width [0030].
Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the hydrostatic control of the adjustable deflection means is provided [0027], but is silent on if this is a single elements that is varied across the width or if it is a series of individual elements across the width.
Davydenko further teaches that the cross-profile setting of the volume flow of the treatment substance, which can be set zone by zone over the web width, is controlled as a function of an area-related mass distribution of the paper or board web in the transverse direction of the web [0027] (this reads on the new limitation of a delivery nozzle subdivided into several sections with discharge zones that offset or overlap).
In this regards the act of merely duplicating an already taught element has been shown as obvious in the art. The simply act of utilizing multiple elements instead of one varied element is a mere duplication of parts and has been held to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Additionally to show that the act of distributing the zone wise control over the roll width in the claimed manner, the Tietz reference is provided.
Tietz teaches that the elongated nip press of the device in a papermaking system can include a hydrostatically controlled press unit that controls the contact of a roller (shoe press item 2) into a roller (item 3) with a plurality of press zones (reads on pressure zones) over the width of the roll to control the desired cross directional press pressure profile of the web (column 4 lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the known process of having multiple individually controlled pressure zones in an extended nip as taught by Tietz in the device of Davydenko which teaches the same actions but not explicitly teaching of multiple zones for the benefit of providing an easier to control pressure curve across the entire width of the roll in a known and conventional manner as taught by Tietz.
Regarding claim 2, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the at least one deflection-adjustable and zone-controlled roll, by means of which the line load distribution in the at least one nip is controlled, is adjustable for calibrating the paper or board web in the transverse web direction [0027-0031].
Regarding claim 3, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the coater is a curtain application unit or a free jet application unit (curtain coater see claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the cross-profile setting of the volume flow of the treatment substance, which can be set zone by zone over the web width, is controlled as a function of an area-related mass distribution of the paper or board web in the transverse direction of the web [0027]. See above about being capable of being set by zone.
Regarding claim 9, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the at least one nip is designed for line loads in a range from 20 to 200 kN/m (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 10, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the at least one nip is designed as a hard nip or soft nip (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 11, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the delivery nozzle comprises a plurality of slot nozzles each having an outlet slot with an accuracy in the range +2.5 um to +10 pum in slot length at a slot width of 100 to 2000 um (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the space arrangement of the at least one coater relative to the nip is adjustable for an arrangement for indirect applying of the treatment substance and control of a dwell time of the treatment substance on the one of the two rolls (8, 4) which is simultaneously an applicator roll (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 13, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the coater is designed to control the solids content of the treatment substance in at least one layer from 6% to 55% (25-55 see claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the coater is designed to form a multilayer curtain [0019].
Regarding claim 16, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that at least one roller of the at least one nip is designed as a heatable applicator roller and is designed for a temperature of the roller surface of 60°C to 160°C (see claim 10).
Regarding claim 17, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the rolls of the at least one nip have coatings with less than 30 P&J (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 18, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that an angle o for an impact point of the treatment substance on an application roller (3, 4) of the press nip is between -90° and +45° (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 19, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that the adjustable line load distribution and the adjustable quantitative application of treatment substance can be matched to one another by means of a control system in such a way that a compacted paper or compacted board with a leveled surface having selectable strength properties (CMT, SCT, RCT) in the transverse direction of the web can be produced [0048].
Regarding claim 20, Davydenko remains as applied above and further teaches that a volume flow profile at the coater is adjustable by offline measurement of paper/board web samples [0027].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydenko et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0189660 in view of Tietz et al, USP 6,235,160in view of Moore et al, USP 6,568,285
Regarding claim 5, Davydenko remains as applied above and is silent on the use of a sensor provided which scan and/or detect the paper or board web on one or both sides in the transverse direction of the web for adjusting the amount of pressure to be applied, depending on the surface quality and/or the thickness of the paper or board web in the transverse direction.
In the same field of endeavor of controlling the nip in a pressing system, Moore teaches the act of using a sensor before the nip to calculate a designated line load and make the adjustments (see paragraphs 45-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize a sensor to automate the reading and adjusting aspects of the adjustable pressure being applied to the shoe. This would not affect any of the operations and would provide a known and conventional method of automating the adjustment process.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydenko et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0189660 in view of Tietz et al, USP 6,235,160in view of Korhonen et al, US Patent Publication 2005/0011624
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Davydenko remains as applied above but is silent to the use of sensors to measure consistency.
In the same field of endeavor of paper machine, Korhonen teaches the act of regulating basis weight of the pulp suspension by measuring and controlling the consistency coming out of the headbox [0023-0029] prior to further processing including shoe rolls with extended nips [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the headbox measuring and modification method of Korhonen in the Davydenko method for the benefit of controlling the basis weight and other physical attributes of the web being formed directly out of the headbox to make further processing more consistent [0024].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydenko et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0189660 in view of Tietz et al, USP 6,235,160 in view of Koskinen et al, USP 6,190,726.
Regarding claim 15, Davydenko teaches the adjustment of the profiles but is silent on the specific use of slot nozzle and/or hydrostatic support elements of the claimed range.
In the same field of endeavor of adding a coating to a paper in a papermaking machine, Koskinen teaches the act of controlling the injection nozzles to modify the coating profile adjustments in a conventional manner (see columns 5-6). While the specific value of 50-300 mm is not mentioned, the same process is being utilized and the device would be capable of performing an adjustment to the given dimensions. See 112 rejection above. If there is something in the physical structure of the instant invention that would provide for more than routine optimization to perform adjustments of a specified dimension, than those limitations must be actively claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AlA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection |.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,718,961. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the addition of multiple elements to produce the zones is an obvious modification of duplication of parts and would have been obvious to the average artisan
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 JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM.
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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748