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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 28 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear as to how to interpret the “center line” of the pattern area. If the center line was made by a point in the center of the patter and then drawn from the inner edge, then the center line would always match a radius. Therefore for purposes of continued examination it is assumed that the center line is the imaginary line drawn through the center of pattern area going up form the inner circumference to the outer circumference. The rejections below will have a marked up figure in view of the cited reference.
Claims 16-27 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 15.
Additionally, claim 17 is further rejected as it is unclear if the “width” cited is regarding the maximum width, minimum width or average width of the pattern area. As these are segments of a circle the outer edges are wider than the inner edges of the area. The limitation of where each respective par is positioned does not provide clarity, as the bars are angled in regards to the radius and would be present at many different widths. Clarification is required.
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) 15-17 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sjostrom et al, US Patent Publication 2016/0145798.
Regarding claim 15, Sjostrom teaches a refiner disc of a refiner for refining of lignocellulosic material (see abstract), the refiner disc having an active surface configured to face another refiner disc when used in the refiner [0027], wherein the active surface comprises a pattern of bars and grooves disposed in a plurality of pattern areas (see figure 1 – each section divided by feed groove 10 is considered to be a section [0029]), wherein the pattern areas are positioned side by side with each other to cover at least a part of the active surface (see figure 1),
wherein each of the pattern areas has a length extending between a first end and a second end of the pattern area (inner edge 3 and outer edge 4 shown in Figure 1 and described in [0027]) and a width extending between two side edges (see description above and shown in figure 1), which two side edges both extend between the first and second ends of the pattern area (Figure 1 shows each side portion to constitute the area between feed grooves 10), wherein the second end is provided at an outer circumference of the active surface (item 4) and the first end is provided closer to a centre of the refiner disc than the second end (item 3 see figure 1 and [0027]) is and wherein a distance between the two side edges is smallest in the first end of the pattern area and increases towards the second end of the pattern area (the width expands as it gets closer to the outer portions, shown in figure 1 and described in [0027-0029]), and
wherein each of the pattern areas is positioned on the active surface (refining surface [0029]) such that a centre line of the pattern area, which is positioned in a centre of the pattern area and extends from the first end to the second end of the pattern area (this is an imaginary line as defined in the claims and not a physical feature of the disc, and would be understood by the average artisan by looking at figure 1), is provided at an angle to a radius of the refiner disc passing through a centre position of the pattern area, the angle being between 10°-60° (see marked up figure below with the blue line being the imaginary center line of the pattern area).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of the Sjostrom reference provides a radius R of the disc. The center line of the pattern area is part of the curve of the front and rear edges of the area (shown by items 5 and 6). This curved line is constantly changing its angle of reference to the radius as it is a continuous curved line, and curves in a negative angle and positive angle throughout the curve relative to the radius line.
The instant claims do not specify where the “provided angle” is measured from (in the middle of the pattern area, at the inner surface or outer surface, or anywhere in between). According to the 112 rejection above it will be addressed from the leading edge of inner surface as consistent standard.
While it is understood that figures are not drawn to scale unless explicitly stated in the reference, we would only have a visual approximation of the angle so f the imaginary center line as compared to the radius. The reference simply states that the groove edges are curved [0035]. It states that the curvature of the front end and back end are the same but doesn’t state what the curvature is leading it up to the average artisan to determine the ideal amount of curve in a known manner. It would have ben clear to the average artisan that the visual showing of the imaginary center line in figure 1 would fall into the claimed 10-60 degree range.
Sjostrom further teaches wherein at least some of the bars (item 11 [0029]) are extending along a direction between the two side edges of the pattern area in which the bars are provided (figure 1 shows them going from one feed groove 10 to the next feed groove 10), and wherein at least 80% of a total number of bars which are provided within one pattern area extend only within the pattern area (none of the bars of item 11 cross the feed groove 10 making all of them remaining within a single pattern area – see figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the sizes and extension directions of the bars within each pattern area can be freely varied within each pattern area ([0029] states that the patterns can be either straight or curved, this constitutes a direct teaching of multiple patterns that can be utilized). Additionally, the claims only require that the pattern can be varied, not a direct teaching of a varied pattern. In this case the teaching of multiple patterns means that the pattern can be freely varied as required.
Regarding claim 17, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches wherein at least 90% of the bars which are extending along a direction between the two side edges of the pattern area have a length which is at least 75% of the width of the pattern area where each respective bar is positioned (figure 1 shows that all of the bars 11 extend form one side of the pattern to as far as it can go until it hits a side of the pattern area whither that is the other side boarder or a top side - items 10 and 4).
Regarding claim 21, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the bars each has a length, a thickness and a height, wherein the height extends in a perpendicular direction from the active surface, whereby a thickness of the bars within each pattern area decreases towards the outer circumference of the active surface [0029 and 0041].
Regarding claim 22, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches wherein a distance between adjacent bars in the same pattern area decreases towards the outer circumference of the active surface [0029 and 0041].
Regarding claim 23, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches wherein an average angle between a direction of length extension of each bar in a pattern area and a radius of the refiner disc passing through a middle point of this bar decreases towards the outer circumference of the active surface (not explicitly taught but show in the marked image above where the angle of the center line is continuously changing in relation to the radius creating the claimed effect).
Regarding claim 24, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches that in a first part of the pattern area starting from the first end and extending towards the second end of the pattern area the bars are not extending all the way between the first and second side edges (in both the top and bottom sections of the pattern area there are bars that do not touch both sides of the pattern area, see figure 1) but are leaving an open wedge-shaped area without bars between adjacent pattern areas (groove 10 is present on each side of the pattern area so there is always space without bars between adjacent pattern areas – see figure 1).
Regarding claim 25, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches that there are at least three end bars in each pattern area which are shorter than an adjacent bar in a direction towards the first end of the pattern area, which end bars are the bars positioned closest to the second end of the pattern area, whereby these end bars each extends towards the outer circumference of the active surface (this is present at both ends of the pattern area in the length direction, see figure 1 the longest bars are present in the middle).
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al, US Patent Publication 2016/0145798.
Regarding claims 18-19, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the pattern area is delimited in its second end by a part of the outer circumference of the active surface (item 4 in figure 1), which part extends between the two side edges of the pattern area (the outer edge 4 is wider than inner section 3 making it extending past the two side edges two ways as it is the widest part of the angel depicted and do the curved nature making is wider than any curved part on the leading edge during rotation).
Sjostrom is silent on the part having a length corresponding to an arc length of a circular sector having a central angle being between 1°-15° in a circle with the outer circumference of the active surface.
As Sjostrom teaches all of the conceptual limitations (the position of the areas with the same pattern areas with a curved feature) but does not provide the circular sector with a central angle to determine the arc length of the edge piece. The teaching of utilizing the desired angles for the outcome is directly taught [0035-0037]. The act of optimizing the desired angle of the center sector would be routine optimization of a known element of the invention. It has been held by MPEP2144.04 that a mere optimization of a known element is well within the ability of the average artisan.
It is recommended to clarify what the “circular sector” is requiring to avoid a broadest reasonable interpretation rejection of the curved center line of the instant reference to read on multiple angles or to provide a showing of criticality to the center angle being 1-15 (or 4-12 degrees) and how that is specifically applied to the product.
Regarding claim 20, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the centre line, C, of the pattern area is provided at an angle, p, to a radius, R, of the refiner disc, the angle, p, being between 20°-40° (see rejection of claim 1 above).
While an exact number cannot be calculated based on the discloser, a visual approximation can be utilized. This basic teaching (paired with the 112 rejection in regards to claim 1 above) would have been sufficient for the average artisan to look to determine the ideal angle of the curvature through routine optimization.
It is recommended to clarify how the angles are being measured specifically and to provide a showing of criticality to the specifically claimed range.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al, US Patent Publication 2016/0145798 in view of Gingras, US Patent Publication 2008/0296419.
Regarding claims 26-27, Sjostrom remains as applied above and further teaches the claimed pattern area but is simply silent on the use of dams.
In the same field of endeavor, Gingras teaches a refiner plate system that includes dams to retard the flow of fibers and control the flow and positioning of steam within the refining system [0039-0040 and 0050-0057]. Gingras teaches that the surface damns should cover all grooves in the outer section [0050] over the finely spaced bars [0050]. The addition of surface dams near the plate edge [0045] would have had the known benefit of controlling back flow of steam in a known and predicable manner. Gingras further teaches that these areas can be straight or curved [0057] and should be located at the end of the plate [0015, 0045, and 0050-0057]. The teaching of continuous curvature of with the dams near the edge of the pattern area is taught.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the presence of dams in the claimed locations as taught by Gringas in the Sjostrom refiner for the benefit of adding a layer of steam control that is simply not contemplated in the primary device in a known and conventional manner to arrive at a predicable end result without modifying the principle operation of the primary references disc.
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
Prosecution Insights