Detailed Action
The communications received 02/10/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “… a lower axial surface, and plurality of openings…” should read “… a lower axial surface, and a plurality of openings…” or similar grammatical correction. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-11 are 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 2 recites the limitation "the flat plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination this claim is understood to read “a flat plate” or equivalent. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claims 8 and 12 recites the limitation "the plurality of wear strips" in claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination this claim is understood to read “a plurality of wear strips” or equivalent. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the wear strips" of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of Examination this claim is understood to read “a set of wear strips” or equivalent.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chupka et al (US 20050039615 A1) hereinafter CHU in view of Briden (US 20220018071 A1) hereinafter BRI.
As for claim 1, CHU teaches:
A bedplate for a pulp processing unit, the bedplate comprising [CHU: Abstract]:
a plate having an upper axial surface, a lower axial surface, and plurality of openings extending through the plate from the upper axial surface to the lower axial surface [CHU: Abstract],
wherein: each of the plurality of openings has a shape, a size, and an angle [CHU: 0013];
the shape is a cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of openings in a plane perpendicular to a center axis of the bedplate [CHU: 0013; 0032];
the size is equal to a largest cross-sectional dimension of each of the plurality of openings [CHU: 0032];
the angle is an angle formed between a centerline of each of the plurality of openings and an axial line parallel to a center axis of the bed plate [CHU: 0013; 0032];
Although CHU’s slots/holes appear to be different, CHU does not teach that the shape, the size, an orientation of the shape, the angle, or combinations thereof of the plurality of openings varies depending on a location of each of the plurality of openings on the bedplate.
BRI teaches that in elements used to screen pulp fibers (which in the case of CHU is the bedplate), that it is known to adjust parameters such as size, shape, location (density), angles (normals), and protuberances in accordance with fluid dynamics simulations to achieve improved screening [0022-24; 0032-34; 0077-87].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the size, shape, location, angles, etc. of the bedplate of CHU in response to the results of fluid dynamics simulations of the overall apparatus as taught by BRI in order to improve the screening of BRI. As both BRI and CHU pertain to elements that screen fibers in a pulp processing apparatus, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claims 2-19, it is understood that the relative shaping, angles, and sizing of the slots of CHU/BRI in regards to relative position, angle, and shape of features which would affect flow such as the wear strips present and pressure zones (where shear would be present) [CHU: 0008; 0012; 0029; 0033] would be adjusted in accordance with fluid dynamic simulation of the bedplate of CHU in the context of its pulper. One of ordinary skill in the art would particularly expect to meet the limitations as the instant specification acknowledges that local flow conditions which can be determined via computational modeling is what is used to select for localized features [instant specification: 0006; 0015-16; 0064-69; Fig. 5-6].
As for claim 20, CHU/BRI teach claim 1 and CHU further teaches that the bedplate is employed in a paper pulper [Fig. 1; 0015] which comprises a rotor [Fig. 1 #15] and a vessel (tub) [Fig. 1 #6] and in which the bedplate is arranged with the upper axial face towards the rotor [Fig. 1 #10’s upper surface faces Fig. 1 #15].
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