CTNF 18/619,254 CTNF 94601 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP2020194028 A) herein referred to as ‘028 in view of Yamada (US4587855 A1) and further in view of Mozsgai (US2017/0089817 A1)) . . Regarding claim 1 , ‘028 teaches a rigidity level detection apparatus provided in a sheet manufacturing apparatus that manufactures a sheet by performing compression shaping of a defibrated material of a fiber-containing material and configured to detect a rigidity level of the sheet (pg. 4 paragraph 12), the rigidity level detection apparatus comprising: a transport unit that includes a pair of transport rollers and transport the sheet; transports the sheet (70) that includes a pair of transport rollers and transports the sheet (pg. 4 paragraph 2); a press unit (92) having a press member that deforms the sheet by pressing the sheet in a direction intersecting with a transport direction of the sheet while the sheet is transported by the transport unit (pg. 5 paragraphs 10-12); a detection unit (96) having a sensor that detects a reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the two first rollers and the three second rollers (pg. 5 paragraph 10-11); and and a processor (10) that determines the rigidity level of the sheet based on a detection value from the sensor (S117). ‘028 does not explicitly disclose the press member having two first rollers provided at a first surface side of the sheet and the three second rollers provided at a second surface side of the sheet, the two first rollers and the three second rollers pressing the sheet at positions displaced from each other in the transport direction. ‘028 discloses the pressing member can be any shape (pg. 5 paragraph 12). Further, analogous art, Yamada, depicts two rollers (2,3) that press the sheet at positioned displaced from each other in the transport directions in figure 6. MPEP 2144.04 VI discloses The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated at least one second roller provided at a second surface side of the sheet, and the first roller and the second roller press the sheet at positions displaced from each other in the transport direction as taught by Yamada into the apparatus taught by '028 since it’s conventionally well-known and duplication of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. ‘028 does not explicitly disclose the sensors including at least one first force sensor that detects the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the two first rollers, and at least one second force sensor that detects the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the three second rollers, the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the two first rollers being opposite to the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the three second rollers; and the processor comparing a first detection value of the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the two first rollers with a first threshold, the processor comparing a second detection value of the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the three second rollers with a second threshold, the processor determining the rigidity level of the sheet upon determining that both the first threshold > the first detection value and the second threshold < the second detection value are satisfied is greater than the rigidity level of the sheet upon determining the at least one of the first threshold > the first detection value the second threshold < the second detection value is not satisfied. Analogous art, Mozsgai discloses, discloses using sensors to compare a first detection value of the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet with the processor comparing a first detection value of the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the two first rollers with a first threshold, the processor comparing a second detection value of the reaction forces exerted from the deformed sheet to the three second rollers with a second threshold, the processor determining that the rigidity level of the sheet upon determining that both the first threshold> the first detection value and the second threshold < the second detection value are satisfied is greater than the rigidity level of the sheet upon determining that at least one of the first threshold> the first detection value and the second threshold< the second detection value is not satisfied (claim 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a processor comparing values in order to determine the rigidity of the sheets in order to ensure it passes quality check. Regarding claim 3, Yamada further discloses a hinge attached to each roller in figure 6 that supports the roller individually. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated support portions since that is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Yamada further teaches the detection unit detects the reaction force exerted to at least one of the first support portion and second support portion (column 6 lines 35-47). Further, MPEP 2144.04 VI discloses In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Regarding claim 6 , wherein the determination unit ranks the rigidity level of the sheet in a plurality of levels, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ((JP2020194028 A) herein referred to as ‘028 in view of Yamada (US4587855 A1) and further in view of Mozsgai (US2017/0089817 A1)), as applied to claim 1, in view of ISHIKAWA (US 20190038476 A1). Regarding claim 4 , ‘028 does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet manufacturing apparatus has a shaping unit that performs compression shaping of the defibrated material and a cutting unit that cuts the sheet of a belt shape shaped by the shaping unit, and the rigidity level detection apparatus is disposed between the shaping unit and the cutting unit. However, analogous art, ISHIKAWA teaches a similar method and system to produce an absorbent material at length [abstract] by pressing (deformation) [0168] of pulp (defibrated) fiber [0166]. ISHIKAWA also teaches that the system uses a rigidity [0218]. ISHIKAWA also teaches the use of a cutting device to cut the paper into sheets [0167]. The cutting device (element 110 b) is upstream of conveyor system and press unit rollers (elements 3 and 110) [Fig 1A]. This teaches the limitation of “the sheet manufacturing apparatus including a shaping unit that performs the compression shaping of the defibrated material and the cutting unit that cuts the sheet shaped by the shaping unit into a belt shape”. ISHIKAWA teaches the advantage of the invention is the reduction in variation in tension in sheets [0007]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the cutting and pressing devices of ISHIKAWA into the system of ‘028 to make better sheets. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the reduced tension variation between sheets as taught by ISHIKAWA. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ((JP2020194028 A) herein referred to as ‘028 in view of Yamada (US4587855 A1) and further in view of Mozsgai (US2017/0089817 A1)), as applied to claim 1, in view of Oguchi (US2019/0100877 A1). Regarding claim 5 , wherein a speed of transport by the transport unit is substantially same as a transport speed of the sheet supplied from the shaping unit, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Oguchi teaches for the processor controls a speed of transport by the transport unit such that a speed of transport by the transport unit [0254]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the transport unit have substantially the same speed as the transport speed in order to ensure a streamlined process where each product is moved at the same rate. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. /FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754 Application/Control Number: 18/619,254 Page 2 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 18/619,254 Page 3 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 18/619,254 Page 4 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 18/619,254 Page 5 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 18/619,254 Page 6 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 18/619,254 Page 7 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 18/619,254 Page 8 Art Unit: 1754
Prosecution Insights