DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 17 February 2026, amending claims 1, and canceling claims 2-3, are acknowledged.
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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusano et al. (JP 2021-159814 A) in view of Enohara (JP 2017-91987 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kusano discloses a stretching and conveying device for a green compact (title/abstract), the stretching and conveying device comprising:
a second roll 14, equated with the claimed first roll, and a third roll 16, equated with the claimed second roll, structured to convey by rotation a green compact in which powder 30 is compressed into a sheet shape 22 by sandwiching the green compact between the first roll 14 and the second roll 16 and stretch the green compact using a circumferential speed difference between the first roll and the second roll (p. 5 § 2. Wet powder coating equipment, pp. 7-8 § 2.2. Drive device)
wherein
the second roll 16 has a curvature radius larger than a curvature radius of the first roll 14 (FIG. 1; pp. 6-7 § 2.1.2. Roll diameter),
the green compact 22 is conveyed while being supported on a circumferential surface of the first roll 14, delivered to a second roll 16 side at a position where the first roll and the second roll face each other, and conveyed while being supported on a circumferential surface of the second roll (FIG. 1),
a plurality of combinations of the first roll and the second roll,
wherein
a sum of the curvature radius of the first roll 14 and the curvature radius of the second roll 16 in each combination is larger for a combination positioned on a downstream side in the conveyance direction (FIG. 1),
three or more stretching and conveying rolls including the first roll and the second roll, the stretching and conveying rolls structured to be disposed continuously in the conveyance direction and stretch the green compact while conveying the green compact,
wherein
when the stretching and conveying roll is disposed upstream of the first roll in the conveyance direction, a curvature radius of the stretching and conveying roll is equal to or smaller than the curvature radius of the first roll, and when the stretching and conveying roll is disposed downstream of the second roll in the conveyance direction, the curvature radius of the stretching and conveying roll is equal to or larger than the curvature radius of the second roll (FIG. 1; p. 7 § 2.1.3. Number of rolls),
a first roll 12, equated with the claimed pressure roll, configured to compress the green compact 22 conveyed by the stretching and conveying rolls (FIG. 1; pp. 6-7 § 2.1.2. Roll diameter), and
a fourth roll 18, equated with the claimed stacking roll, configured to convey a sheet material 20 and stack the green compact conveyed by the stretching and conveying rolls on the sheet material supported on a circumferential surface of the stacking roll (FIG. 1).
Kusano does not appear to explicitly disclose and that the second roll is positioned downstream of the first roll in a conveyance direction of the green compact and the green compact is conveyed while being supported on a circumferential surface of the second roll
However, Enohara discloses a similar apparatus for conveying and stretching a green compact (title/abstract) with an alternative configuration of the rollers such that each of the rolls are position downstream from the previous and the green compact is conveyed while being supported on the circumferential surface of the rolls (FIG. 1, 8).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the roller configuration of Kusano to include the orientation of Enohara, because such an alternative orientation with the rollers side-by-side rather than above and is suggested by the prior art and could be used with expected results.
Regarding claim 4, the apparatus suggested by Kusano and Enohara is capable of processing a powder which contains predetermined particles and a binding component, and a content of the binding component is 20 mass% or less with respect to a total mass of the powder (Kusano pp. 14+; Enohara pp. 5+).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment/arguments, see pp. 2-7, filed 17 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kusano.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742