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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0330798 to Min et al (Min) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Min.
Concerning claim 11, Min discloses a refining segment for a refiner for refining fibrous material, the refining segment comprising:
a back plate (310) that forms a body of the refining segment;
refining bars comprised of profiled wire elements (320) arranged on top of the back plate, wherein each profiled wire element has a width of a bottom which is different from a width of a top (see figure 3); and
wherein at least one substance (330) is positioned between the refining bars and the back plate for fastening the refining bars to the back plate (the process by which the end result product (i.e. refining segment) is formed is not germane to the patentability of the product. As such, in the absence of any positively recited patentability distinct structure, the process by which the bar is applied to the back plate does not in itself warrant patentability).
Concerning claim 12, Min discloses the refining bars are arranged on top of the back plate in a substantially parallel straight or curved configuration.
Concerning claim 13, Min discloses the width of the bottom of the profiled wire elements is greater than the width of the top of the profiled wire elements (see figure 3).
Concerning claim 14, Min discloses at least one substance between the refining bars which fastens adjacent profiled wire elements to each other, the at least one substance between the refining bars substantially remaining between the bottoms of the adjacent refining bars.
Concerning claim 15, Min discloses in figure 3 the bottom of each profiled wire element provides a base section of the refining bar, and the top of the profiled wire element provides a refining bar of the refining bar.
Concerning claims 16-17, as discussed above the process by which the end result product (i.e. refining segment) is formed is not germane to the patentability of the product. As such, in the absence of any positively recited patentability distinct structure, the process by which the bar is applied to the back plate does not in itself warrant patentability. Thus the material being used is also not germane.
Concerning claim 18, Min discloses each profiled wire element has a cross-section of inverted T-shape or of inverted tilted T-shape (see figure 3).
Concerning claim 19, Min discloses in figure 3 each profiled wire element has a cross-section of L-shape or of tilted L-shape (as each side forms an L shape). In the event applicant argues that this is not an L-shape, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Min such that each profiled wire element has a cross-section of L-shape or of tilted L-shape as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to this exact shape. Accordingly, such a shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0128817 to Lange or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lang.
Concerning claim 11, Lang discloses a refining segment for a refiner for refining fibrous material, the refining segment comprising:
a back plate (1) that forms a body of the refining segment;
refining bars comprised of profiled wire elements (16) arranged on top of the back plate, wherein each profiled wire element has a width of a bottom which is different from a width of a top (see figure 6); and
wherein at least one substance (9 or 9’) is positioned between the refining bars and the back plate for fastening the refining bars to the back plate (the process by which the end result product (i.e. refining segment) is formed is not germane to the patentability of the product. As such, in the absence of any positively recited patentability distinct structure, the process by which the bar is applied to the back plate does not in itself warrant patentability).
Concerning claim 12, Lang discloses the refining bars are arranged on top of the back plate in a substantially parallel straight or curved configuration.
Concerning claim 13, Lang discloses the width of the bottom of the profiled wire elements is greater than the width of the top of the profiled wire elements (see figure 6).
Concerning claim 14, Lang discloses at least one substance (3) between the refining bars (16) which fastens adjacent profiled wire elements to each other, the at least one substance between the refining bars substantially remaining between the bottoms of the adjacent refining bars.
Concerning claim 15, Lang discloses in figure 6 the bottom of each profiled wire element provides a base section of the refining bar, and the top of the profiled wire element provides a refining bar of the refining bar.
Concerning claim 16, Lang discloses the at least one substance comprises metal or an alloy (¶25).
Concerning claim 17, Lang discloses the at least one substance comprises glue (as the metal acts as a glue).
Concerning claim 18, Lang discloses each profiled wire element has a cross-section of inverted T-shape or of inverted tilted T-shape (see figure 6).
Concerning claim 19, Lang discloses in figure 6 each profiled wire element has a cross-section of L-shape or of tilted L-shape (as each side forms an L shape). In the event applicant argues that this is not an L-shape, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Lang such that each profiled wire element has a cross-section of L-shape or of tilted L-shape as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to this exact shape. Accordingly, such a shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0045278 to Bech (Bech) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0330798 to Min et al (Min).
Concerning claim 1, Bech discloses a method for manufacturing a refining segment for refining fibrous material, the method comprising:
arranging at least one set of profiled wires (58) next to each other and substantially immovable with respect to each other (¶76); and
fastening the at least one refining bar element onto a back plate (26), wherein said back plate (26) forms a body of the refining segment, by applying at least one solidifying substance (61, see ¶76) between the at least one refining bar element and the back plate (26).
However, Bech does not disclose wherein a width of a bottom of the profiled wire is different from a width of a top of the profiled wire.
Min discloses arranging at least one set of profiled wires (120) next to each other, wherein a width of a bottom of the profiled wire is different from a width of a top of the profiled wire (see figure 7B), to form at least one refining bar element; and
fastening the at least one refining bar element onto a back plate (1110), wherein said back plate forms a body of the refining segment, by applying at least one solidifying substance (¶125) between the at least one refining bar element and the back plate.
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. refining segments, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the profiled wires (what Bech calls lamellas) of Bech with that of Min. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the profiled wires of Bech with that of Min will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being refining of a material.
Concerning claim 2, Bech does not disclose applying the at least one solidifying substance (61) onto the back plate; and laying the refining bar element on top of the at least one solidifying substance applied onto the back plate.
Min, discloses the step of fastening the at least one refining bar element onto the back plate comprises: applying the at least one solidifying substance (330) onto the back plate (310); and laying the refining bar element (320) on top of the at least one solidifying substance applied onto the back plate.
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. refining segments, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the attachment method of Bech with that of Min. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the attachment method of Bech with that of Min will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being attachment.
Concerning claim 3, Bech in view of Min discloses the step of arranging the at least one set of profiled wires next to each other comprises arranging profiled wires in the refining bar element in a substantially parallel straight or curved configuration.
Concerning claim 4, Bech, in view of Min, discloses the step of arranging the at least one set of profiled wires (58) next to each other comprises arranging the profiled wires (58) in the refining bar element substantially immovable with respect to each other by pre-fastening the adjacent wires to each other (via 51).
Concerning claim 6, Min, as applied to Bech, discloses in figure 7B the width of the bottom of the profiled wire is greater than the width of the top of the profiled wire.
Concerning claim 7, Bech, in view of Min, discloses the at least one solidifying substance comprises metal (as it is a weld bead).
Concerning claim 8, Bech discloses a method for manufacturing a refining segment for refining fibrous material, the method comprising:
arranging a plurality of profiled wires (58) next to each other, each profiled wire being formed of metal (¶25) and having a base and a refining bar projecting upwardly from the base, wherein the bases of the profiled wires (58) are connected to one another such that the plurality of profiled wires are held substantially immovable with respect to each other (via 51); and
fastening the refining bar element onto a back plate (26), wherein said back plate (26) forms a body of the refining segment, by applying at least one solidifying substance (61) between the at least one refining bar element and the back plate.
However, Bech does not disclose wherein a width of a bottom of the profiled wire is different from a width of a top of the profiled wire.
Min discloses arranging at least one set of profiled wires (120) next to each other, wherein a width of a bottom of the profiled wire is different from a width of a top of the profiled wire (see figure 7B), to form at least one refining bar element; and
fastening the at least one refining bar element onto a back plate (1110), wherein said back plate forms a body of the refining segment, by applying at least one solidifying substance (¶125) between the at least one refining bar element and the back plate.
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. refining segments, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the profiled wires (what Bech calls lamellas) of Bech with that of Min. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the profiled wires of Bech with that of Min will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being refining of a material.
Concerning claim 9, Bech, in view of Min, discloses the step of fastening the refining bar element on the back plate comprises disposing a molten metal alloy between the refining bar element and the back plate and allowing the molten metal alloy to cool to thereby fasten the refining bar element to the back plate (¶76).
Concerning claim 10, Bech does not disclose the molten metal alloy comprises a braze.
Min discloses the molten metal alloy (330) comprises a braze of a composition different from the composition of the metal material of the profiled wires and the metal material of the back plate, the braze having a melting temperature which is lower than a melting temperature of the metal material of the profiled wires or a melting temperature of the metal material of the back plate (¶135).
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. refining segments, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the attachment method of Bech with that of Min. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the attachment method of Bech with that of Min will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being attachment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose the method step of “cutting the at least one refining bar element to a predetermined shape before fastening the at least one refining bar element to the back plate”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/Matthew Katcoff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
01/09/2026