DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 May 2026, amending claim 1, has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) and Akiyama et al. (JP 2018-125201 A.
Regarding claim 1, Kusano discloses a stretching and conveying device for a green compact (title/abstract), the stretching and conveying device comprising:
the second roll 14, equated with the claimed first roll, and the 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 that the three or more stretching and conveying rolls including the first and second roll are disposed continuously in the conveyance direction, e.g. in the same horizontal plane/axis as shown in the instant FIG. 1. In contrast Kusano discloses the stretching and conveying rolls disposed discontinuously in the conveyance direction, e.g. in different horizontal planes/axis (Kusano FIG. 1). Kusano also fails to explicitly disclose a sum of curvature of radius greater than 150mm.
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 continuously from the previous in the conveyance direction 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.
Additionally, Akiyama suggests a similar device for stretching and conveying device (title/abstract) wherein the rollers have diameters of 20-25 cm (200-250 mm) which would equate with sum of curvature radii greater than 150mm (MPEP § 2144.05).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the roller size of Kusano to include the diameters of Akiyama, because such an dimensions are conventional in the 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 arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that Applicant arguments refer to Nakano, however as discussed in the final rejection this prior art is not relied upon in the rejection and arguments which refer to it are moot. The pending rejection relies on Kusano, Enohara, and Akiyama.
Applicant contends that Kusano and Enohara fail to suggest the claimed stretching and conveying rolls and rather teach stacking rolls; that the Examiner makes inconsistent statements with regards to the claim elements taught by Kusano; and that the claimed modification is impermissibly to the operation of Kusano.
First, as discussed above, Enohara suggests alternative arrangements of the rollers including the “stacking rolls” as well as the linear “stretching and conveying rolls.” The Examiner’s position is that skilled artisan would recognize that the alternative to the stacked rolls could be used with expected results, e.g. the improved release due to the reducing radii of curvature between subsequent rollers.
Second, the pending rejection has been clarified to reduce inconsistency. Specifically, the Examiner’s position is that Kusano’s rollers are disposed in the conveyance direction but are not disposed continuously in the conveyance direction, see above.
Finally, the Examiner’s position is that it would be prima facie obvious to modify the arrangement of Kusano’s rollers with the alternative arrangements suggested by Enohara. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, such rationales could be:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
As further discussed in the above rejection. Additionally, Applicant has not presented evidence that the alternative arrangement would destroy the operation of Kusano.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights