Detailed Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
The communications received 03/03/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-8 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 .
Double Patenting
The amendments provided 03/03/2026 have removed the double patenting rejections of claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al (US 2018/0237992) hereinafter NAG in view of Rheims (EP 1467019 A2 refer to the supplied English translation) hereinafter RHE.
As for claim 1, NAG teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus comprising:
an accumulation section [Fig. 1 #100] that accumulates a material containing fibers by an air flow to form a web [0097-0098];
a humidification section [Fig. 1 #78] that is arranged to face one surface of the web applies moisture from one surface side of the web [0091];
and a pressurization section that pressurizes the humidified web to form a sheet [Fig. 1 #80], wherein the pressurization section includes a second roller (second roller) [Fig. 2 #182] that comes into contact with one surface of the web and a first roller (first roller) [Fig. 2 #181] that comes into contact with the other surface of the web, and
a surface of the second roller is harder than a surface of the first roller [0037; 0098; 0118; 0132].
However NAG does not teach that the second roller comes into contact with one surface of the web and the first roller comes into contact with the other surface of the web. NAG teaches that the main purpose of these two rollers is to maintain a nip and contact pressure [0114-116], therefore the two cylinders and relevant driving rollers could be switched in positions.
In accordance with the MPEP a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the arrangement of the first roller with the arrangement of the second roller in terms of position as this would have amounted to a simple substitution of positions with the expected result of achieving the required nip and contact pressure.
NAG fails to teach the third roller.
RHE teaches a papermaking machine [Abstract] which has a first [Fig. 3 #4-5], second [Fig. 3 #6-8], and third roller [Fig. 3 #13-14]. The third roller is arranged at a position facing the first roller and downstream of the nip section [Fig. 3 #13-14 versus #3] such that a winding region in which the web has passed through the nip section is transported in a state of being stuck to the first roller is formed [Fig. 3 #15]. The benefits of this arrangement are the creation of a soft nip [Fig. 3 #15] which improves the overall smoothing of the paper and thereby creating an improved product [0031].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the third roller with the arrangement of RHE to the nip of NAG in order to improve the overall smoothing of the paper and thereby create an improved product. As both RHE and NAG pertain to papermaking they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 2, NAG/RHE teaches claim 1, and NAG further teaches wherein the first roller is made of metal [0109] and the second roller is made of metal (as the core) and rubber [0112] covering the surface thereof.
As for claim 3, NAG/RHE teaches claim 2, and NAG further teaches wherein the surface of the first roller has irregularities (as it deforms in response to the web, therefore it has irregularities) [0117].
As for claim 4, NAG/RHE teaches claim 1, and NAG further teaches that one of the rollers can be the driving roller while the other can be the driven roller [0101] therefore it is understood that since the alternatives for whether the first or second rollers are the driving or driven rollers are taught that the first roller being a driving roller and the second roller being a driven roller is taught.
Should the Applicant disagree:
In accordance with the MPEP, the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP (I)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced either of the selected driven rollers with the other such that the first roller is a driving roller and the second roller is a driven roller as this would be a simple substitution of which roller is the driven or driving roller with the expected result of driving the web forward. As either roller can be the driving or driven, one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the replacement of the driver or driving.
As for claim 5, NAG/RHE teaches claim 1, and NAG further teaches that the first roller has a built-in heater for heating [Fig. 2 H; 0115] and while the second roller has external heaters [Fig. 2 #183 with respective H; 0106-0108] it does additionally suggest that the roller it is heating may also be provided in a built-in manner [0108]. Therefore it is understood that the second roller also having a built-in heater is taught.
Should the Applicant disagree:
NAG additionally teaches that providing more heaters allows for more easy (which the Examiner understands to be faster) heating [0119].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an internal built-in heater to the second roller in order to increase the speed of heating.
As for claim 6, NAG/RHE teaches claim 1, and although there is not an explicit starch supply section NAG further teaches there is an additive supply section which readily includes a wide variety of additive shapes/configurations (such as powder or fibrous) [Fig. 1 #52; 0082] which is followed by a mixing section which mixes the additive (blower) [Fig. 1 #56; 0079-80]. Therefore the supply being specifically a starch supply is the claiming of a material worked upon in an apparatus claim which does not further limit an apparatus claim [MPEP 2115].
As for claim 8, NAG/RHE teaches claim 1 and NAG further a suction mechanism [Fig. 1 #76; 0089] that is disposed facing the humidification section (as they are on opposing faces of the web), the suction mechanism in order to provide suction much have an intake fan somewhere that generates air flow in an air flow direction [0089] and in the combination of NAG/RHE that the downstream end portion of the winding region positioned between the first roller and the third roller as viewed in a direction that is perpendicular to an axial direction of the each of the first, second, and third rollers would be perpendicular to the air flow direction (at the point in which the web would begin to turn towards the third roller primarily therefore being in a web direction which is perpendicular to the air flow direction).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAG/RHE as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Jung et al (US 2003/0221571) hereinafter JUN and Higuchi et al (US 2018/0347086) hereinafter HIG.
As for claim 7, NAG/RHE teaches claim 2 and wherein the surface of the first roller has irregularities (as it deforms in response to the web, therefore it has irregularities) [0117] and is made of metal [0109], however NAG fails to teach an average roughness of the first roller.
JUN teaches that when applying roller pressure to paper that the determination of a surface roughness can be utilized to create a desired surface effect on the paper [Abstract; 0016]. JUN further teaches that the desired surface effect can impart desired processing effects at low roller pressure and without excessively compressing the substrate [0027]. Therefore the surface roughness of the cylinder is an optimized variable to achieve a desired processing effect without excessive pressure.
In accordance with the MPEP, a routine optimization of a variable to achieve a desired effect is prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived to the claimed surface roughness in NAG/RHE as JUN teaches that this is an optimized variable to achieve a desired surface processing without excess compression.
NAG/RHE/JUN fail to teach the maximum height values.
HIG teaches that when papermaking in a substantially similar apparatus [Abstract] that one manner of preventing accumulation of material is by setting heights (as the depths as the bottom of the depth to the surface is a height) of less than 500 um which overlaps the claimed range of maximums [0176].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set the maximum of heights of the roller to be less than 500 um which overlaps the claimed range at less than 500 um in order to prevent accumulation of material on the surface of the roller. As both HIG and NAG are substantially similar machines, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 6-8, the Applicant argues that as Jung et al fails to address the exact problem posed by the Applicant in their arrival to their claimed roughness range, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive to the claimed range as a matter of optimizing the roughness of the surface of the roller.
Respectfully the Examiner disagrees. As described in Jung and in the argument’s description of Jung the key of Jung is to adjust the surface roughness of the cylinder to impart a desired processing effect and without having to apply excess roller pressure. Similarly as described in the arguments, the purpose of roughness of the roller is to impart a desired processing effect upon the paper which in the instant specification’s case is the surface quality of the paper. Therefore Jung and the instant invention are aligned in achieving substantially similar results and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adjusted the surface roughness as a routinely optimized variable to have arrived to the claimed ranges.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748