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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4 and 5, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Iwahori and Mussig et al..
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahori US 3,950,473 in view of Mussig et al. WO 2008094596. WO 2008094596 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Mussig patent.
Regarding currently amended claim 1, 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 intersecting a rotation track of the diffusion vane (13) when the rotator (Iwahori -
PNG
media_image1.png
13
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) rotates, the rotation track having a ring shape centered on an axis of the rotator as viewed in the axis of the rotator (See Iwahori FIG. 2 below)(Iwahori Col. 7, Lines 30-35). Iwahori fails to disclose the pipe body including an ejection port that has an elongated shape defined by an outer curved surface extending along a part of the rotation track as viewed in the axis of the rotator, an inner curved surface extending along the part of the rotation track and disposed on an inner side of the outer curved surface as viewed in the axis of the rotator, a first surface connected to one end portion of the outer curved surface and one end portion of the inner curved surface, and extending in a direction intersecting the outer curved surface and the inner curved surface, and a second surface connected to an other end portion of the outer curved surface and an other end portion of the inner curved surface, and extending in a different direction that is different from the direction and intersects the outer curved surface and the inner curved surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
554
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Iwahori FIG. 2
Mussig teaches an inlet port that has an elongated shape (Mussig – 210, FIG. 22a) defined by an outer curved surface (Mussig – R6, FIG. 22c), an inner curved surface (Mussig – R5, FIG. 22c), and disposed on an inner side of the outer curved surface, a first surface connected to one end portion of the outer curved surface and one end portion of the inner curved surface, and extending in a direction intersecting the outer curved surface and the inner curved surface, and a second surface connected to an other end portion of the outer curved surface and an other end portion of the inner curved surface, and extending in a different direction that is different from the direction and intersects the outer curved surface and the inner curved surface (See Mussig FIG. 22c below).
PNG
media_image5.png
386
1014
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mussig FIG. 22c
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 ejection port of Iwahori to have an elongated shaped defined by an outer curved surface, an inner curved surface, a first surface connected to one end portion of the outer curved surface and one end portion of the inner curved surface, and a second surface connected to an other end portion of the outer curved surface and an other end portion of the inner curved surface, as taught by Mussig, where the curved shape of the inlet port directs folding of material that passes through the inlet port (Mussig Description Page 13, Lines 18-21: The paper inlet (210) may comprise an overall shape that promotes the folding of paper 220 that is fed through the inlet.).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahori in view of Mussig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Card US 4,171,165.
Regarding claim 2, Iwahori in view of Mussig 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 in view of Mussig 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_image6.png
389
414
media_image6.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 in view of Mussig 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 4, Iwahori in view of Mussig discloses the claimed invention, however, Iwahori in view of Mussig 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_image6.png
389
414
media_image6.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 in view of Mussig 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahori in view of Mussig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurtz US 3,950,473.
Regarding claim 5, Iwahori in view of Mussig discloses the invention as claimed, however, Iwahori in view of Mussig 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 in view of Mussig and Kurtz discloses the claimed invention, however, Iwahori in view Mussig and Kurtz 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 Mussig and modified by 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_image7.png
506
753
media_image7.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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 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.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights