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 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) 1-3, 9-12, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,384,482).
Inaba discloses a production method for natural fiber based cellulose material products by means of intermittently converting a blank or a portion of a web of natural fiber based cellulose mateiral, wherein there is provided a production space including a converting production unit intermittently producing a shaped product, a supply station, a control unit, a feeding device, and a supply path, comprising the steps of:
providing a supply of unconverted blanks or a web at said supply station (Figs. 1-2; via M5-M8) having a density below 0,5 kg/dm3 (via “TABLE-US-00001…weight Density g/cm.sup…AAABBB”) and a moisture content below 20% weight (via “total moisture content added by the humidifier 231 to humidifier 236 is, for example, preferably from 0.5 parts by mass to 20 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of material prior to humidification”),
feeding an unconverted portion of said unconverted blanks or said web along said supply path, see for example (Figs. 1-2; via feeding of webs M5-M8),
converting said unconverted portion by means of said intermittently converting production unit to a converted shaped product by means of a dry-forming press, applying high temperature (via converting the webs into S; “sheet S of the desired shape and size is obtained by this cutting by the first cutters 211” and/or forming section 20 and press section 201, and a heating section 202, “pressing and heat treatment to obtain the shaped article”; “The sheet forming section 20 includes the press section 201 and a heating section 202” and “web M8 can be pressed between the heating rollers 204 while being heated”; further claim 8, “a sheet from a web which is pressed,… a press configured to press the web humidified by the web humidifier”),
providing humidity sensor/s measuring the humidity within said production space, feeding measurements regarding humidity to a control unit, (claim 3; “a first humidity sensor configured to detect humidity in a space in which the web is transported” and claim 4; “the controller is configured to cause the web …when the humidity detected by the first humidity sensor is a predetermined value or below”),
controllably feeding said unconverted portion by means of said control unit along said supply path to provide a time span during feeding from said supply station to said converting production unit, wherein said time span provides for sufficient time of exposure of said unconverted portion to the environment in said production space to obtain a moisture profile within a preset moisture content of said unconverted portion, see for example (“The feedstock supply section 11 is the second where the feedstock supply process is performed, in which a feedstock M1 is supplied into the” and/or Figs. 3-4; via control 28 of the transport section 29 and “Stop Transportation Of Web”) .
Inaba may not suggest the claimed converting step to apply pressure above 100 bar. However, Inaba clearly suggests the step of applying heat and pressure on the material (via “pressing and heat treatment to obtain the shaped article”; “The sheet forming section 20 includes the press section 201 and a heating section 202”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s pressing step by applying pressure to be above 100 bar, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value or a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617, F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 2: wherein there is provided a fluid supply unit within said supply path (Fig. 5; via humidifier 236).
Regarding claim 3: wherein said fluid supply unit includes a plurality of fluid supply members (Fig. 1; via humidifiers 231-236) that are longitudinally distributed fluid supply to said unconverted portion (via 231-236 positioned alongside the conveying path).
Regarding claim 9: Inaba may not specifically suggest that the timespan is at least 10s, preferably 20s < T < 10 min. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s timespan to be at least 10s, preferably 20s < T < 10 min, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10: Inaba may not specifically suggest that the density is between 0.1 to 0,4 kg/dm3. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s density to be between 0.1 to 0,4 kg/dm3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11: Inaba may not suggest that the moisture profile of said unconverted portion is such that it deviates within a range of maximum +- 1 %. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s moisture profile to be deviated within a range of maximum +- 1 %, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12: Inaba does not suggest that the humidity is such that the moisture content of said unconverted portion is larger than 4% and is less than 20%, wherein said humidity is controlled to be within the range of 25% < RHi < 75%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s humidity to be larger than 4% and is less than 20% and controlled to be within the range of 25% < RHi < 75%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16: Inaba does not suggest that the moisture profile of said unconverted portion is such that it deviates within a range of maximum +- 0,5 %. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s moisture profile to be deviated withing a range of maximum +- 0,5 %, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17: Inaba does not disclose that the moisture profile of said unconverted portion is such that a maximum deviation is maintained for at least 30 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s profile to have a maximum deviation to be maintained for at least 30 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18: Inaba does not disclose the maximum deviation to be maintained for at least one hour. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s maximum deviation to be maintained of at least one hour, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19: Inaba does not suggest that the humidity is such that the moisture content of said unconverted portion is larger than 4% and is between 7-15 %, wherein said humidity is controlled to be within the range of 25% < RHi < 75%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s moisture content to be larger than 4% and between 7-15%, wherein the humidity is controlled to be withing the range of 25% < RHi < 75%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20: Inaba does not suggest that the humidity is such that the moisture content of said unconverted portion is larger than 4% and is less than 20%, wherein said humidity is controlled to be within the range of 30% < RHi < 70%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Inaba’s moisture content to be larger than 4% and less than 20%, wherein the humidity is controlled to be withing the range of 30% < RHi < 70%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Inaba ‘482 does not suggest the claimed performing step stating that “Inaba does not intermittently convert, but merely cut”.
As explained forth above, the Office believes that the applied art ‘482 indeed clearly suggest performing and/or converting step and mechanism, see for example (Fig. 1; via press section 201; “The sheet forming section 20 includes the press section 201 and a heating section 202”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights