Detailed Action
The communications received 10/11/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 17-35 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
Claims 30-35 are objected to because of the following informalities: recitations of “at least one device (1)” should be preceded by “the”, to make the claims more clear. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 17-21, 23-27, 30-32, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heikki et al (WO 0019007 A1 cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 10/11/2024) hereinafter HEI.
As for claim 17, HEI teaches a device for dewatering or cleaning a fabric in a paper machine [Abstract], the device (1) comprising:
a contact portion (2) arranged on a first side (A) of the device (1) for contacting a fabric in a paper machine (direct contact device understood to be part of the ultrasonic vibrator) [Fig. 4 #34 pg. 10 l. 4-16]
an air device (4) for transporting air to or from the fabric, the air device (4) being operatively connected to at least one opening (3) in the first side (A) for supplying or removing air through the at least one opening (3) [Fig. 4 #33; pg. 10 l. 4-16], and
a vibration generator (5) operatively connected to the contact portion (2) and configured to cause a vibration of the contact portion (2) during operation of the device (1) [Fig. 4 #34; pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 18, HEI teaches claim 17, and further wherein the at least one opening (3) is arranged in a downstream end (DS) of the first side (A) and the contact portion (2) is arranged in an upstream end (US) of the first side (A) (as depicted it is understood that the at least one opening that would be a part of the suction device in order for the suction device to perform the siphoning would be downstream of at least one of the ultrasonic vibrator contact portions) [Fig. 4 #33-34, pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 19, HEI teaches claim 17, wherein the at least one opening (3) is arranged in an upstream end (US) and the contact portion (2) is arranged in a downstream end (DS) of the first side (A) (as depicted it is understood that the at least one opening that would be a part of the suction device in order for the suction device to perform the siphoning would be upstream of at least one of the ultrasonic vibrator contact portions) [Fig. 4 #33-34, pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 20, HEI teaches claim 17, wherein the at least one opening (3) is arranged in the contact portion (2) such that air is supplied to or removed from the fabric through the contact portion (2) (as it is understood that the contact portion is where the air removal occurs to pull the moist air from the fabric) [pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 21, HEI teaches claim 17, wherein the air device (4) is a suction device for sucking air from the fabric into the opening [pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 23, HEI teaches claim 17, wherein the vibration generator (5) is configured to operate with a frequency of at least 10 kHz (as an ultrasonic vibrator) [pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 24, HEI teaches claim 17, wherein the vibration generator (5) is configured to operate with a frequency of either:
at least 15 kHz, or at least 20 kHz (as an ultrasonic vibrator) [pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 25, HEI teaches claim 17, and the limitation “wherein the vibration generator (5) is configured to cause an amplitude of at least 10 pm of the contact portion during operation of the device” is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the invention from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 26, HEI teaches claim 17, and the limitation “wherein the vibration generator (5) is configured to cause an amplitude of either (a) at least 15 pm, or (b) at least 20 pm, of the contact portion during operation of the device” is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the invention from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 27, HEI teaches claim 17, further comprising at least two contact portions (2a, 2b) [Fig. 4 #33-34], and wherein the vibration generator (5) is operatively connected to each of the contact portions (2a, 2b) (via the wire mesh which connects all the vibration generators to the rollers) [Fig. 4 #32] and configured to cause them to vibrate independently of each other (as they are connected to multiple vibration generators) [Fig. 4 #34; pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 30, HEI teaches a paper machine comprising at least one device (1) according to claim 17 (it is understood that the apparatus is part of a paper machine as it is used to remove water in paper manufacturing) [Abstract; pg. 1 l. 7-13, pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 31, HEI teaches claim 30, and wherein at least one device (1) is arranged in a forming section (10, 10') of the paper machine (100, 100') and configured to dewater a first fabric (71, 71') carrying a paper web [Abstract; pg. 1 l. 7-13, pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 32, HEI teaches claim 30, wherein at least one device (1) is arranged in a press section (20, 20') of the paper machine (100, 100') (as there are cylinders which accomplish some pressing) [Fig. 4 #31] and configured to dewater a second fabric (72, 72') carrying a paper web [Fig. 4 #32, Abstract; pg. 1 l. 7-13, pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 34, HEI teaches claim 30, and wherein at least one device (1) is arranged in a drying section (40, 40') of the paper machine (100, 100') and configured to dewater a fabric carrying a paper web (as it is used for drying therefore would occur in a drying section of a paper machine) [Abstract; pg. 1 l. 7-13, pg. 10 l. 4-16].
As for claim 35, HEI teaches claim 30, wherein at least one device (1) is arranged in a cleaning section (60, 60') for cleaning a fabric (as dewatering removes the water from the fabric thereby cleaning it of residue carried by the water) [Abstract; pg. 1 l. 7-13, pg. 10 l. 4-16].
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) 22, 28-29, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEI in view of Klerelid (US 6,398,916) hereinafter KLE.
As for claim 22, HEI teaches claim 17, but fails to teach wherein an air device is an air knife for blowing air out of the opening to the fabric.
KLE teaches that when dewatering and drying paper that one method that improves the structural preservation of the paper in subsequent processing steps is one in which an air knife is used with the dewatering apparatus [col. 7 l. 40-col. 8 l. 39].
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 air knife of KLE to the dewatering apparatus of HEI in order to improve the structural integrity of the worked upon paper in downstream processes. As both HEI/KLE pertain to paper dewatering they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for 28, HEI teaches claim 20, but fails to teach that the contact portion is a cylinder with a plurality of openings to enable air to pass through.
KLE teaches that when dewatering and drying paper that one method that improves the structural preservation of the paper in subsequent processing steps is one in which a TAD fabric is used with a contact portion being a porous cylinder [col. 7 l. 40-col. 8 l. 39].
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 contact portion of KLE to the contact portion of HEI in order to improve the structural integrity of the worked upon paper in downstream processes. As both HEI/KLE pertain to paper dewatering they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 29, HEI/KLE teach claim 28, and further wherein the cylinder is a TAD cylinder for a paper machine [KLE: col. 7 l. 40 – col. 8 l. 39].
As for claim 33, HEI teaches the paper machine according to claim 30, and in the combination of HEI/KLE as would be applied to claim 28 further teaches wherein at least one device (1) is arranged in a structuring section (30) of the paper machine (100, 100') (as there are cylinders which apply pressure, ultrasonic action, and suction devices which provide some structural changes to the paper therefore the device is part of a structural section), and wherein the structuring section (30) is a through air drying section (TAD) [HEI: Abstract; pg. 1 l. 7-13, pg. 10 l. 4-16, KLE: col. 7 l. 40- col. 8 l. 39].
The combination does not teach a third fabric.
However in accordance with the MPEP a duplication of parts is a legal precedent which supports a rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)]. The third fabric amounts to a duplication of the device in the paper machine. Therefore the third fabric is obvious.
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
Prosecution Insights