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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/16/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No English translation nor explanation of relevance has been provided for the Non-Patent Literature citation of Office Action for the Finnish Application No. 20175301 dated July 12, 2018.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the surface portion located downstream from a bump on the streamlined surface" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 is rejected because it depends from rejected base claim 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23, 26, 30-32, and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakuli, Foreign Patent Document, CA2761075.
Regarding independent claims 23, Hakuli discloses an apparatus for transporting a tail end in a fiber web machine from one structural section to another (Abstract, line 1), the apparatus comprising: one or more nozzles (16, Fig. 4) formed on a surface of a nozzle frame (15, Fig. 4) and configured to direct blown air (Page 4, lines 10-14), the directed blown air defining an air flow (Page 4, lines 10-14), the one or more nozzles receded obliquely from the surface of the nozzle frame (nozzles 16 recede obliquely from frame 15, Fig. 4); and a guide plate (18, Fig. 4) coupled directly to the nozzle frame (18 coupled to 15, via fastener 33, Fig. 4) and having a streamlined surface configured to guide the air flow along the streamlined surface (17, Fig. 4; Page 4, lines 26-34), the one or more nozzles configured to direct the blown air onto the streamlined surface (Page 4, lines 26-34).
Regarding claim 26, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23, and wherein the one or more nozzles (16, Fig. 4) are configured to direct the blown air onto a bump on the streamlined surface (nozzles 16 are configured to direct blown air onto the streamlined surface, and thus if a bump were present, would be capable of directing the blown air onto a bump. Recitation as to intended use is given little patentable weight, thus if the prior art element is capable of performing the function, it meets the claim. In this case the nozzles of Hakuli are capable of performing the function as claimed).
Regarding claim 30, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23, and wherein the one or more nozzles (16, Fig. 4) have an angled configuration (alpha, Fig. 2a) with respect to the guide plate (18, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23, and wherein the nozzle frame is configured to receive a second guide plate, wherein the second guide plate is located upstream to the nozzle frame with respect to a second air flow, wherein the second air flow is produced by another one or more nozzles configured to direct blown air onto the second guide plate (Page 5, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 32, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23 and the guide plate is a flexible structure (Page 5, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 35, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23, and wherein the guide plate (18, Fig. 4) is coupled to the nozzle frame (15, Fig. 4) via at least one fastener (33, Fig. 4).
Regarding independent claim 36, Hakuli discloses a guidance system for transporting a tail end in a fiber web machine from one structural section to another (Abstract, line 1), the guidance system comprising: a plurality of nozzle frames (Page 5, lines 34-36), each nozzle frame having a respective one or more nozzles (16, Fig. 4) formed on a surface of the respective nozzle frame and configured to direct blown air (Page 4, lines 10-14), the directed blown air defining an air flow (Page 4, lines 10-20), the one or more nozzles receded obliquely from the surface of the respective nozzle frame (16 recede obliquely from nozzle frame 15, Fig. 4); and a plurality of guide plates (17, 18, Fig. 4), each guide plate coupled directly to a respective nozzle frame (Page 5, lines 34-36), at least one guide plate among the plurality of guide plates being coupled to a respective nozzle frame and another nozzle frame located downstream from the respective nozzle frame with respect to the air flow (17 coupled to first nozzle frame, 29, 23, and second nozzle frame 15, Fig. 4), each guide plate having a respective streamlined surface (17, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 37, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 36 and wherein the respective one or more nozzles (16, Fig. 4) of each guide plate (17, 18, Fig. 4) is configured to direct the blown air onto the respective streamlined surface at an angle alpha, the angle alpha ranging between -50° to 20° (Page 4, lines 32-34).
Regarding independent claim 38, Hakuli discloses a method for transporting a tail end in a fiber web machine from one structural section to another (Abstract, line 1), the method comprising: directing blown air from a nozzle formed on a surface of a nozzle frame onto a guide plate coupled to the nozzle frame (Page 4, lines 7-20), the one or more nozzles (16, Fig. 4) receded obliquely from the surface of the nozzle frame (at angle alpha, Fig. 2a, Fig. 4), the directed blown air defining an air flow (Page 4, lines 10-14), the guide plate having a streamlined surface (17, Fig. 4) configured to guide the air flow along the streamlined surface (Page 4, lines 10-14).
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakuli, Foreign Patent Document, CA2761075.
Regarding claim 24, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23, and wherein the one or more nozzles are configured to direct the blown air onto the streamlined surface at an angle alpha (alpha, Fig. 2a, Fig. 4).
Hakuli does not disclose the angle alpha either ranging between being less than 0° and greater than or equal to -15° or ranging between being greater than 0° and less than or equal to 5°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angle alpha ranging between being greater than 0° and less than or equal to 5°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Page 4, lines 32-34), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to make this modification to “efficiently forward the web material” (Page 4, lines 30-32).
Claim(s) 29 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakuli, Foreign Patent Document, CA2761075 in view of Ronkainen, Foreign Patent Document, WO2011012771.
Regarding claim 29, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23, and a streamlined surface.
Hakuli does not disclose the streamlined surface further comprises one or more narrow grooves that bifurcate the streamlined surface into a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface guides a first portion of the air flow along the first surface and the second surface guides a second portion of the air flow along the second surface.
However, Ronkainen teaches an apparatus for transporting a tail end in a fiber web machine, wherein the streamlined surface further comprises one or more narrow grooves (4, Fig. 2) that bifurcate the streamlined surface into a first surface (2, Fig. 2) and a second surface (3, Fig. 2), wherein the first surface guides a first portion of the air flow along the first surface (Page 5, line 35-Page 6, line 2) and the second surface guides a second portion of the air flow along the second surface (Page 6, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hakuli to add narrow grooves to bifurcate the streamlined surface as taught by Ronkainen in order to “guide the airflow for forming the Coanda effect needed” Page 6, line 6). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “improvement in performance is achieved” (Page 4, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 42, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 38, and a streamlined surface.
Hakuli does not disclose bifurcating the blown air, wherein the streamlined surface bifurcates into a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface guides a first portion of the air flow along the first surface and the second surface guides a second portion of the air flow along the second surface.
However, Ronkainen teaches a method for transporting a tail end in a fiber web machine, comprising bifurcating the blown air (Page 3, line 32 – Page 4, line 3), wherein the streamlined surface bifurcates into a first surface (2, Fig. 2) and a second surface (3, Fig. 2), wherein the first surface guides a first portion of the air flow along the first surface (Page 5, line 35-Page 6, line 2) and the second surface guides a second portion of the air flow along the second surface (Page 6, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hakuli to bifurcate the streamlined surface as taught by Ronkainen in order to “guide the airflow for forming the Coanda effect needed” Page 6, line 6). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “improvement in performance is achieved” (Page 4, lines 13-16).
Claim(s) 25, 27-28, 33, and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakuli, Foreign Patent Document, CA2761075 in view of Drefs, Foreign Patent Document, DE102008002346.
Regarding claim 25, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23 and a streamlined surface.
Hakuli does not disclose a bump on the streamlined surface, wherein a side profile of the bump is symmetrically convex with respect to a midpoint between an upstream side of the bump and the downstream side of the bump, the upstream side and the downstream side being relative to the air flow.
Drefs teaches an apparatus for transporting a web, further comprising a bump (4, Fig. 2) on the streamlined surface (23, Fig. 2), wherein a side profile of the bump is symmetrically convex with respect to a midpoint between an upstream side of the bump and the downstream side of the bump (bump 4 is symmetrically convex with respect to the upstream, left, side and the downstream, right, side, Fig. 2), the upstream side and the downstream side being relative to the air flow (air flow from left to right, upstream to downstream, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hakuli to add the bump as taught by Drefs because “it has been shown that such a bulge in the path of the airflow building the air cushion is responsible for an enormous calming of the belt movement” (Paragraph [0008], lines 1-2). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the airflow is apparently forced to always lie very close to the sliding surface…this results in a particularly smooth running of the belt” (Paragraph [0009], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 39, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 38 and a streamlined surface.
Hakuli does not disclose wherein directing the blown air onto the guide plate further comprises directing the blown air onto a bump on the streamlined surface.
Drefs teaches an apparatus for transporting a tail end in a web machine, wherein directing the blown air onto the guide plate (2, Fig. 2) further comprises directing the blown air onto a bump (4, Fig. 2) on the streamlined surface (23, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hakuli to direct the blown air onto a bump on the streamlined surface as taught by Drefs because “it has been shown that such a bulge in the path of the airflow building the air cushion is responsible for an enormous calming of the belt [web] movement” (Paragraph [0008], lines 1-2). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the airflow is apparently forced to always lie very close to the sliding surface…this results in a particularly smooth running of the belt [web]” (Paragraph [0009], lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 27 and 40, modified Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claims 26 and 39, respectively, and a streamlined surface.
Hakuli does not disclose a surface portion located upstream from the bump with respect to the airflow.
However Drefs teaches an apparatus for transporting a web, further comprising a surface portion (16, Fig. 2B) located upstream from the bump with respect to the airflow (airflow from left to right of Fig. 2, 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hakuli to add the surface portion as taught by Drefs because “it has been shown that such a bulge in the path of the airflow building the air cushion is responsible for an enormous calming of the belt movement” (Paragraph [0008], lines 1-2). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the airflow is apparently forced to always lie very close to the sliding surface…this results in a particularly smooth running of the belt” (Paragraph [0009], lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 28 and 41, modified Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claims 27 and 40, respectively, and wherein the one or more nozzles are configured to direct the blown air onto the surface portion (nozzles 16 are configured to direct blown air, and thus would be capable of directing the blown air onto the surface portion. Recitation as to intended use is given little patentable weight, thus if the prior art element is capable of performing the function, it meets the claim. In this case the nozzles of Hakuli are capable of performing the function as claimed).
Regarding claim 33, Hakuli discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 23, and blown air from the one or more nozzles (16, Fig. 4) and the surface portion located downstream on the streamlined surface (17, Fig. 4).
Hakuli modified does not disclose an angle beta is formed between the blown air and the surface portion located downstream from a bump on the streamlined surface.
Drefs teaches an apparatus for transporting a web, wherein an angle beta is formed between the blown air and the surface portion located downstream from a bump on the streamlined surface (depicted in Figures 2 and 2B at around 0°).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hakuli to have an angle between the blown air and the surface portion as taught by Drefs because “it has been shown that such a bulge in the path of the airflow building the air cushion is responsible for an enormous calming of the belt movement” (Paragraph [0008], lines 1-2). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the airflow is apparently forced to always lie very close to the sliding surface…this results in a particularly smooth running of the belt” (Paragraph [0009], lines 1-3).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12091272 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11535474. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims are narrower in scope than the instant claims or amount to minor re-wording. The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant claims in addition to some extra limitations. As such, the patent claims read on and encompass the instant claims, and render the instant claims unpatentable under obvious double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 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: The prior art alone, or in combination, fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious the apparatus wherein the angle β is negative such that the surface portion includes an upward slope in relation to the bump. Hakuli (CA2761075) and Drefs (DE102008002346) are close prior art, however they fail to teach or suggest that the angle between the blown air and the surface downstream from the bump is negative such that the surface portion includes an upward slope in relation to the bump. Such a structure would be costlier to manufacture and require more vertical space to implement, thus it would not have been obvious to modify Hakuli or Drefs to arrive at applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights