DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/18/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 16 and 17 are amended. Claim 15 is cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/18/2025. Applicant has amended claims 16-18 to depend on claim 14 further placing into the elected group for consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GOTTFRIED (DE 10051999 A1).
For claim 1, GOTTFRIED teaches a method and devices to remove the scraping (doctor) blade for a papermachine [0004]. The examiner notes the language of “A set for the maintenance of a doctor blade in a fiber web machine” is the preamble of the claim. GOTTFRIED teaches the doctor blade has a holder with ends [0018]. This teaches the limitation of “in which fiber web machine a doctor blade is positioned in a doctor blade holder having an end”. GOTTFRIED also teaches a fitter device that releases the clamping device and holder that held the blade [0036]. GOTTFRIED also teaches the fitter holds the blade as it is removed from the guide device in the papermachine [0036]. This teaches the limitation of “the set comprising: a portable device for moving the doctor blade out from the doctor blade holder”. The fitter device acts as the blade holder during removal [0036]. This teaches the limitation of “and a prolonged doctor blade holder”. GOTTFRIED also teaches the use of a stand at the end of the holder that acts as a safety cage (element 4) [Fig 6]. This teaches the limitation of “and a safety cage positionable in the area of the end of the doctor blade holder”.
For claim 2, GOTTFRIED teaches the set of claim 1, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the stand (element 4) is separate from the blade holder (element 18). GOTTFRIED teaches the stand is fixed in place [Fig 6]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the safety cage is separate from the doctor blade holder and arranged to be fixed in the area of a safety fence”.
For claim 3, GOTTFRIED teaches the set of claim 1, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the holder is extended into an extension position when the blade is removed [0003]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the outer end of the prolonged doctor blade holder is formed of an extension piece”.
For claim 4, GOTTFRIED teaches the set of claim 3, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the holder is attached by a removable attachment point that uses hydraulic tubes to clamp in place [0036]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the outer end of the extension piece includes an attachment point for the portable device”.
For claim 12, GOTTFRIED teaches the set of claim 1, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the blade has an outer portion (holder connection elements 19-20) that is thick and narrows toward the blade [Fig 3]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the doctor blade has an outer portion connected with a narrowing to a remainder of the doctor blade”.
For claim 14, GOTTFRIED teaches a method and devices to remove the scraping (doctor) blade for a papermachine [0004]. GOTTFRIED teaches the blade is placed perpendicular to the papermachine [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “A doctor arrangement in a fiber web machine, comprising: a doctor blade holder extending in a cross-machine direction; a doctor blade received within the doctor blade holder and positioned to engage a roll;”. GOTTFRIED teaches the arm can extend beyond the roll [Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “a doctor blade extension which extends in the cross-machine direction beyond the roll”. GOTTFRIED teaches the holder is attached by a removable attachment point that uses hydraulic tubes to clamp in place [0036]. This teaches the limitation “a portable device releasably connected to the doctor blade extension and configured for engaging the doctor blade to move the doctor blade into and out from the doctor blade holder;”. ”. GOTTFRIED also teaches the use of a stand at the end of the holder (opposite of the blade) that acts as a safety cage (element 4) away from the roll [Fig 6 and Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “and a safety cage which surrounds the portable device and portions of the doctor blade extension and supported from a mounting point away from the doctor blade holder and the roll”.
For claim 16, GOTTFRIED teaches the arrangement of claim 14, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the holder is attached by a removable attachment point that uses hydraulic tubes (rollers) to clamp in place [0036]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the portable device has a pair of feed rollers positioned to engage the doctor blade”. GOTTFRIED teaches the structure has a screw system to contain the doctor blade [0032 and Fig 5]. This teaches the limitation of “and further comprising a cordless screwdriver engaged with the portable device and operable to drive the pair of feed rollers to advance the doctor blade in the cross-machine direction”.
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) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOTTFRIED (DE 10051999 A1).
For claim 13, GOTTFRIED teaches the set of claim 1, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches that the guide device which holds the removed doctor blade, is moved out of the calender by a distance between 0.4m to 1.2m (equivalent to 400mm-1200mm) [0007]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the prolonged doctor blade holder and the safety cage together define a safety distance of at least 500 mm”. See 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 5, 7-9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOTTFRIED (DE 10051999 A1) in view of STRAUCH (DE 20000827 U1).
For claim 5, GOTTFRIED teaches the set of claim 1, as above. GOTTFRIED does not teach the use of a safety tube separate from the holder. STRAUCH teaches a similar method for replacing a doctor blade from a papermachine [0013]. STRAUCH also teaches the use of a safety tube (element 2) that acts as an arm for the clamping device (element 1a) [Fig 1]. STAUCH teaches the safety tube is separate and independent of the holder [0030]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a safety tube for surrounding the doctor blade external from the doctor blade holder”. STRAUCH teaches that the advantage of the invention is the device allows the doctor blade removal without the operator directly contacting the doctor blade [0013]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the steel tube of STRAUCH into the device and method of GOTTFRIED to improve the safety of the papermachine operator. One would be motivated to use the tube based on the improved safety for the operator as taught by STRAUCH.
For claim 7, GOTTFRIED and STRAUCH teach the set of claim 5, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the long tool (tube) has an extension position [0003]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the safety tube comprises telescopically arranged parts”.
For claim 8, GOTTFRIED and STRAUCH teach the set of claim 5, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the beam 10 extends the full axial length [0032] and the doctor blade also extends the full calender length [0002]. This shows the tube and blade are the same length [Fig 3]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the safety tube is approximately as long as the doctor blade”.
For claim 9, GOTTFRIED and STRAUCH teach the set of claim 5, as above. GOTTFRIED teaches the blade is moved by lifting the blade by tubular lift stand [Fig 2 and 0030]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a lifting platform for the safety tube”.
For claim 17, GOTTFRIED teaches the arrangement of claim 14, as above. GOTTFRIED does not teach the use of a safety tube separate from the holder. STRAUCH teaches a similar method for replacing a doctor blade from a papermachine [0013]. STRAUCH also teaches the use of a safety tube (element 2) that acts as an arm for the clamping device (element 1a) [Fig 1]. STAUCH teaches the safety tube is separate and independent of the holder [0030]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a safety tube positioned to receive the doctor blade as it passes out of the safety cage, the safety tube comprising a plurality of telescoping parts”. STRAUCH teaches that the advantage of the invention is the device allows the doctor blade removal without the operator directly contacting the doctor blade [0013]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the steel tube of STRAUCH into the device and method of GOTTFRIED to improve the safety of the papermachine operator. One would be motivated to use the tube from the STRAUCH based on the improved safety for the operator as taught by STRAUCH.
For claim 18, GOTTFRIED and STRAUCH teach the arrangement of claim 17, as above. GOTTFRIED does not teach the use of a safety tube separate from the holder. STRAUCH teaches a similar method for replacing a doctor blade from a papermachine [0013]. STRAUCH also teaches the use of a safety tube (element 2) that acts as an arm for the clamping device (element 1a) [Fig 1]. STAUCH teaches the safety tube has a forked end that contains the rollers (element 4a). This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: a mobile lifting platform having forks extending in the machine direction, wherein the safety tube is secured to the forks, the lifting platform being operable to dispose the safety tube at variable heights to receive doctor blades at different heights within the fiber web machine”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOTTFRIED (DE 10051999 A1) and STRAUCH (DE 20000827 U1) in view of KRAKIA (DE 102008006643 A1).
For claim 6, GOTTFRIED and STRAUCH teach the set of claim 5, as above. Neither GOTTFRIED or STRAUCH teach the use of a locking system to hold the tube in place. KRAKIA teaches a similar doctor blade maintenance system [0028]. KRAKIA also teaches that the tubular holder structure (guide device) has locking pin system [0027]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the safety tube is arranged to be locked on the safety cage during the maintenance”. KRAKIA teaches the advantage of the invention is that the system allows for an ergonomically advantageous working position for the fitter [0020]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the locking steel tube of KRAKIA into the device and method of GOTTFRIED to improve the safety of the papermachine operator. One would be motivated to use the locking tube based on the ergonomically advantageous working position for the fitter as taught by KRAKIA.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOTTFRIED (DE 10051999 A1) and STRAUCH (DE 20000827 U1) in view of BEDARD (US 3271808).
For claim 10, GOTTFRIED and STRAUCH teach the set of claim 9, as above. GOTTFRIED is silent to the power source of the doctor blade movement device. BEDARD teaches a similar doctor blade holder system [col1 line 9]. BEDARD also teaches the use of a powered holder [col 1 line 9]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the lifting platform is freely movable and self-powered”. BEDARD teaches the power operated holder provides a very powerful clamping pressure [col 1 line 25]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the powered holder of BEDARD into the device and method of GOTTFRIED to improve the holder grip. One would be motivated to use the powered holder based on the improved holder grip as taught by BEDARD.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOTTFRIED (DE 10051999 A1) in view of BEDARD (US 3271808).
For claim 11, GOTTFRIED teaches the set of claim 1, as above. GOTTFRIED is silent to the power source of the doctor blade movement device. BEDARD teaches a similar doctor blade holder system [col1 line 9]. BEDARD also teaches the use of a powered holder [col 1 line 9]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the portable device has a power intake for an external power source”. BEDARD teaches the power operated holder provides a very powerful clamping pressure [col 1 line 25]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the powered holder of BEDARD into the device and method of GOTTFRIED to improve the holder grip. One would be motivated to use the powered holder based on the improved holder grip as taught by BEDARD.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748