Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 8/29/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-7 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
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10010596A1 KLAUS, hereinafter KLAUS.
As for claim 1-3, KLAUS discloses a pulper (storage tank) with two chambers a top chamber (4) and a bottom chamber (5) that is divided by a partition [Figure 6]. KLAUS discloses an adjusting section with a rotating shaft and a stirring member (2) disposed on the outer circumferential portion of the shaft in the top chamber (4) that rotates with the shaft [Figure 6]. KLAUS discloses a stirring section with a second stirring member (20) on the same shaft located in the bottom chamber (5) that rotates together with the shaft [Figure 6].
As for claim 4, KLAUS discloses a cross-sectional area of the first space is larger than the cross-sectional area of the second space [Figure 6].
As for claim 5, KLAUS discloses a humidification section (W) which humidifies the crushed piece by adding water thereto [Figure 6].
As for claim 6, KLAUS discloses a discharge port (P) that is located at the bottom portion (5) of the tank [Figure 6].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10010596A1 KLAUS, hereinafter KLAUS, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claim 7, KLAUS teaches the features as per above including creating a pulp for papermaking. KLAUS does not disclose a defibrating section, accumulating section or a molding section. SMOOK discloses defibrating pulp to increase its tensile strength [pg. 206 Figure 13-23] and then making paper on a wire (accumulating section) and then pressing the accumulated fibers to consolidate a sheet (molding section) [pg. 228]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to combine the conventional refining and paper machine of SMOOK to make paper. Thereby creating a value-added product. The pulping of KLAUS and the papermaking of SMOOK both perform the same functions as prior to when they were combined. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success from using conventional papermaking to produce paper from recycled pulp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights