Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 3/15/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-14 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner does not interpret “shredder”, “grinder”, “fiberizer”, “deduster, “spray booth” or “dryer” of claims 1 and 14 as “nonce” words. The Examiner further does not interpret “metering bin”, “dust collector”, “chamber” or “venturi” as nonce words. Therefore none of the limitations are interpreted under 112(f) [see e.g. MPEP 2181 (I) (A)].
If persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks") 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will not apply.
Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1372-73, 66 USPQ2d 1444, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
Should the applicant believe that the Examiner has not properly identified limitations under 112(f) the applicant should state which limitations should be identified under 112(f) and which structures and equivalents thereof are linked via the instant specification to said limitations.
The apparatus/system claims are not limited by the material worked upon only the structure implied by said material worked upon.
The apparatus/system claims mention the production of “dust” the Examiner interprets this as requiring the equipment claimed to be capable of operating “dry” or near “dry” as compared to wet repulping and grinding which would not produce dust.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 would additionally be allowable if the features from claim 8 were incorporated therein as method type limitation and the 112(b) rejection was overcome.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art VAN POTTELBERGH suggests multiple fiberizers (24a/b/c) [Figure 2B] in series. VAN POTTELBERGH fails to disclose the metering bin with two augers/toughs feeding the fiberizers from a metering bin. While parallel operation to increase volumetric flow is known (for example running two pumps in parallel or running two industrial manufacturing lines in parallel) the art did not suggest parallel feed from a metering box with troughs and augers to fiberizers.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pieces of cellulose and " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should recite "the pieces of cellulose and cellulose dust and” to match the recitation in line 5.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
As for claim 6 the applicant claims an average cellulose fiber length. Cellulose fiber length can be measured in 3 ways the arithmetic mean, length-weighted average, and weight-weighted average. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets this as a simple arithmetic mean.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the pieces of cellulose and " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should recite "the pieces of cellulose and cellulose dust and” to match the recitation in line 6.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the pieces of cellulose and " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should recite "the pieces of cellulose and cellulose dust and” to match the recitation in line 6.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the pieces of cellulose" in lines 6 and 12-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should recite "the pieces of cellulose and cellulose dust” to match the recitation in line 5.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2014/0306039 VAN POTTELBERGH et al., hereinafter VAN.
As for claim 1, VAN discloses a process and apparatus to produce a cellulose insulation [0017]. VAN discloses a shredder (22) to receive input cellulose material (29a) from supply station (21) [0047]. VAN discloses the shredder sends the shredded cellulose to a series of grinders (23) [0048]. VAN discloses the grinded cellulose from the series of grinders goes to a series of fiberizers (24) [grinders are also fiberizers; 0048]. VAN discloses that the fiberized cellulose goes to an air classifier (25) which separates out the cellulose fibers and a lighter fine fraction [0054, cyclone/flotation station]. VAN discloses the cellulose fiber fraction can be exposed to fire retardant chemicals (26a) [0050, 0057] and then dried [convection, IR, induction, 0050, 0057]. The fire-retardant chemical can be added via wet spraying [0069].
As for claim 2, VAN discloses the input cellulose material is paper [abstract]. VAN need not teach that the paper is cardboard as the material worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim [MPEP 2115].
As for claim 4, the cellulose dust by product formed in VAN will be fire-retardant chemical free when no fire retardant is added via (28) to the grinders (23) or via 28b to the fiberizers (24). An apparatus claim is not limited by the method of using the apparatus [see e.g. MPEP 2114 (II)].
As for claim 5, VAN discloses substantially the same 4-unit operations of instant claim 1 (shredding, grinding, fiberizing, and air classifying) therefore the produced by VAN when using the same input material would also be expected to be “consistent” with the fiber construction of the input cellulose.
As for claim 6, this is a method of using the device and depends on the type of fiber fed thereto, the amount of fiber fed thereto, and the operating conditions. VAN discloses substantially the same 4-unit operations of instant claim 1 (shredding, grinding, fiberizing, and air classifying) therefore the produced by VAN when using the same input material would also be expected to have substantially the same average fiber length. Nevertheless, VAN discloses that the fiberizers can operate at less than 4 mm final size which falls within the claimed range [0048].
As for claim 7, the fine cellulose dust formed will preferentially go out the top of cyclone (25) [0054] while the heavier fibers go the station (26).
As for claim 13, VAN teaches all the features as per supra. The non fiber from the classifier (25) is sent to collection via (27) and then collected as saleable product (29) [0056 and Figure 2B]. It is the Examiner s position that the operation of VAN also produces dust because it treats cellulosic paper in substantially the same way and to substantially the same size; therefore cellulosic dust will also be formed.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0306039 VAN POTTELBERGH et al., hereinafter VAN, in view of U.S. 2002/0047057 ELLIOT et al., hereinafter ELLIOT.
As for claim 3, VAN discloses the features as per supra. VAN discloses the grinded cellulose from the series of grinders goes to a series of fiberizers (24) [grinders are also fiberizers; 0048] but does not disclose a hammermill. ELLIOT in the same art of making cellulose insulation products [0028] discloses that a hammermill can be substituted for a grinder [0045]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the hammermill of ELLIOT for the grinder (24) of VAN. It is typically prima facie obvious to substitute one known equivalent for another intended for the same purpose [MPEP 2144.06 (II)]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as ELLIOT explicitly states hammermills are a substitute and has the same intended purpose.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0306039 VAN POTTELBERGH et al., hereinafter VAN, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claim 11, VAN discloses the features as per supra. VAN discloses the cellulose fiber fraction can be exposed to fire retardant chemicals (26a) [0050, 0057] and then dried [convection, IR, induction0050, 0057]. The fire-retardant chemical can be added via wet spraying [0069]. A convection type heater uses “hot air” blowing over the cellulose to dry it.
VAN fails to disclose how the fire-retardant sprayed pulp gets to the dryer (conveyor) or the use of a venturi in the convection heater.
SMOOK discloses the use of flash drying to dry pulp [pg. 131 Figure 9-66]. The flash dryer uses a screw for moving the pulp [pg. 131 Figure 9-66; screw between (3) and (4)]. The flash dryer tubes which carry the pulp and hot air reduce in size and therefore have a venturi effect [pg. 131 Figure 9-66]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill n the art to use the flash dryer of SMOOK to dry the pulp of VAN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by SMOOK who states that flash drying has low capital costs and a lower space environment [pg. 129 col. 2 par. 2]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as VAN states that convection type dryers may be used and flash dryers use forced convection.
As for claim 12, the conveying time depends on the distance between the spray station and the dryer. It would be obvious to minimize distance between the two stations as SMOOK states that less space requirements are a factor [pg. 129 col. 2 par. 2]. By minimizing distance between the spray station and the dryer the time is also decreased.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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 (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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748