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 .
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 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the term “have a feature for an unambiguous assignment” is unclear. There is no guidance in the claim or int eh specification to what constitutes a “feature” or an “unambiguous assignment”. For purposes of continued examination, this limitation will be met if there is a set correlation between the tool and the alignment unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 –
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) 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al, USP 6,332,956.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Lee teaches a fiber processing device for producing three-dimensional molded parts from a fiber-containing material (see abstract and figures), at least having a forming station (see figure 2) area of with an exchangeable tool (collecting mold part – item 21) in which fiber-containing material can be processed, wherein different tools for producing different three-dimensional molded parts are receivable in the at least one forming station (Lee teaches that the collecting mold part is adjustable to different configurations that the plurality of nozzles will be adjusted to meet -column 11 lines 4-8, see also Figure 8 that describes the shape and design of the mold part), and at least one alignment unit assigned to at least one of the tools for displacing and positioning fibers (column 8 lines 44—48 teach using the washing fluid of the washing body – item 55- to remove pulp material from the collecting part with specifically adjusted nozzles to control the placement of the water) which are located on a surface of said tool (see figures 6a-6d), wherein the at least one alignment unit has a plurality of outlet openings for a medium (water see figures 6a-6d), wherein the at least one alignment unit is supplied with the medium that is dispensed via the outlet openings for the displacement and positioning of fibers on the surface of said tool (see columns 7-8 and figures 6a-6d that discuss the act of displacing the pulp from the areas of the collecting mold part), wherein the outlet openings of the at least one alignment unit are adaptable in accordance with said tool received in the at least one forming station (see figure 6e).
As stated above, Lee teaches an adjustable collecting mold part and implies that different mold parts can be attached to the moving section (item 22) that moves the mold part up and down into the pulp bath for collection. While Lee does not explicitly state that the collecting mold part is replaceable with other configurations, the act of explicitly teaching adjusting the nozzles of the matching component based on the configuration of the collecting mold part would lead one of ordinary skill in the art that the collecting mold part can be replaced with a different one of a different configuration. The Examiner stands that’s this constitutes an implied teaching.
Alternatively, it is stated that the act of replacing the collecting mold part instead of adjusting an existing mold part would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. MPEP 2144.04 states that both making adjustable (In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)) and making separable (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)) are actions found to be obvious to the average artisan. The act of replacing the collecting mold part with a new one is functionally the same as adjusting an existing one to a new shape when desired and would be obvious to do so under the teachings of Lee and the ability of the average artisan.
Additionally, Lee reads on the claimed limitations of displacement and positioning of the fibers with the medium as Lee teaches washing the fibers off of the collecting mold for a consistent pulp collections step. This mirrors the washing step taught by the instant application and is sufficient to read on the scope of the claims as currently written. If the intention of the limitations is to use the nozzles to modify the molded part itself (and not the positioning of fibers on the tool as currently stated) then clarification to the claims will be required.
Regarding claim 2, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein at least one parameter of at least one outlet opening of the at least one alignment unit is changeable in order to change a quantity, direction, type, and/or orientation of the medium (Direction according to Figure 6e).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the at least one parameter defines a diameter, shape, orientation, and/or size of the at least one outlet opening (orientation see figure 6e).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the at least one alignment unit is exchangeable. Lee remains as stated above with regards to the collecting mold tool and the same applies to the washing unit item 55. Figures 6a-e) show that wash unit 55 moves in an out of the operational area by items 53 and 54 (see figure 6a). The MPEP states that making separable (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)) are actions found to be obvious to the average artisan. At the very least it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an exchangeable item 55 with the nozzle configurations preset instead of individually modifying the nozzles (see figure 6e) every time a new collecting mold part was installed.
Regarding claim 5, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the outlet openings are adaptable in accordance with said tool received in the forming station (see figures 6 e and column 8).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches the act of adapting the outlet openings based on the configuration of the molding part (see column 8 and column 11). Lee does not mention if the adjustments are automatic or not.
MPEP 2144.04 states that automating a manual activity does not distinguish of the art:
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
It is the Examiner’s stance that the act of performing the action automatically is not sufficient to distinguish over the art of Lee. It is recommended to provide structure to the act of automating and not just stating that the act of automating is possible as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein said tool and the alignment unit for this tool have a feature for an unambiguous assignment (column 8 teaches actively controlling the design for optimal efficiency).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the outlet openings can be changed pneumatically, hydraulically, electrically, mechanically, and/or electromechanically (mechanically, column 8).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the outlet openings are always aligned and/or adaptable (column 8 teaches adjusting the nozzles) in accordance with the position of mold bodies and/or cavities of said tool received in the forming station and/or a geometry of the mold bodies and/or cavities of said tool received in the forming station (see figure 6e, column 8 and column 11 that discus adjustment based on the configuration of the mold tool).
Regarding claim 10, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the outlet openings of the alignment unit are individually controllable, wherein the outlet openings of the alignment unit are controllable independently of other outlet openings with respect to direction, quantity, and duration of discharged medium (see figure 6e).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches that the outlet opening s(see figures 6d-e) are capable of being combined into groups so that wherein the outlet openings of the alignment unit are combined into groups which are controllable together, wherein the groups of outlet openings of the alignment unit are controllable independently of other groups of outlet openings of the alignment unit with respect to direction, quantity, and duration of discharged medium (the teachings in columns 8 and 11 are directed to actively controlling each of the nozzles so that they conform to the configuration of the mold part).
Regarding claim 12, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the outlet openings are formed as nozzles (see figure 6e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, USP 6,332,956 in view of Miller, US Patent Publication 2021/0247110.
Regarding claim 19, Lee remains as applied above and further teaches controlling the water flow through the nozzles, but is silent on if the water flow is controlled form closing the outlet openings or by restriction water at an earlier point in the device.
In the same field of endeavor of solving a problem of controlling fluid through a nozzle in a pulp treating method [0050], Miller teaches that nozzle outlets can be open or closed to control the application of the spray fluid [0042-0048]. Miller teaches that this can be paired with tracking data by having a display color on which outlets are open and closed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of the invention to utilize the selective outlet opening and controlling aspect of Miller in the Lee method for the benefit of accurately controlling the nozzle itself in an open or closed space through transmission signals that will produce the same end result in a known and conventional manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USP 2017/0183869 also teaches a pulp washing stage with a nozzle that controlled outlet opening.
US Patent Publication 2022/0388201 teaches a spray nozzle to treat pulp fibers on a movable tool after pulp collection and prior to final pressing (see figures).
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
Prosecution Insights