CTNF 18/676,587 CTNF 85469 DETAILED ACTION 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden to the examiner . This is not found persuasive because the different types of apparatus will require a different search and consideration in the determination of patentability . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa, et al, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0316136 A1 in view of Tomita et al, USP 6,356,289 . Regarding claim 1, Yanagawa teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus comprising: a forming roller (forming unit item 20 [0062-0064] and figure 1) configured to heat (rollers 202 and 204 [0062-0064] and pressurize (item 201 [0062]) a web including a fiber [0064]; a cleaning roller (item 10 and roller 4 figures 1-3 and [0074] configured to come into contact with the forming roller (Yanagawa provides visuals for the cleaning of the calendaring roll item 203 but states that all rollers in contact with the second web are cleaned [0074] which the forming roller does, see figure 1), the cleaning roller being configured to clean the forming roller [0074]; and a controller that controls the operation of the different rollers in relation to each other (item 28). Yanagawa teaches a set rotation axis O1 for holding cleaning roller 4 in place, and instead teaches that the remover from the cleaning roller can be in contact or suspended from the cleaning roller depending on rotation [0084-0098]. Yanagawa does not teach a contact mechanism configured to switch contact and separation of the cleaning roller with and from the forming roller (they teach the movement at a different location). While the idea of switching contact and separation is explicitly taught by Yanagawa, it is taught at a different location of the cleaning roller (with item 5) and not at the contact point of the other roller (item 3). In the same field of endeavor of utilizing a cleaning roller in conjunction with a forming roller, Tomita teaches the act of moving the cleaning roller into and out of position of the forming roller to clean when needed (see item 8 of figure 8 and column 3 lines 50-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the act of having a movable cleaning roller (as taught by Tomita) in the Yanagawa reference for the benefit of only applying the cleaning actions at predetermined times and locations as taught by Tomita. Making the cleaning action being non-continuous has the known effects of prolonging the life of the cleaning blades and reduces the wear and tear of the rollers during normal and continued use. Regarding claim 2, Yanagawa remains as applied above and further teaches a control unit configured to control the contact mechanism (item 28 [0073 and 0080]). Regarding claim 3, Yanagawa remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the control unit includes a cleaning roller drive motor configured to drive the cleaning roller, and controls a rotation direction and a rotation speed of the cleaning roller by using the cleaning roller drive motor [0084]. Regarding claim 6, Tomita further teaches the use of cleaning blade 9 in contact with the cleaning roller (see figure 8). Yanagawa further teaches the presence of cleaning device 5 which can be in a frame or solid shape as well. Both perform the same action as a “brush” as it removes the debris from the cleaning device. Regarding claim 7, Yanagawa teaches that the cleaning roll is contacted with a removing device (item 5) that is then cleaned with a “cleaner” blade (item 6 figure 3 and [0103-0105]). 9. (Original) The sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the forming roller includes a first forming roller and a second forming roller (see figure 1), the web is heated and pressurized while being pinched between the first forming roller and the second forming roller (see figure 1), the cleaning roller includes a first cleaning roller configured to clean the first forming roller and a second cleaning roller configured to clean the second forming roller ([0074] states that all of the contacting rollers have a cleaning roller attached), and the contact mechanism includes a first contact mechanism corresponding to the first cleaning roller and a second contact mechanism corresponding to the second cleaning roller (each of the contacting mechanisms would have to be separate for each roller and then each of the contact mechanisms are controlled by the same centralized controller as discussed above) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa, et al, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0316136 A1 in view of Tomita et al, USP 6,356,289 in further view of Ueno et al, US Patent Publication 2014/0294456 . Regarding claim 4, Yanagawa remains as applied above and further teaches the act of switching contact with the cleaning roller through rotation [0085-0098] and using the controller to control the actions and positions of all the motors in operation [0068-0072]. While Yanagawa and Tomita teach the act of adjusting the cleaning roll, the specific act of the contact mechanism includes a cam member configured to switch the contact and the separation of the cleaning roller by rotation, and the control unit includes a motor configured to drive the forming roller and a cam position detection sensor configured to detect a rotation position of the cam member, detects a rotation angle of the forming roller from an operation amount of the motor, and causes the cleaning roller to separate from the forming roller at the rotation angle freely selected, of the forming roller. In the same field of endeavor of controlling the positioning of a cleaning roller to a pressure roller, Ueno teaches the use of a cam assemble (items 2 and 15) to pivot the cleaning unit (item 10) into positioning for cleaning the pressure roller (item 7) through the use of a positioning sensor [0051]. The act of controlling the position of the angle of the movable cam system to position the cleaning roller in the proper positing as taught in [0060-0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the specific positioning element of Ueno int eh Yanagawa/Tomita reference for the benefit of utilizing a conventional positioning unit that is shown to work efficiently and in a known manner when the previous reference was simply silent on the specifics to the positioning system (only that one was utilized). Regarding claim 5, Tomita further teaches the control unit causes the cleaning roller to come into contact with the forming roller in at least one rotation or more of several rotations of the forming roller (see column 3) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa, et al, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0316136 A1 in view of Tomita et al, USP 6,356,289 in further view of Okazaki, US Patent Publication 2007/0257424 . Regarding claim 8, Yanagawa teaches that the cleaning roller should be a brush roller. In the same field of endeavor, of a sheet forming apparatus utilizing a cleaning roller, Okazaki teaches that cleaning rollers can be either brush or felt [0005 and 0014]. This shows that brush cleaning rollers and felt cleaning rollers would be understood to be functional equivalents to the average artisan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform a simple substitution of one known element for another when they are known to be functional equivalents to each other without affecting the end result. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 19/321336 and claims 1-10 of US application 18/738099 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application includes a broader set of limitations but will still require the same act of a forming roll and a cleaning roll that is moved to remove the debris from the forming roll with a controller and additional brushes/blades for debris removal. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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. JACOB T. MINSKEY Examiner Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 2 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 3 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 4 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 5 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 6 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 7 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 8 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 9 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 18/676,587 Page 10 Art Unit: 1748
Prosecution Insights