DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 07/29/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 2 are amended. Claim 7 is new. Claims 1-7 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the amended claim 1 making the claim and all dependent claims allowable.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes no new matter is added in the amendment. Regarding the supply direction change device, the Examiner notes that the “flow spreaders” of BENNETT actively change the direction of the material during transfer between sections. The Examiner understands this act of changing of direction to make the “flow spreader” action is the same as the supply direction change function of the instant claim.
Regarding the supply section orientation, BENNET teaches supply direction change section (element 43) is downstream of the supply section (element 31) [Fig 1]. The Examiner understands that the supply section in the Figure 1 is a continuation of piping from beyond the drawing (left side being further upstream). The ending of the change direction section terminates downstream of the supply section at element 37 (farthest right) [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “the supply direction change section including an upstream end connected to the supply section, a downstream end opposite to the upstream end in the supply direction”. BENNET further teaches that the pipes curve at multiple points. BENNET teaches a curve in the pipe between the upstream and the downstream portions (between the element 41 pipes) [Fig 1]. The examiner understands that material passes through the pipes toward the downstream portion as material is pumped. This teaches the limitation of “and a curved portion disposed between the upstream end and the downstream end, such that the material introduced from the upstream end passes through the curved portion toward the downstream end”.
The Examiner notes BENNET teaches the instant claim limitations and as such teach the dependent claims.
Applicant argues there is no apparent reason to combine the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, HIGUCHI teaches the advantage of the system is the controlled flow rate of the transport system improving the effective distribution of material [0015]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to combine the controls taught by HIGUCHI into the system of BENNET to produce controlled and predictable results. One would be motivated to combine based on the common production systems and the improved material transport/distribution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BENNETT (US 2788719).
For claim 1, BENNET teaches a flow control device [column 4 line 60] used to produce a uniform paper sheet [column 1 line 50]. BENNET teaches a supply conduit [column 7 line 63] that supplies cellulose fiber [column 3 line 52]. It meets the limitation “A sheet manufacturing apparatus comprising: a supply section that supplies a material containing fibers”. The apparatus has a supply section that includes a supply pipe with slots that shift the direction of the material in a branching path [column 4 line 11]. The supply change remains downstream of the supply section [Fig 1]. It meets the limitation of “a supply direction change section that is disposed downstream relative to the supply section in a supply direction of the material, and changes a movement direction of the material supplied from the supply section”.
Regarding the supply section orientation, BENNET teaches supply direction change section (element 43) is downstream of the supply section (element 31) [Fig 1]. The Examiner understands that the supply section in the Figure 1 is a continuation of piping from beyond the drawing (left side being further upstream). The ending of the change direction section terminates downstream of the supply section at element 37 (farthest right) [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “the supply direction change section including an upstream end connected to the supply section, a downstream end opposite to the upstream end in the supply direction”. BENNET further teaches that the pipes curve at multiple points. BENNET teaches a curve in the pipe between the upstream and the downstream portions (between the element 41 pipes) [Fig 1]. The examiner understands that material passes through the pipes toward the downstream portion as material is pumped. This teaches the limitation of “and a curved portion disposed between the upstream end and the downstream end, such that the material introduced from the upstream end passes through the curved portion toward the downstream end”.
BENNET also teaches the flow velocity is changed downstream of the flow spreader [column 14 line 26]. The flow spreader is joined to the supply direction change section and has elbows and bends that would decrease the flow velocity of the fluid as it is forced to change direction [column 14 line 26]. This teaches the limitation of “a reducer section that is coupled to the downstream end of the supply direction change section, is entirely disposed downstream relative to the supply direction change section in the supply direction and decreases a movement speed of the material”. BENNET further teaches an accumulation section where the fluid is collected and distributed forming a web [column 14 line 13]. This teaches the limitation of “an accumulation section that is disposed downstream relative to the reducer section in the supply direction and accumulates the material to form a web”.
For claim 7, BENNETT teaches the sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, as above. BENNETT teaches a straight pipe portion of the direction change section between the pipes (element 41) that is further upstream of a curve [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the supply direction change section further includes an upstream straight pipe portion disposed upstream in the supply direction relative to the curved portion, the upstream end is an end of the upstream straight pipe portion, and a downstream straight pipe portion disposed downstream in the supply direction relative to the curved portion, the downstream end is an end of the downstream straight pipe portion”. BENNETT teaches a straight section of conduit (piping) that is similar in length to the distance between outlets (element 37) that is 23.25 inches [Fig 1]. BENNETT also teaches a straight pipe downstream of the curve that leads to the pump [Fig 1]. The conduit leading to the pump is equal in length to the distribution radius based on Fig 1, at 148 inches. This makes the length of the downstream pipe approximately 6.2 times larger than the upstream pipe [Fig 1]. This value is within the range of the instant claim of “and a length of the upstream straight pipe portion in the supply direction is 6 times or more and 10 times or less as large as a length of the downstream straight pipe portion in the supply direction”.
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 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENNETT (US 2788719) in view of HIGUCHI (US 20200131705 A1).
The applied reference (HIGUCHI) has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
For claim 2, BENNET teaches the sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, as above. The conduits of BENNET, 43, are curved [Fig 1]. This meets the limitation “wherein an inner surface of the supply direction change section on which the material is moved”. BENNET does not teach the same scale as the instant claim.
HIGUCHI teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus similar to BENNET [ABSTRACT]. HIGUCHI teaches an air feed pipe (57a and 57b) in the supply section [0138]. This portion (57a) of the supply section is curved in shape [Fig 3]. This meets the limitation “wherein in an inner surface of the supply direction change section on which the material is moved”. Fig 3 of HIGUCHI shows the cross-section of the apparatus has internal portion (element 61) of the rotating drum (element 63) with a larger diameter than the supply section (element 57b). This internal portion is positioned downstream of the supply section curved portion. Though HIGUCHI does not specify by how much the drum section is larger, HIGUCHI does provide a depiction of the relative size which shows the drum is larger (equivalent to 1 times or greater). This range overlaps the instant claim. This meets the limitation of “a cross-sectional area of a downstream part with respect to the curved portion is 1 time or more and 5 times or less as large as a cross-sectional area of an upstream part with respect to the curved portion”. See 2144.05(I). HIGUCHI teaches the advantage of the system is the controlled flow rate of the transport system improving the effective distribution of material [0015]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to combine the controls taught by HIGUCHI into the system of BENNET to produce controlled and predictable results. One would be motivated to combine based on the common production systems and the improved material transport/distribution.
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
For claim 3, BENNET and HIGUCHI teach the sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 2, as above. BENNET teaches a fork in the supply section that acts as a direction change (conduit 43). This direction change made by the downstream and upstream portions make an angle greater than 90° [Fig 1]. This meets the limitation of the instant claim, “wherein in the supply direction change section, an angle formed by the movement direction in the upstream part and the movement direction in the downstream part is 90° or more”.
For claim 6, BENNET teaches the sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, as above. BENNET does not teach the controls used in the apparatus. HIGUCHI teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus similar to BENNET [ABSTRACT]. HIGUCHI teaches a control section [0006] with sensors that detect basis weight and thickness (accumulation state) [0166]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: a control section, wherein the control section includes a sensor section that detects an accumulation state of the fibers in the accumulation section”. HIGUCHI also teaches a blowing drive section that produces the air flow that transports the material [0066]. This teaches the limitation “an air blowing drive section that drives an air blowing section that transports the material downstream”. HIGUCHI teaches user input is placed into an interface that acts as the input section [0131]. The input section takes user input for settings for sheet size, number and other characteristics which are controlled by the other sections (blower, accumulation, etc.) [0215 and 0217]. This meets the instant limitation of, “an input section that receives a user setting including a state of the air blowing section”. HIGUCHI also teaches a storage unit that stores the user settings [0202], and detection values from sensors in other sections (accumulation state and air blowing state) [0183 and 0202]. This meets the instant limitation of, “a storage section that stores data including the user setting, the accumulation state, and the state of the air blowing section”. HIGUCHI also teaches an operation section that operates the data storage to give input and change states through current changes [0184 and 0185]. This teaches the instant claim limitation of “an operation section that operates the data stored in the storage section to give an instruction to change the state of the air blowing section, and a display section that displays the data”.
HIGUCHI teaches the advantage of the system is the controlled flow rate of the transport system improving the effective distribution of material [0015]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to combine the controls taught by HIGUCHI into the system of BENNET to produce controlled and predictable results. One would be motivated to combine based on the common production systems and the improved material transport/distribution.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENNETT (US 2788719) and HIGUCHI (US 20200131705 A1) in view of NAKANIWA (US 20190032833 A1).
For claim 4, BENNET and HIGUCHI teach the sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 2, as above. NAKANIWA teaches a fluid moving device with a bend section that changes diameter similar to BENNET [ABSTRACT]. NAKANIWA teaches the dimensions of the pipe section with the bend (direction change) and the distance from the bend to other sections downstream. The length is greater than or equal to 3 times the diameter of the conduit at the bend section [0055]. This range encompasses the instant range. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim “wherein in the supply direction change section, a section length of the upstream part is 6 times or more and 10 times or less as large as a section length of the downstream part”. See 2144.05(I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
NAKANIWA teaches that the amount of swirling (turbulence) is determined by the decreasing diameter and the length of the following conduit [0055]. NAKANIWA further teaches the change produces advantageous effects like space-saving and also downsizing the accompanying structural components [0056]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to try the dimension constraints taught by NAKANIWA with the apparatus taught by BENNNET to produce a predictable result. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the advantageous benefits of a size reduction for accompanying components which would reduce costs.
For claim 5,BENNET and HIGUCHI teach the sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 2, as above. BENNET teaches the supply direction change part (conduit) is circular in shape [column 9 line 25]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the inner surface of the supply direction change section has a circular shape”. NAKANIWA teaches a fluid moving device with a bend section that changes diameter similar to BENNET [ABSTRACT]. NAKANIWA teaches the dimensions of the pipe section with the bend (direction change) and the distance from the bend to other sections downstream. The length is greater than or equal to 3 times the diameter of the conduit at the bend section [0055]. This range encompasses the instant range. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim “and in the supply direction change section, a distance at which the material is moved from the curved portion is 6 times or more and 10 times or less as large as a diameter of the inner surface”. See 2144.05(I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
NAKANIWA teaches that the amount of swirling (turbulence) is determined by the decreasing diameter and the length of the following conduit [0055]. NAKANIWA further teaches the change produces advantageous effects like space-saving and also downsizing the accompanying structural components [0056]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to try the dimension constraints taught by NAKANIWA with the apparatus taught by BENNNET to produce a predictable result. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the advantageous benefits of a size reduction for accompanying components which would reduce costs.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL at (571)272-6907. The examiner can 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