DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a burden if the search were done for both groups. This is not found persuasive because in group I, the cleaning device has been searched within the papermaking machine, yet the cleaning device per se requires a much broader search, i.e., in other areas outside of the papermaking area.
As to the Burden of search, the MPEP 803 states:
"For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant. Insofar as the criteria for restriction practice relating to Markush-type claims is concerned, the criteria is set forth in MPEP § 803.02. Insofar as the criteria for restriction or election practice relating to claims to genus-species, see MPEP §806.04(a) - §806.04(i) and § 808.01(a)."
Applicant's arguments do not point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 27, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa, et al., (hereinafter Yanagawa), US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0316136 A1.
With regard to claims 1, 6-8, Yanagawa teaches a device for cleaning a roller in a sheet manufacturing apparatus, including a processing roller configured to process a web containing fibers (abstract and ¶-[0016]); a cleaning unit including a roller unit 4 (¶-[0075], figures 1 and 5), a blade unit, i.e., the remover 5 (¶-[0087, figure 4 and 5); a vibrating unit 62 and collision member 64 (¶-[0110], [0118] and figures 5 and 6); and a control unit 28 which controls the vibrating unit 62 and collision member 64 (¶-[0068]-[0073], [0093]-[0095], claim 5). While the reference does not explicitly recite a hammer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a hammer will cause a vibration of the blade, and thus using a hammer to induce the vibration of blade would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the reference teaches a plate to clean the cleaning unit, the use of blades, or doctors blades for cleaning rollers is very common in the art1 and using it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that “[W]here two equivalents are interchangeable for their desired function, substitution would have been obvious and thus, express suggestion of desirability of the substitution of one for the other is unnecessary.” In re Fout 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967). Note that the reference teaches control 28 that controls both the web process and the cleaning process as it is disclosed on ¶-[0068]-[0073].
Regarding to claim 2, figure 2 of the reference, shows a first cleaning roller 3, the felt roller, in contact with processing roller 203 (¶-[0075]).
With regard to claim 3, figure 2 of the reference, shows a second cleaning roller 4, that cleans the felt roller 3; (¶-[0075]).
Regarding to claim 4, figure 2 also shows the remover 5 in contact with the second cleaning roller; (¶-[0075], [0110]).
With regard to claim 5, teaches the vibration unit, includes a striking port/portion, the collision part 64 and includes a spring and a clutch (the wind-up portion); (figures 5 through 7 and ¶-[[0109]-[0115]). The system applies the force to the spring which then produces the impact to the remover 5.
Regarding to claim 9, while Yanagawa does not recite a sensor to detect the dust and amounts of it, such sensors are well-known in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Sheet Manufacturing Apparatus and Cleaning Device.”:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 The examiner takes official notice of this fact and will supply evidence if necessary.
Prosecution Insights