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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 17, line, the term “sceen” appears to be a is misspelling and should be corrected to ‘screen’. If this is not the case and sceen is correct, there will be a 112, issue raised due to the occurrence of “the screen” in claim 17, line 3.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation “at least one comminuting device” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis issue regarding this limitation since it is unclear if it is directed to the same “at least one comminuting device” of claim 1, line 4, a new “at least one comminuting device”, or something else.
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) 1, 2, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI (US 2021/0230802 A1) in view of DEGREVE (US 5352258 A).
Re: 1, YAMAGAMI teaches of a method for producing an air-laid product or a non-woven product from a starting material (see Figs. 1 and 7), the method comprising:
comminuting starting material (sheet material) into a comminuted material (paper pieces [0037-0038]) in at least one comminution line by at least one comminuting device (see teaching shredder of the crusher 10 which acts as a comminuting device);
metering the comminuted material by at least one metering device (see metering feeder 50 and see also the other supplier);
supplying the comminuted material to at least one processing line with at least one defibration system (see defibrating unit 20) in which the comminuted material is defiberized into a defiberized material; and
feeding the defiberized material into a production machine and processing the defiberized material into an air-laid product or a non-woven fabric (see [0063] of depositing unit 60 and web-forming unit 70), wherein the at least one metering device is controlled in such a way that a continuous mass flow of defiberized material is supplied to the production machine (see Figs. 1 and 7, and also of the air-laid processing, see [0002]).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in YAMAGAMI, there is an additional feeder element after the metering feeder 50 and prior to the hopper 12, see ‘feeding unit’ as shown in the marked up Fig. 7 above. This feeder element could be seen as a buffering unit that collects and then deposits the material into the hopper, though it is placed after the metering device. Further, the hopper 12 can also be seen as a buffer device as it controls the flow amount that enters into the inlet pipe 20.
YAMAGAMI does not specifically state of the right after comminuting of the step of: “feeding the comminuted material into at least one material buffer; removing the comminuted material from the at least one material buffer”.
Wherein, the elements/steps concerning the relation between the buffer and the metering are reversed in the process of YAMAGAMI compared to the claimed steps. Additional processing for the steps in regards to transporting/metering the comminuted materials are known in the art, as particularly seen in DEGREVE (see Col. 4, line 31 to Col. 5, line 23). Here, the scrap 12 being shredded in preparing means 11 (such as conventional shredder for fibers) can then provide to a conveyor 16, which are then processed into a first zone 18 which can be metering device, which are then moved along to other features including a detector 26, prior to additional processing and formation of fibers 45, see Fig. 1. Here, the conveyors 16 to the first zone can also be conveyor belt, or small or large bulk containers or bucket conveyor which are interpreted as the material buffer that then moves the material into the metering device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the feeding of the comminuted material of YAMAGAMI with a material buffer and metering device arrangement as taught by DEGREVE as a known manner of operating to provide a steady supply of fiberous material (see Col. 5, lines 51-58 of DEGREVE).
Re: 2 (upon 1), wherein all steps of the method are carried out on a continuous production line. (See in YAMAGAMI, Fig. 1 of all the elements in a continuous production line, Fig. 1.)
Re: 16 (upon 1), wherein the starting material is comminuted and/or defiberized at least substantially dry by at least one comminuting device without the addition of water or solvents. (See teaching of YAMAGAMI dry defibrator, see [0039-0041], wherein all the pieces are dry.)
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BLENKE (US 2003/0092813 A1) and ROBERSON (US 5150502 A).
Re: 3 (upon 1), wherein the at least one metering device is controlled on the basis of a characteristic parameter of a mass flow of defiberized material recorded by a sensor.
Re: 4 (upon 1), wherein the at least one metering device is controlled on the basis of a characteristic parameter of the manufactured air-laid product or nonwoven fabric recorded by a sensor.
Re: 5 (upon 4), wherein the characteristic parameter of the manufactured air-laid product or nowoven fabric is a basis weight.
Regarding claims 3-5, the YAMAGAMI reference does not teach of the particular controls based upon the claimed parameters from the sensor to the metering devices.
Wherein, these particular controls of the process are known in the fabric forming arts, as seen in BLENKE and ROBERSON references:
The BLENKE reference teaches of the use of a sensor for process control of the system, [0031, 0079], see Fig. 5A. The volumetric or mass flow of an adhesive delivered is controlled and the signal can be relayed by means of a transmitter 76. This concept can b e applied to other elements that one skilled in the art would recognize to incorporate from BLENKE into YAMAGAMI. Further, the basis weight of nonwoven fabrics are known, see [0047].
Meanwhile, the ROBERSON reference further teaches of controller with density sensors that controls the actuator to adjusting the flow directing device to compensate for deviations, see abstract. Here, the taught control system includes a thickness sensor S1, and controller that can adjust the feedroll 24 as required to hold the computed mass flow rate constant at the preset mass flow rate, further teaching of a speed sensor, see Col. 27, line 34 to Col. 28, line 28. The ROBERSON reference also teaching of known measurement of weight and which can tie into adjustment of the process control to the desired mass flow.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE with the process control of the sensors and parameters as taught by both BLENKE and ROBERSON to allow for adjustment to the desired operations rate in the process. Further, the combinations are also seen under KSR rationale, see MPEP 2143, of combining prior art elements (of the process control methods of BLENKE and ROBERSON) according to known methods (of the modified YAMAGAMI process) to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FROST (US 8562879 B2).
Re: 6 (upon 1), wherein the at least one metering device is controlled in such a way that a continuous mass flow of comminuted material is supplied to a processing line assigned to the at least one metering device.
YAMAGAMI fails to specifically teach concerning control of the mass flow of the metering device. It is noted that the DEGREVE reference teaches of a contaminant detector in zone 26, and further of the use of a level controller for hopper 62 to assure supply of scrap 14 to hopper 16, so there is teaching concerning controls in the references.
Wherein, the FROST reference teaches of the fibers and particles are controlled via the speed of rotation of rollers, see Col. 3, lines 36-54, and wherein the control of the speed and operation are known process controls within a manufacturing line.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the metering device of YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE with the mass flow control as taught by FROST for control of the residence time of the material in the particular area (see Col. 3, lines 40-46) which is a recognized concept in the manufacturing arts.
Re: 7 (upon 1), wherein the comminuted material is removed in a metered manner by at least two metering devices from the at least one material buffer assigned to the at least two metering devices and fed to at least two processing lines, each equipped with a defibration system in which the comminuted material is defiberized to create the defiberized material, wherein each of the at least two metering devices is assigned to one of the at least two processing lines, and wherein the defiberized material from the at least two processing lines is fed to the same production machine and processed therein to form a multi-ply air-laid product or nonwoven fabric.
The references do not teach of the two metering devices for two materials/processing lines.
However as seen FROST, see Fig. 3, of the two different materials and metering devices for 3 and 203, the fibers and inorganic fiber 203. Wherein the teaching by FROST teaches of the duplication of parts in the processing lines for the capability of processing and adding plural different materials that can be incorporated into the product, particularly in regards of forming layers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified YAMAGAMI with the two metering devices and material buffers as taught by FROST that allow for processing plural materials simultaneously into the processing line.
Re: 8 (upon 1), wherein the at least one metering device comprises at least two metering devices and the at least two metering devices of at least one material buffer can be controlled independently of each other.
(see teaching by FROST, wherein, the fibers and particles are controlled, see Fig. 3, elements 3, 203, which form the different layers of the mat 6, 206, 306, that can differ for the composition, thickness, and/or other properties, Col. 7, lines 4-34.) The concept for combination similar to the claim 7 taught above.
Re: 9 (upon 1), wherein at least two different starting materials are used. (See FROST, see 3 and 203, and in the teaching for claim 8 above.)
Re: 10 (upon 9), wherein the at least two different starting materials are comminuted by the same comminution line or comminuting device to form at least two comminuted materials that are different from one another. (see FROST, Fig. 1 of the materials that are comminuted in line.)
Re: 11 (upon 10), wherein the at least two different starting materials are comminuted separately. (see FROST, Fig. 3 of the two different materials comminuted separately.)
Re: 12 (upon 10), wherein each of the at least two comminuted materials, which are different from each other, are fed into a separate material buffer. (See Fig. 3 of FROST, see 2, 201 of the different feed, for the two different materials 3, 203.)
Re: 13 (upon 9), wherein the at least two different starting materials are comminuted by at least two comminution lines or comminuting devices to form at least two comminuted materials that are different from one another. (see FROST, Fig. 3.)
Re: 14 (upon 13), wherein each of the at least two comminuted materials, which are different from each other, are fed into a separate material buffer. (see FROST, Fig. 3 of the two comminuted materials that are in different devices.)
Re: 15 (upon 1), wherein each processing is supplied with a defined material composition consisting of at least two different comminuted materials from at least two material buffers by metering devices assigned to them respectively. (see FROST, Fig. 3.)
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LAMBRECHT (US 4397713 A) and KEMPER (US 20190352851 A1).
Re: 17 (upon 1), wherein the comminuted material is sorted according to a characteristic parameter by a sceen (screen?) and/or a cyclone separator and/or wherein the defiberized material can be sorted according to a characteristic parameter by the screen and/or the cyclone separator.
Re: 18 (upon 1), wherein the comminuted material is cleaned by a cyclone separator and/or a magnetic separator; and/or wherein the defiberized material is cleaned by a cyclone separator and/or a magnetic separator.
YAMAGAMI does not specifically teach of a screen and/or cyclone separator for sorting, and of the a magnetic separator and/or cyclone separator for cleaning.
In LAMBRECHT, the defiberizeing of waste paper is taught, and further, as seen in the secondary pulpers or fiberizers 10, 30, there can be employed screen devices for sorting as they are provided with suitable size openings or perforations, see Col. 6, lines 5-16 and see also Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, line 5 as it can eliminate fibre lumps and contaminants.
It is noted in KEMPER of the teaching of defiberizer and/or in mills for the fibers, and of the cleaning stage, air separators or cyclones and metal separators that can be used, see [0062].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE with the screen as taught by LAMBRECHT for removal of lumps and contaminants, and further of the use of a cyclone separator as taught by KEMPER for cleaning the fibers after the defiberizing.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE and FROST as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of YODA (US 11008707 B2).
Re: 19, the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 1, though it is directed to an apparatus and instead of the controlling of operation there is a control unit claimed. (see teaching of the method as shown in claim 1, which are also taught by the reference as shown above, and wherein, the claimed control unit is implied in the references such as FROST).
Further, the use of a control device structure itself can be seen in YODA, see controller 110 as it controls parts of the manufacturing unit 102, the overall operations of the entire process, see both Fig. 1 and 11-13, and in particular Fig. 8. The concept of using controller/control unit devices are known devices for automation controls for the process within the manufacturing device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified YAMAGAMI in view of DEGREVE and FROST with the incorporation of a controller as taught by YODA for controlling the parts of the manufacturing unit (see Col. 10, lines 12-16 of YODA).
Re: 20 (upon 19), wherein all components of the device are arranged in a common production line. (concept is similar to claim 2, regarding the steps which are equivalent to the components arranged on the production line and in which YAMAGAMI teaches of this limitation.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
MURAYAMA (US 2016/0332325 A1) teaches of conveyance roller 11, that provides controlled fed to the shredder 12, see Fig. 1, and also [0073-0075], the supply speed changes acting similar to the feed control to the defibrating unit 20.
Many of the other references cited are examples of the sheet manufacturing that includes the shredder/comminuting device followed by a defiberizer, along with an air-laying portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744