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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the peripheral direction” in lines 7-8, where it first appears, should read “a peripheral direction.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the respective profiling” should read “the wave-shaped profiling”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 2004/0091563), hereinafter Saito, in view of Kamke et al. (US 2005/0006004), hereinafter Kamke.
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a system for manufacturing a plate of material (the wood fiber material not limiting – see MPEP 2115) comprising: (c) a molding station including two rollers (1, 2) (Fig. 1) spaced apart for receipt of a sheet material (6) therebetween. Wherein the rollers respectively include an external surface (Fig. 14) including a wave-shaped profiling in the peripheral direction, and including half-waves which follow one another in the peripheral direction, and have a different extension in the peripheral direction (par. 0083; Fig. 14).
As shown in Fig. 14, at least the second wave of the pattern of concaves/convexes (S3) does not reach the convex (20b), and the reference teaches “small convexes and large convexes appear alternately” where the convexes are the peaks of each of the half waves (par. 0083). These waves would be considered to follow one another, and have a different extension in the peripheral direction, as shown in Fig. 14.
Saito further discloses that the rollers are suitable for “a paper sheet” (par. 0001-0007) while not particularly limiting what the sheet material can be made of, meaning a wide variety of sheet materials would be usable in the system above. Additionally, Saito further describes that the roller can be heated (par. 0110-0111), even if not “preheating” the material, demonstrating that heating the material is still a necessary function of the system.
However, Saito does not explicitly disclose that there is (a) a preheating station or (b) a wetting device as is required in the claim.
However, Kamke discloses a system for processing a sheet of material, in this case, that is made of wood and includes (a) a preheating station (Kamke, par. 0031 – heating and conditioning zone 10; Fig. 1) and (b) a wetting device (Kamke, par. 0033, 0051). Like Saito above, Kamke also compresses the sheet as to provide a profiling of sinusoidal wave-like corrugations (Kamke, par. 0016-0017), which are similar to the profiling of Saito above.
Kamke explains that the heating and conditioning/wetting is conducted in order to provide that the material is pliable enough to be shaped in the compressing step (Kamke, par. 0036-0038), stating that there is a “pronounced softening” of the wood material.
The “paper” from Saito above would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art to contain “wood fibers” and so the teachings of Kamke would have been applicable to the disclosure of Saito above, as the fibers of a paper sheet would likewise need to be sufficiently pliable to shape. Both wood and paper would have cellulosic material, which requires a similar softening in order to produce an adequate shaping result.
Accordingly, in order to likewise ensure that the sheet material of Saito above is sufficiently heated and softened as to produce a pliable sheet material for compressing and shaping, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have specified that the system of Saito above further includes a preheating and wetting device in order to heat and wet the sheet material, in order to provide pliability thereof, prior to shaping, as is required in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Saito/Kamke discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the profiling has half waves that are planar in sections (see Saito, Fig. 15) as to provide a location for the sheet of material.
Regarding claims 3-4, Saito/Kamke discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there are positive and negative half-waves (Saito, Fig. 12) following one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 requires “two different half-wave configurations” with “three waves of a first half-wave configuration are followed by one half-wave of a second half-wave configuration” which does not appear to be rendered obvious by either the teachings of Saito or Kamke without the benefit of impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742