Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 6/30/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-12 remain 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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 8-12) in the reply filed on 6/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UENO (US-2016/0229129), hereinafter UENO, in view of MIKOSHIBA (US-2019/0193296), hereinafter MIKOSHIBA, and NISKANEN (US 4,834,547), hereinafter NISKANEN. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, UENO discloses A mixing apparatus {[abstract] note mixing unit}, comprising:
a carriage pipe section that adds a thermally meltable resin material to a fiber material obtained by fiberization of a raw material containing fabric and carries the resin material and the fiber material and a mixing section, at part of the carriage pipe section, that produces a deposition fiber material by mixing the resin material and the fiber material {[FIG. 1] 54 is the carriage pipe and 50 is the mixing section, [0004] note deposition of fiber-like material, [0012] note mixing fibers and composites, [0013] note resin particles, [0052] note resin is thermoplastic that is thermally meltable, [0035] note depositing unit 60, [0038] note the action is fiberization, the examiner also notes that the fiberization and depositions are not part of the mixing apparatus and they do not limit the mixing apparatus}.
Regarding the limitation “fiber-shaped thermally meltable resin material”, UENO is silent on the resin being fiber-shaped. However, material acted upon by an apparatus does not limit the apparatus (see MPEP 2115). Thus, the shape of the resin does not impart any patentable weight to the claim.
However, and in the interest of compact prosecution, and in the same field of endeavor that is related to sheet manufacturing apparatus, MIKOSHIBA discloses that resin could be particle/powder-shaped or fiber-shaped {[0101]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the particle resin of UENO with fiber shaped resin of MIKOSHIBA. Note that it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable result are achieved {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. Predicable results are achieved because in this case both are used as a reins and in the same field of endeavor.
Combination of UENO and MIKSHIBA, however, is silent on the detailed structure of the mixing section.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to apparatus for mixing fiber suspensions, NISKANEN discloses wherein the mixing section has a vane portion having a plurality of rib-shaped vanes on a rotatable disc {[abstract] note rotation, [FIG. 3] note disc 13 that rotates and has plurality of vanes 9/10 installed onto},
and a duct portion that couples the carriage pipe section in such a manner that the carriage pipe section faces the vane portion (claim 8), wherein the duct portion has an introduction port portion and a discharge port portion that are coupled to the carriage pipe section, and an angle formed by the introduction port portion and the discharge port portion is 85° or above and 95° or below (claim 12) {note carriage pipe is disclosed by UENA, [FIG. 1] note between inlet 3 and outlet 5, there lies the duct section, note inlet faces the vane or blades 10, note inlet 3 or introduction section is perpendicular to outlet 5 or the discharge port or 90° angle}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of NISKANEN in the combination apparatus of UENO and MIKOSHIBA and have introduced the mixing unit as described by NISKANEN in the combination apparatus of UENO and MIKOSHIBA. As disclosed by NISKANEN, the advantage of this mixing device is that its construction is simple and gas can be removed from the fibers that are mixed and thus obtain a better mixture {[C1, L53-55]}.
Regarding the last limitation of claim 8 reciting “and in the vane portion, an interval of adjacent ones of the vanes is larger than average longitudinal fiber lengths of the fiber material and the resin material”, the combination of UENO, MIKOSHIBA, and NISKANEN is silent about this limitation or the size of this interval. Note that NISKANEN shows the interval between vanes 9/10 {[FIG. 3]}.
The Examiner submits that in this case, the last limitation of claim 8 would have been the result of choosing from a very finite number of identified options: 1- the interval smaller than the average fiber length, 2- same, 3- larger.
It has been held that that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success would have been “obvious to try” {see MPEP 2143 (I)(E)}. One would have been motivated to have chosen the interval to be larger than average fiber length so that between these intervals, mixing of numerous fibers can take place since a larger interval can accommodate more individual fibers.
Regarding claim 9 limitation of “wherein the average longitudinal fiber length of the resin material is 1 mm or above and 20 mm or below”, the Examiner submits that material (fibers and their length) acted upon by an apparatus does not limit the apparatus (see MPEP 2115). Thus, the size of the fiber does not impart any patentable weight to the claim. However, and in the interest of compact prosecution, UENO discloses wherein the average longitudinal fiber length of the resin material is 1 mm or above and 20 mm or below {[0070]}.
The Examiner notes that UENO teaches a range of average length that overlaps with the claimed range. An overlapping range makes a prima facie case of obviousness.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Regarding claims 10-11, as discussed under claim 8, NISKANEN discloses the limitations “wherein the duct portion has an introduction port portion coupled to the carriage pipe section (claim 10), wherein the duct portion has a discharge port portion coupled to the carriage pipe section (claim 11)”.
Regarding the remainder limitations of claims 10 (and a diameter of the introduction port portion is larger than the average longitudinal fiber length) and claim 11 (and a diameter of the discharge port portion is larger than the average longitudinal fiber length), The Examiner submits that in this case, these limitations would have been the result of choosing from a very finite number of identified options: 1- the diameter of port portion smaller than the average fiber length, 2- same, 3- larger.
It has been held that that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success would have been “obvious to try” {see MPEP 2143 )I)(E)}. One would have been motivated to have chosen the port diameter to be larger than the average fiber length so these fibers can easily enter and exit the mixing device and a clogging and plugging of the inlet/outlet can be avoided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748