Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 5/8/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 1-11 are pending with claims 9-11 withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 5/8/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Response to Arguments
In light of amendment the 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that MCKENZIE teaches data collected before the pup digester and not at the pulp digester and therefore fails to disclose data collected from the second process stage.
This feature is taught by TRUNG.
Applicant further argues that a second set of data at the second and third process stage is gathered the applicant argues that MCKENZIE fails to disclose a third process stage.
This feature is taught by TRUNG and SMOOK.
Applicant argues there is nothing in MCKENZIE that suggests the claimed invention.
The applied art is MCKENZIE in view of TRUNG an SMOOK.
Applicant alleges that there is no teaching in TRUNG or SMOOK.
The applicant fails to specifically point out which limitations are not taught by TRUNG or SMOOK. Examiner has mapped instant claim 1 to the three references and explained how each limitation is taught by the references.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2004/016850 MCKENZIE et al., hereinafter MCKENZIE, in view of U.S. 2006/0196622 TRUNG et al., hereinafter TRUNG and Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claims 1-3 and 8, MCKENZIE discloses a first process stage with a wood yard with chip silo (2) (comprising a woodyard comprising steps debarking, chipping, pile storage and/or reclaim; [Figure 1]).
MCKENZIE discloses a second process stage comprising a fiberline with a digester (12) (a second process stage, comprising a fiberline comprising steps cooking and/or bleaching; [Figure 1]).
MCKENZIE does not explicitly disclose a third process stage other than claiming further processing [pg. 9 lines 4-5]. However, the Examiner notes that a pulp mill will either be integrated with a paper mill or non-integrated and therefore have a third process stage (and at least a third process stage wherein). The Examiner will further support this with references below.
MCKENZIE collects a first set of data in the wood yard including moisture, species, and wet wood feed rate [Figure 1 and Figure 4]. MCKENZIE also collects a first set data in the digester including digester (12) temperature (22) [Figure 1]. Valve openings (16, (28), and (14) are also measured [Figure 1, pg. 9 lines 19-26]. The first set of data is sent to a distributed control system (18) (a first set of data is gathered at least at the first and at the second process stage, wherein the first set of data for each process stage comprises measurement results and/or parameters calculated based on measurement results, wherein the measurements and/or parameters are related to raw material, equipment, process measurements and/or product properties; [Figure 1]).
The data from the first set of data including the wood yard is sent to the DCS which is used in a feed-forward manner to control the continuous digester (12) (the first set of data for each process stage is sent to a process stage, if any, subsequent to the process stage in which it was gathered, wherein the process steps of the subsequent process stage are adjusted based on the first set of data received; [Figure 1, Figure 4, pg. 10 lines 11-16 and pg. 11 lines 30-31]) .
In the case of the digester (second process) MCKENZIE does not use the data collected from the digester in a subsequent process. MCKENZIE discloses that a specific amount of delignification should occur but does not disclose how it is measured [pg. 9 lines 4-5]. MCKENZIE also does not disclose subsequent process steps [pg. 9 lines 5-6] but discloses they are present.
TRUNG discloses measuring the kappa number from a digester (12) before bleaching (18) and after bleaching (18) and before paper making (22). A papermaking machine dries and dewaters pulp into paper sheets.
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to combine the bleaching stage of TRUNG (18) and the paper machine (22) of TRUNG with the digester (12) and woodyard (2) of MCKENZIE. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to increase the brightness of the pulp by bleaching and to convert the pulp into a final product by papermaking. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MCKENZIE states that there further process stages. TRUNG shows that a digester (12) and wood yard (10) can be combined with bleaching (18) and papermaking (22) [Figure 1]. Furthermore, the combination of bleaching and papermaking stages perform the same functions as they did separately prior to combining with the wood yard and digester.
TRUNG further discloses kappa measuring devices with the kappa measurements sent to a DCS. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to measure the kappa of the pulp after the digester and after the bleaching stage. TRUNG discloses that this kappa can be used for feed forward control of a subsequent stage including bleaching and the paper machine [abstract].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the kappa sensors of TRUNG to measure the kappa of the pulp of MCKENZIE for process control. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by TRUNG to provide both feedback and feedforward control of kappa numbers while overcoming the shortcomings of prior art lignin measurements [abstract, 0046, 0049]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MCKENZIE discloses that a specific amount of delignification should occur but does not disclose how it is measured [pg. 9 lines 4-5] . The person of ordinary skill in the art would further expect success as both have control systems capable of feedback and feed forward control.
TRUNG discloses measuring kappa number after digesting and after bleaching [Figure 1] which is a quality . TRUNG additionally teaches a paper machine (22) but does not explicitly disclose that it measures data (a second set of data is gathered at least at the second and at the third process stage, wherein the second set of data for each process stage comprises information related to availability of processing capacity, predicted availability of processing capacity and/or required material flow or quality; and [Figure 1]).
TRUNG discloses that the kappa measured after digesting and bleaching can be used for feedback control (the second set of data for each process stage is sent to a process stage, if any, t preceding the process stage, wherein the process steps of the preceding process stage are adjusted based on the second set of data received [Figure 1, abstract, 0046]).
As stated above although a modern paper machine clearly measures data about its operation TRUNG does not disclose any specific measurements. SMOOK discloses that a paper machine measures the speed of each of the portions of the machine so as to control the speed [pg. 278-279, Figure 17-37 though 17-39]. The measurement of speed is a measurement to availability (o speed means the paper machine is not operating). SMOOK further discloses that when there are operational problems in one area that another area upstream or downstream thereof must shut down eventually [pg. 188 col. 1 section 12.3]. Therefore if the paper machine is off or running slow the upstream pulping must slow down or stop (wherein the process steps of the preceding process stage are adjusted based on the second set of data received).
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the paper machine control system of SMOOK with the pulp mill/paper machine of MCKANZIE/TRUNG. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to control the operation of the paper machine and prevent overflowing of storage tanks when the paper machine is off as suggests by SMOOK [pg. 188 col. 1 section 12.3 “no more storage space”]
As for claim 4, MCKENZIE collects a first set of data in the wood yard including moisture, species, and wet wood feed rate [Figure 1 and Figure 4].
As for claim 5, MCKENZIE also collects a first set data in the digester including digester (12) temperature (22) [Figure 1]. Valve openings (16, (28), and (14) are also measured [Figure 1, pg. 9 lines 19-26].
As for claim 6, MCKENZIE also collects a first set data in the digester including digester (12) temperature (22) [Figure 1]. Valve openings (16, (28), and (14) are also measured [Figure 1, pg. 9 lines 19-26]. TRUNG discloses measuring kappa number [Figure 1]
As for claim 7, SMOOK discloses measuring paper machine roll speeds [pg. 278-279, Figure 17-37 though 17-39] which indicate that the paper machine is operating or not operating.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights