DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. The arguments regarding the new claims are persuasive, however, a new rejection is made.
The newly cited art of Andersson (US 20190376239 A1) shows the disputed features at fig 1a-fig 1d.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 14, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (US 20190376239 A1) and further in view of Myerscough (US 20130213597 A1)
See also duplicative rejections of claims 17-18, at end.
In reference to claim 14, Andersson discloses a method (see figures, claims, and descriptions thereof) comprising:
forming a wet part on a forming tool from a slurry of fiber material; (Fig 1a)
removing the forming tool, with the wet part formed thereon, from the slurry; (Fig 1a – Fig 1b)
positioning a transfer tool against the forming tool such that the wet part is sandwiched between the forming tool and the transfer tool; (Fig 1b)
applying pressure through the transfer tool onto the wet part to remove liquid from the wet part formed on the forming tool; (Fig 1b and “P2, which is capable of generating a vacuum” [P0068])
applying vacuum forces through openings in the forming tool and the transfer tool
to remove the liquid from the wet part; and (Fig 1b)
while the wet part is located sandwiched between the forming tool and the transfer tool, applying … energy onto the wet part to remove the liquid from the
wet part (“One, or both, of the pressing tools may be provided with a heating element 33, 43, energized by an energy supply E1, E2 and optionally controlled by a controller C. The heating may be achieved by electric heating elements, hot air or liquid or induction.” [P0073]).
Andersson does not disclose that the energy is microwave energy.
The use of microwaves to provide heat was obvious for the claimed purpose at the time of the claimed invention. This is evidenced by Myerscough microwave heating was known for the same purpose of providing energy to pulp to make products (claim 17 and figures).
Thus, the claim is rejected as obvious because a person would have known about microwaves and found it obvious to use them as claimed in order to use a known element for a suitable reason.
In reference to claim 16, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 14.
See Andersson at Fig 1a-1d.
In reference to claim 17-18, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 14.
The prior art does not describe controlling a controller to control the microwave, vacuum, and transfer tool, however, this is general automation and is not inventive. To provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity, which accomplishes the same result, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to claim 19, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 14.
See the controller labeled C in Andersson at Fig 1a-1d; and, see Claim 34 (the claim encompasses wherein vacuuming and heating occur concurrently).
In reference to claim 20 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 14. Myerscough further discloses the use of a “microwave oven” (P0006). A microwave oven includes a door that opens and closes to allow the placement of articles to be heated therein. Opening the door, inserting the article to be heated, closing the door, turning the microwave on, reflecting microwaves in the oven, absorbing microwaves into the article to be heated, etc. are implied by the recitation of the term microwave oven.
In reference to claim 21 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 14; and Myerscough further discloses pressing as claimed (see P0021 and figures describing pressing steps).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (US 20190376239 A1) and further in view of Myerscough (US 20130213597 A1) and further in view of Soh (US 20030230827 A1).
In reference to claim 17 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 14 and is believed to fairly also read on claim 17 for the reasons cited above.
However, even if a using a controller as claimed was not considered prima facie obvious, the prior art of Soh, which is the same field of endeavor (see title), teaches a moving controller for the same purpose (see abstract) and explains that “a certain level of automation and control will be needed in practice for safety, accuracy, and repeatability” (P0064) and it would have been obvious to use a controller to control the tooling in order to provide safety, accuracy, and repeatability.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (US 20190376239 A1) and further in view of Myerscough (US 20130213597 A1) and further in view of Daniele (US 3016091 A).
In reference to claim 18 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 15 and is believed to fairly read on claim 18 for the reasons cited above.
However, even if a using a controller as claimed was not considered prima facie obvious, the prior art of Daniele, which is the same field of endeavor (see title), teaches a vacuum controller for the same purpose (see title) and it would have been obvious to use a controller to control the vacuum means in order to provide a means for controlling the vacuum that is otherwise required by Myerscough.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744