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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 2 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. While a copy was provided for foreign patent document No. 2-4, the copy was not a legible copy. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Otherwise, all other references have been considered.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 28th, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "D" (see Fig. 3, "V" (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the present abstract filed on contains reference numbers "()". It is suggested that the reference numbers "()" are removed. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation “a pulverization space index I [m3/kg] being defined using numerical expression (V [m3] x N [rpm] x 60 [min])+ Amax [kg/h],where V [m3] is a volume of a void space within a virtual cylinder, for which a radius is a distance from a center of the rotary shaft to an end section of the rotary blade disposed furthest away from the center of the rotary shaft in a radial direction of the rotary shaft and for which a height is a segment distance within which the plurality of rotary blades are disposed in an axial direction of the rotary shaft, when the virtual cylinder is virtualized, N [rpm] is a rate of rotation of the rotary shaft, and Amax [kg/h] is a maximum amount of material pulverized by the pulverization device, and the volume V [m3], the rate of rotation N [rpm], and the maximum pulverization amount Amax [kg/h] being set so that the pulverization space index I [m3/kg] is equal to or greater than 12.0” in Lines 11-24. It is unclear what structure is being claimed from Lines 11-24, since device claims are limited by structure and it is unclear what structure is being claim, this renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds have not been established.
Claims 2-3, and 5, which depend on Claim 1, are equally rejected.
Claims 9 and 11, which depend on Claim 2, are equally rejected.
Claims 4 and 15, which depend on Claim 3, are equally rejected.
Claims 19 and 20, which depend on Claim 4, are equally rejected.
Claims 6-8, which depend on Claim 5, are equally rejected.
Claim 10, which depends on Claim 9, is equally rejected.
Claims 12-14, which depend on Claim 11, are equally rejected.
Claims 16-18, which depend on Claim 15, are equally rejected.
Claim 1 (Lines 14-15) recites the “the rotary blade". There is a plurality of blades according to claim 1, it is unclear which rotary blade is being referred to thus rendering the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds have not been established.
Claims 2-3, and 5, which depend on Claim 1, are equally rejected.
Claims 9 and 11, which depend on Claim 2, are equally rejected.
Claims 4 and 15, which depend on Claim 3, are equally rejected.
Claims 19 and 20, which depend on Claim 4, are equally rejected.
Claims 6-8, which depend on Claim 5, are equally rejected.
Claim 10, which depends on Claim 9, is equally rejected.
Claims 12-14, which depend on Claim 11, are equally rejected.
Claims 16-18, which depend on Claim 15, are equally rejected.
Claim 5 (Line 4), Claim 6 (Line 2), Claim 7 (Lines 3 and 4), Claim 8 (Line 3), Claim 11 (Line 3), Claim 12 (Line 2), Claim 13 (Lines 2 and 3), Claim 14 (Line 2), Claim 15 (Line 3), Claim 16 (Line 2), Claim 17 (Lines 2 and 3), Claim 18 (Line 2), Claim 19 (Line 3), and Claim 20 (Line 2) recite the limitation "the ball bearings". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-8, which depend on Claim 5, are equally rejected.
Claims 12-14, which depend on Claim 11, are equally rejected.
Claims 16-18, which depend on Claim 15, are equally rejected.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada (WO2015037466A1), hereinafter "Wada". For text citation of Wada refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 9-10, Wada discloses a pulverization device (Fig. 1, Element 2)
that pulverizes a pulp sheet (Fig. 1, Element P; Page 5, Lines 3-4) and produces pulp fiber (Page 5, Lines 3-4), the pulverization device comprising: a rotary shaft (Fig. 2, Element 8); a plurality of rotary blades (Fig. 2, Elements 6, 9, 9b) attached to the rotary shaft (Page 5, Line 16 - Page 6, Line 2; Page 9, Lines 7-9), the rotary blades being configured to rotate together with the rotary shaft (Page 9, Lines 10-15) and pulverize the pulp sheet (Page 9, Line 16 - Page Page 10, Line 4); a motor (Fig. 2, Element 7) configured to cause the rotary shaft to rotate (Fig. 2, Element 8; Page 6, Lines 5-6) and a casing (Figs. 1-2, Element 5) having a supply port (Figs. 1-2, Element 5a; Page 6, Lines 7-10) through which the pulp sheet is configured to be supplied (Page 6, Lines 7-10) and a discharge port (Fig. 1-2, Element 5b, Page 6, Lines 7-10) through which the pulp fiber is configured to be discharged (Page 6, Lines 7-10), the casing accommodating the rotary blades attached to the rotary shaft (Fig. 2; Page 6, Lines 11-15).
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.
Claims 1-4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane et al. (US7399377B2), hereinafter "Crane", in view of Mcleod et al. (US20210033140A1), hereinafter “Mcleod”.
Regarding Claims 1-4, and 9-10, Crane discloses a pulverization device (Fig. 2, Element 10) that pulverizes a pulp sheet (Column 1, Lines 44-45) and produces pulp fiber (Column 1, Lines 44-45) , the pulverization device comprising: a rotary shaft (Fig. 2, Element 22); a plurality of rotary blades (Fig. 2, Element 36) attached to the rotary shaft (Column 2, Lines 37-49), the rotary blades being configured to rotate together with the rotary shaft (Fig. 2; Column 3, Lines 28-31) and pulverize the pulp sheet (Claim 1, Lines 1-7; Column 1, Lines 44-45) and a casing (Figs. 1-2; Element 50) having a supply port (Fig. 2, Elements 46 and 80) through which the pulp sheet is configured to be supplied (Column 3, Lines 39-42; Column 4, Lines 4-7) and a discharge port (Fig. 2, Element 112) through which the pulp fiber is configured to be discharged (Column 4, Lines 29-31), the casing accommodating the rotary blades attached to the rotary shaft (Figs. 1-2).
Crane is silent on using a motor configured to cause the rotary shaft to rotate.
Nonetheless, Mcleod teaches a motor (¶0041, Lines 9-11) configured to cause a rotary shaft (Fig. 1, Element 106) to rotate (¶0041, Lines 6-11).
Crane and Mcleod are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of mechanical machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Mcleod of using a motor to cause the rotary shaft to rotate into the pulverization device disclosed by Crane to provide a drive assembly configuration that directly delivers rotational energy to the rotary shaft (¶0041, Lines 6-9).
Claims 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Mcleod as applied to claims Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 3, and Claim 4, respectively, above, and further in view of Miyajima et al. (JP2002349588A), hereinafter “Miyajima”. For text citation of Miyajima refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 5, 11, 15, and 19, the prior art combination of Crane and Mcleod renders the pulverization device of Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 3, and Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Crane and Mcleod further teaches a bearing (Fig. 1, Element 18) configured to rotatably support the rotary shaft (Fig. 1; Column 2, Lines 31-36).
The prior art combination of Crane and Mcleod fails to teach a ball bearing, and a rolling element of the ball bearings is a ceramic ball.
Nonetheless, Miyajima teaches a ball bearing (Fig. 1, Element 10; ¶0008, Lines 1-3), and a rolling element (Fig. 1, Element 13) of the ball bearings is a ceramic ball (¶0008, Lines 4-6).
Crane, Mcleod, and Miyajima are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of mechanical machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyajima of using a ball bearing and a ceramic ball as the rolling element of the ball bearing into the pulverization device disclosed by Crane and modified by Mcleod to provide a ball bearing that can adequately handle high-speed rotation and enable the miniaturization of machine tools and the reduction of operating costs (¶0005).
Regarding Claim 6, 12, 16, and 20, the prior art combination of Crane, Mcleod, and Miyajima renders the pulverization device of Claim 5, Claim 11, Claim 15, and Claim 19 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Crane, Mcleod, and Miyajima further teaches wherein the ball bearings (Crane - Fig. 1, Element 18; Miyajima - Fig. 1, Element 10) are grease-sealed bearings (Miyajima - ¶0006).
Regarding Claim 7, 13, and 17, the prior art combination of Crane, Mcleod, and Miyajima renders the pulverization device of Claim 5, Claim 11, and Claim 15 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Crane, Mcleod, and Miyajima further teaches wherein the ball bearings (Crane - Fig. 1, 18) are disposed set apart from the casing (Fig. 1; Element 50) so that spaces are formed between the ball bearings and the casing (Crane - Fig. 1).
Examiner Note: For further classification, when the prior art combination of Crane and Mcleod is modified by Miyajima only the type of bearing being used is modified, thus their positioning relative to the casing is not modified.
Claims 8, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Mcleod and Miyajima as applied to claims Claim 5, Claim 11, and Claim 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP2010196727A), hereinafter “Matsumoto”. For text citation of Matsumoto refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 8, 14, and 18, the prior art combination of Crane, Mcleod, and Miyajima renders the pulverization device of Claim 5, Claim 11, and Claim 15 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Crane, Mcleod, and Miyajima fails to teach wherein a hermetic structure of the ball bearings is in a non-contact form.
Nonetheless, Matsumoto teaches wherein a hermetic structure (Fig. 1, Element 9; ¶0011, Line 1) of the ball bearings (Fig. 1; ¶0010) is in a non-contact form (¶0010; 0011, Line 1).
Crane, Mcleod, Miyajima, and Matsumoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of bearings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto of using ball bearings wherein a hermetic structure of the ball bearings is in non-contact form into the pulverization device disclosed by Crane and modified by Mcleod and Miyajima to reduce the torque of the bearings (¶0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US3750962A & US4241881A - Process for disintegrating fibrous sheet material
US5961222A & US6652149A - Ball bearing
WO2014010426A1, EP0252204A1, RU2153546C2 & CN109667179A - Pulp pulverization device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights