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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/619,251, filed on 3/28/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwahori et al. US 3,950,473. US 3,950,473 to be referred to as the Iwahori patent, discloses elements of the applicant’s device as claimed, thus anticipating the applicant’s claimed invention.
Iwahori discloses a defibration device comprising: a casing (Iwahori - 1) having a supply port (Iwahori – 15) through which small pieces containing fibers are supplied and a discharge port (Iwahori - 16) through which defibrated materials of the small pieces are discharged (Iwahori Col. 7, Lines 22-26: In FIG. 1, numeral (1) is a cylindrical outer casing having on one side, an inlet (15) for supplying materials to be fibrillated and air, and on the other side, an outlet (16) for discharging an air stream containing fibrillated materials); a rotator (Iwahori -
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) configured to be rotated and installed in the casing (Iwahori – 1)(Iwahori Col. 7, Lines 42-44: The disk 3 is provided with a large number of the vanes 6 to form a rotor (
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), and likewise the disk 4 is formed into a rotor
PNG
media_image2.png
13
14
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.); a pipe body which is coupled to the supply port (Iwahori - 15) and from which the small pieces are ejected into the casing (Iwahori - 1) (See Iwahori FIG. 1 – pipe body incorporated with supply port (15)), wherein the rotator (Iwahori -
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) includes at least one diffusion vane (Iwahori – 13) provided at a side portion of the rotator (Iwahori -
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) that faces the supply port (Iwahori – 15) and diffusing the small pieces ejected from the pipe body (Iwahori Col. 7, Line 55: large number of vanes 13; FIG. 1 – 13), and at least one defibration blade (Iwahori - 6) provided on an outer periphery portion of the rotator (Iwahori -
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) and defibrating the small pieces (Iwahori Col. 7, Lines 57-63: Numeral 17 is a space for isolating the rotors
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
13
14
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The materials to be fibrillated, are sucked together with air from the inlet (15) by the action of the vane wheel
PNG
media_image3.png
12
14
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, dispersed by whirling action of the vane wheel
PNG
media_image3.png
12
14
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, led to the clearance part between the inner peripheral surface of the outer casing and the tip ends of the vanes at the rotor, beaten by the tip ends of the vanes (6)), and a pipe axis direction of the pipe body intersects a rotation track of the diffusion vane (13) when the rotator (Iwahori -
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) rotates (See Iwahori FIG. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
457
459
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Iwahori – FIG. 1
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahori et al. US 3,950,473 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Card US 4,171,165. US 4,171,165 published patent to be referred to as the Card patent.
Regarding claim 2, Iwahori discloses the invention as claimed, wherein the diffusion vane (Iwahori – 13) includes a plurality of diffusion vanes provided to be spaced apart from each other along the rotation track (Iwahori Col. 6, Lines 50-54: a plurality of rotors spaced from each other and each consisting of a disk fixed perpendicularly to said rotary shaft, and a large number of vanes (6) spaced from each other and fixed onto the periphery of said disk), however, Iwahori fails to disclose a length of an ejection port (See Iwahori FIG. below) of the pipe body along the rotation track is greater than a distance between the diffusion vanes in a direction along the rotation track.
PNG
media_image5.png
389
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Iwahori – FIG. 1
Card teaches changing the number of diffusion vanes (Card -76) spaced along a shaft (Card Col. 4, Lines 21-23), thus the distance between the diffusion vanes (76) in a direction along the rotation track is adjustable. The device disclosed by Iwahori and modified by Card, teaches the distance between the diffusion vanes in a direction along the rotation track can be set such to be smaller than the length of the ejection port of the pipe body along the rotation track.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of diffusion vanes along the shaft, as taught by Card, wherein the distance between the diffusion vanes would be adjusted. As additional diffusion vanes are added, the angularly displacement of the diffusion vanes allows for the vanes to sweep across more of the cross-sectional area of an internal space of the Iwahori device per each rotation of the rotator. After modification, the spacing between the diffusion vanes would decrease relative to the length of the ejection port, thus making the number of diffusion vanes and spacing between a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a length of the ejection port of the pipe body along the rotation track greater than a distance between the diffusion vanes in a direction along the rotation track, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes a predetermined distance between the diffusion vanes in a direction along the rotation track would result in a difference in function of the Iwahori device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) states in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, Iwahori in view of Card discloses the claimed invention (See rejection of claim 2), wherein the ejection port has an elongated shape extending along the rotation track. (Iwahori – 15 is a circular inlet pipe connected to the casing Iwahori – 1 at an angle. Attaching the circular inlet pipe at an angle results in an elongated shape of the ejection port.
Regarding claim 4, Iwahori discloses the claimed invention, however, Iwahori fails to disclose wherein a length of the diffusion vane in a radial direction of the rotator is greater than a length of an ejection port (See Iwahori FIG. below) of the pipe body in the radial direction of the rotator.
PNG
media_image5.png
389
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Iwahori – FIG. 1
Card teaches the length of the diffusion vane (Card – 76) is variable (Card Col. 4, Line 38: the length of vane (76) varies), thus the length of the diffusion vane in a radial direction of the rotator can be set to a determined length. According to the device disclosed by Iwahori and modified by Card, the length of the diffusion vane can be set to a length that is greater than a length of the ejection port of the pipe body in a radial direction of the rotator, thus making the length a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, thus vary the length of the diffusion vane, as taught by Card, given that an increase in length of the diffusion vane provides for the diffusion vane to sweep a larger area of the internal area of the Iwahori device (See Card Col. 4, Lines 38-42: the length of vane (76) varies, being longer at the upper end of the bin where it is widest and narrower at the lower portion so that the vanes sweep across the entire area of the bin but are spaced slightly from the walls or outer surfaces of the bin.). After modification, the length of the diffusion vane in a radial direction of the rotator would be greater, thus making the length a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a length of the diffusion vane in a radial direction of the rotator greater than a length of the ejection port of the pipe in the radial direction of the rotator, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes a predetermined length of the diffusion vane would result in a difference in function of the Iwahori device (See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) recited above), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahori et al. US 3,950,473 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurtz et al. US 6,206,199 B1. US 6,206,199 published patent, to be referred to as the Kurtz patent. Iwahori discloses the invention as claimed, however, Iwahori fails to disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of an inner cavity of the pipe body decreases toward an ejection port of the pipe body.
Kurtz teaches a funnel shaped inlet (Kurtz – 4)(Kurtz Col. 4, Lines 11-12: The refiner or disperser 2 includes an outwardly flared or funnel-shaped infeed zone (4)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-sectional area of the inner cavity of the pipe body of Iwahori, as taught by Kurtz, given that decreasing the cross-sectional area of an inner cavity of a pipe body is known within the art to cause the pipe body functions as a “funnel”, wherein the “funnel” is a means to guide material in a controlled manner into the ejection port of Iwahori directed towards the diffusion vanes.
Regarding claim 6, Iwahori disclose the claimed invention, however, Iwahori fails to disclose wherein θ1 <θ2, in which θ1 is an inclination angle, with respect to a rotation axis of the rotator, of a portion of an inner surface of the pipe body that is closest to the rotation axis, and θ2 is an inclination angle, with respect to the rotation axis of the rotator, of a portion of the inner surface of the pipe body that is farthest from the rotation axis.
The invention disclosed by Iwahori, in view of Kurtz, teaches an inclination angle with respect to the rotation axis of the rotator, of a portion of the inner surface of the pipe body that is farthest from the rotation axis is greater than an inclination angle, with respect to a rotation axis of the rotator, of a portion of an inner surface of the pipe body that is closest to the rotation axis (See annotated FIG. 1 below, after modification with Kurtz, showing how the pipe body with a decreased inner cavity teaches θ1 <θ2. As can be seen, after modification, the inclination angle of the inner surface farthest from the rotation axis would have a greater inclination than the inclination angle of the inner surface closest to the rotation axis).
PNG
media_image6.png
856
1274
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the pipe body, wherein the pipe body of Iwahori is modified into a “funnel”, as taught by Kurtz, wherein θ1 <θ2. Θ2 being greater than θ1 forms the inner cavity of the pipe body into a funnel shape. The funnel shape of the inner cavity of the pipe body is a means to guide material in a controlled manner into the ejection port of Iwahori directed towards the diffusion vanes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/D.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725