Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/24/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1,3, 4, 6, and 7 have been amended. 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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of amendment the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that HIGUCHI is silent to having “he first stirring section stirring the material while swirling the material around an axis along the communication direction” in independent claims 1 and 7.
In response a prior art need not identify that swirling occurs for anticipation to be present.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
The first stirring section of HIGUCHI has substantially the same structure as the first stirring section of the instant invention. Specifically the first stirring section has a pipe feeding air/fibers that blows and hits a wall. The degree of swirling will depend on the turbulence of the air which is dependent on blowing speed. The applicant should claim the actual structure of instant Figure 2 and 4 of the first stirring section to distinguish over the prior art. The functionality claimed by the applicant can be obtained without the structure according to the applicant’s own instant specification [0011 “Even when the protrusion portion 55 is omitted, the effect of the present disclosure can be obtained.”]
If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971
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 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2020/0173106 HIGUCHI, hereinafter HIGUCHI.
As for claim 1, HIGUCHI, discloses a supply pipe (172) for supplying fibers and air to a first stirring section (5) [Figure 2]. Stirring occurs in this section as the fibers are entrained against the chambers wall (513) [0094, Figure 3]
HIGUCHI discloses a second stirring section (3) [Figure 2]. HIGUCHI discloses a coupling section, top plate (41) with communication opening (511) [Figure 3].
The first stirring section of HIGUCHI has substantially the same structure as the first stirring section of the instant invention. Specifically the first stirring section has a pipe feeding air/fibers that blows and hits a wall. The degree of swirling will depend on the turbulence of the air which is dependent on blowing speed.
If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As for claim 2, HIGUCHI discloses rotating member (6) with blades (61) in the second stirring section (3) [Figure 2 and 3, 0097].
As for claim 3, HIGUCHI discloses that the communication port (511) is rectangular (elongated) in the direction of the axis of rotating member (6) inside stirring section (3) [Figures 2 and 3].
As for claim 4, the stirring method between the two sections is different. In the top first stirring section (5) air entrainment against the wall (513) is used for mixing while in the second section a rotating member is used for mixing.
As for claim 6, HIGUCHI can be interpreted as having three stirring chambers (pump (173), which feeds second stirring section (5) which feeds third stirring section (3) [Figure 1]. Each of the three sections has different stirring method. The highest stirring strength/speed will be the pump (173) which must have a higher strength than the stirring of section (5) as not all the flow will be converted into mixing in the impingement against the wall and all the kinetic energy is from the pump (173) itself. The rotating device (6) is controllable and thus can have a different speed (the speed is dependent on the motor used which is not part on the apparatus and therefore speed is an intended use/method limitation).
As for claim 7, HIGUCHI, discloses a supply pipe (172) for supplying fibers and air to a first stirring section (5) [Figure 2]. Stirring occurs in this section as the fibers are entrained against the chambers wall (513) [0094, Figure 3]
HIGUCHI discloses a second stirring section (3) [Figure 2]. HIGUCHI discloses a coupling section, top plate (41) with communication opening (511) [Figure 3]. HIGUCHI discloses a discharge section (312) and an accumulation section mesh belt (191) [Figures 2 and 3, 0083].
The first stirring section of HIGUCHI has substantially the same structure as the first stirring section of the instant invention. Specifically the first stirring section has a pipe feeding air/fibers that blows and hits a wall. The degree of swirling will depend on the turbulence of the air which is dependent on blowing speed.
If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 2020/0173106 HIGUCHI, hereinafter HIGUCHI.
As for claim 5, the communication port (511) of the first stirring (5) is shown to be smaller than the top plate (41) of mixing chamber (3) which defines the area of the two volumes. The volume is also shown to be smaller in (5) than (3) [Figure 3]. In the alternative changes in size and proportion are prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)]. In the instant case it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the feed pipe feeding a process unit be smaller than the process unit itself.
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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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 (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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748