Detailed Action
The communications received 08/29/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 § 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) 1-2, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Min et al (CN107675538A refer to the supplied English translation) hereinafter MIN.
As for claim 1, MIN teaches:
a stirring device comprising (a paper shredder with stirring capabilities [MIN: 30]):
a storage tank [MIN: 30],
a stirring member that stirs an inside of the storage tank (stirring shaft with stirring paddles [MIN: 30]), wherein the stirring member has a humidified air release port (as MIN's paddles and shafts have ventilation holes which emit steam [MIN: 12, 30-31]),
through which humidified air, which is air humidified, is released into the storage tank (via the emitted steam from the ventilation holes [MIN: 12, 30-31]).
As for claim 2, MIN teaches claim 1 and further wherein the stirring member is installed at a bottom portion of the storage tank [MIN: Fig. 1 #24-27], and an exhaust port through which air is discharged from the inside of the storage tank is provided in an upper portion of the storage tank (The examiner notes that the paper inlet being accessible to paper solids would also act as an air discharge as any excess air could leave it [MIN: Fig. 1 #1; 30]).
As for claim 7, MIN teaches claim 1 and a partition portion that partitions the storage tank into a first space and a second space positioned below the first space (baffle [MIN: Fig. 1 #231; 37]), and wherein, the stirring member is provided in the second space [MIN: Fig. 1 #24-27].
As for claim 8, MIN teaches claim 7 and an adjusting member that stirs the first space [MIN: Fig. 1 #20-23], and wherein the adjusting member does not release the humidified air (as rotary cutters, they are not disclosed as having humidified air features[MIN: Fig. 1 #20-23; 30]).
As for claim 9, MIN teaches claim 9 and a drive mechanism that drives the adjusting member and the stirring member is in synchronization with each other (via motor arrangement [MIN: 30]).
As for claim 10, MIN teaches claim 1 and wherein a discharge port through which a storage material is discharged from the inside of the storage tank is provided in a bottom portion of the storage tank [MIN: Fig. 1 #45; 30; 38].
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIN as applied to claim 1.
As for claim 3, MIN teaches claim 1 and it is understood that the stirring member being oriented along a vertical versus horizontal axis rotational within the context of MIN which gives no exact explanation for why there is such an arrangement is merely a matter of selecting a horizontal versus vertical mixing arrangement.
In accordance with the MPEP, a selection from a list of known identified solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the vertical rotational axis versus horizontal rotational axis as this would have amounted to a selection of arrangements by which to have a rotating mixer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily applied adjustments by which to make the vertical arrangement functional.
In addition, as MIN discloses the vent holes but does not explicitly say where they would be located on the stirring member, it is understood that the selection of the back versus the front of the stirring member is merely a matter of selecting a back versus a front location.
In accordance with the MPEP, a selection from a list of known identified solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the back of the stirring member this would have amounted to a selection of arrangements by which the vents can be placed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily applied adjustments by which to make the vertical arrangement functional.
As for claim 4, MIN teaches claim 1 and that the stirring member comprises a blade that stirs by rotation (paddle which is rotated to stir [MIN: 30]) and that it has a humidified release port (as the steam vents are on the paddles themselves [MIN: 30]).
As for claim 5, MIN teaches claim 4 and as MIN discloses the vent holes but does not explicitly say where they would be located on the stirring member, it is understood that the selection of the back versus the front of the stirring member is merely a matter of selecting a back versus a front location.
In accordance with the MPEP, a selection from a list of known identified solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the back of the stirring member this would have amounted to a selection of arrangements by which the vents can be placed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily applied adjustments by which to make the vertical arrangement functional.
As for claim 6, MIN teaches claim 4 and further a shaft having the blades at the outer circumferential portion (shaft [MIN: Fig. 1 #26] blade [MIN: Fig. 1 #27]) and wherein the humidified air passes through an inside of the shaft and an inside of the blade from a humidified air supply source and is released from the humidified air release port (via the hollow portion and from a supply [MIN: 30]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIN as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Haider et al (US 5148994) hereinafter HAI.
As for claim 11, MIN teaches claim 1 but fails to teach a backflow preventing mechanism in the vents.
HAI teaches a grinding apparatus for lignocellulosic material in which a steam backflow preventing mechanism is employed in order to prevent issues with lignocellulosic material input [HAI: Abstract; col. 4 l. 14-43].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the steam backflow preventing mechanism of HAI to the stirring member of MIN which contains the steam vents in order to prevent issues with inputting lignocellulosic material. As both MIN and HAI pertain to the mechanical treatment of lignocellulosic material they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al (US 20190136451 A1) hereinafter HIG in view of MIN as applied to claim 1.
As for claims 12-13, the Examiner notes that meeting the limitations of claim 13 meets the limitations of claim 12 as claim 13 requires the apparatus of claim 12 to perform its method.
As for claims 12-13, HIG teaches a method of producing a fiber structure comprising [HIG: Abstract]:
Removing a lump of fibers from a previous step/device to defibrate the lump of fibers (A source is taken to the defibration section [HIG: Fig. 1 #20; 0053]),
accumulating a defibrated material that is defibrated (Onto the mesh belt which accumulates [HIG: Fig. 1 #72; 0091-92]),
and producing a fiber structure by molding an accumulated material that is accumulated (Via sheet forming device which molds by compressing into a sheet [HIG: Fig. 1 #82; 0094-97]).
HIG fails to teach the stirring device with storage vessel which contains the stirring member, and humidified air vents on the stirring member which supply the humidified air to the interior of the storage vessel i.e. claim 1. However HIG teaches using recycled paper [0050-52].
MIN teaches claim 1 and the advantageous use of MIN is as a primary feed to promote confidentiality and privacy when disposing of paper [7-10].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the stirring device of MIN and its method of use to preprocess the source material in the method and requisite device of HIG in order to promote confidentiality and privacy when disposing of recycled paper. As both MIN and HIG pertain to processing paper, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748