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 § 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(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0206019 in view of Higuchi et al, US Patent Publication 2018/0251926.
Regarding claim 1, Miyazawa teaches a fibrous body processing apparatus, comprising: a humidifying unit that generates humidified air (items 204 and 205, figure 9); a first processing unit that processes a material that contains fibers (item 20, figure 9); a second processing unit that processes the material that was processed at the first processing unit (item 40, figure 9); a first supply passage through which humidified air is supplied from the humidifying unit to the first processing unit (pipe 308b provides humidified air to pipe 308a which provides the humidified air to item 20 through pipe 2c, figure 9 and [0146]); a second supply passage through which humidified air is supplied from the first processing unit to the second processing unit (pipe 3), together with the material [0065].
Miyazawa teaches that the material leaves the second processing unit and goes directly to the humidifying unit (see figure 9) but does not disclose that a returning passage which includes an upstream-side end portion and a downstream-side end portion and through which humidified air is returned from the second supply passage or the second processing unit to the humidifying unit.
In the same field of endeavor (and to the same assignee), Higuchi is presented to show that recycling the air it conventional.
Higuchi teaches an air recirculation and collection action in Figure 3 shown by α and ß where the recirculated air would go through the second processing unit and then collet into item 276 which combines items 76 and 176 to take the collected air to be reused in the system. This directly reads on the act of returning the air to the humidifying unit as this shared space is part of the humidifying section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyazawa to connect the section 48 (as shown in figure 9) with the humidifying section of 204 and 205 as taught in Higuchi, as it would have allowed for a conventional collection and recycling of air in a full circular process to save in energy and space to link adjacent air flow sections of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Miyazawa and Higuchi remain as applied above and further teaches that the upstream-side end portion of the returning passage is connected directly or indirectly to the second supply passage, as it has to be connected either directly or indirectly (see arguments for obviousness above).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazawa and Higuchi remain as applied above and further teaches that the humidifying unit is a vaporizing humidifying unit [0120].
Regarding claim 4, Miyazawa and Higuchi remain as applied above and Miyazawa further teaches that a transportation portion through which the material is sent from the first processing unit to the second processing unit, wherein at least a part of the second supply passage doubles as the transportation portion (see figure 9 items 3 and 8).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazawa and Higuchi remain as applied above and Miyazawa further teaches that the first processing unit creates the defibering actions and the humidifying actions takes place at the end of the second processing unit.
It would have been a mere action of rearrangement of parts to rearrange the apparatus to perform a humification action first and then defibrating the fibers as the order of operations would not produce a noticeable difference to the average artisan on the final product.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0206019 in view of Higuchi et al, US Patent Publication 2018/0251926 in further view of Nagai et al, US Patent Publication 2014/0290886.
Regarding claims 6-9, Miyazawa and Higuchi remain as applied above and teaches the use of blowers to move the humidified air through the device (see figure 9) but is silent to the use of a switching unit of the humidified air to the different components and instead just has a branched pathway for the air to free flow through.
In the same field of endeavor of controlling the humidity on a sheet manufacturing apparatus, Nagai teaches a controlling device (item 250) that controls the humidity of the sheet by relying on moisture sensors and can directly modify the humid air or amount of moisture or amount of heat in the humidifying devices (embodiments 2-4 see [0102]). The controller takes the readings of the measuring unit (item 110) and directly switches the heating and air flow pathways as well as the amount of moisture being supplied to the stock material [0102-0106].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a switching mechanism that is actively controlled to direct or modify the air flow of Miyazawa based on a desired moisture reading through the mechanism of Nagai for the benefit of controlling the recycled airflow and moisture into and out of the different process sections that will benefit from more or less moisture in the materials. This would have been obvious especially in view of the teachings of Higuchi that talk about controlling the different airflow generators and blowers located throughout the recycling process to control the α and ß air flows. A switching device to modify the state of the air flow would have been an obvious modification that would have arrived at the claimed limitations utilizing conventional means with a high expectation of success.
Conclusion
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