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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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.
Claims 18-21 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cheshire et al., (hereinafter Cheshire), United State Patent No. 4,686,006.
With regard to claims 18-21 and 33, Cheshire teaches a process and device for making paper, fibrous web, using a headbox/flow box comprising an inlet configured to introduce a fiber foam into a turbulence chamber (column 7, lines 7-47) and including an end side, a guide side, a feed side and an outlet side which deposits the fiber foam onto a wire (reading on claims 18 and 33) and the end and guide sides having an arc and thus reading on claims 19-20. The space between the guide side narrowing through the outlet (reading on claim 21) as it can be seen in the annotated figure 7, below; see also column 7, lines 7-47.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It seems that Cheshire teaches all the limitations of the claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16-17, 22-32 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheshire et al., (hereinafter Cheshire), United State Patent No. 4,686,006.
With regard to claims 16-17, 30-31 and 34-35. Cheshire teaches a process and device for making paper, fibrous web, using a headbox/flow box comprising an inlet configured to introduce a fiber foam into a turbulence chamber and including a, end side, a guide side, a feed side and an outlet side which deposits the fiber foam onto a wire and the end and guide sides having an arc; see the annotated figure 7 above and column 7, lines 7-47. While Cheshire is silent with regard to the shear rate of the turbulence in the chamber, this does not add any structure to the device and the device of the reference can inherently be operated at the claimed turbulence shear rate, e.g., increasing the flow rate, and thus such limitation(s) is/are at the very least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding to claims 22-25 and 28-29, while figure 7 shows a quasi-cylindrical chamber, which therefore has arc(s), it does not show the claimed arc angles nor the diameter of the inlet, but such limitations are within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to optimize the desire flow turbulence in all parts of the chamber and avoid fiber deposition on its wall(s), i.e., it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow and fiber deposition on the wire and thus obvious tone of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claims 26-27, Cheshire teaches that several rows of the headbox; see column 4, lines 32-53. Note that using only two rows is within the level of ordinary skill in the art,
Regarding to claims 32 and 37, the use of inclined wire for a foam-forming is common in the art1 and thus considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 36, the use of divided headbox is very-common in the art2, especially for the making of multilayer webs and thus using vanes separators to separate streams, that can of the same of the different fibers and/or consistency, and thus considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Method and Device for Foam Forming Webs.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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, 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 See for example United State Patent No. 5,904,809, which teaches that using an inclined headbox is possible to minimize shear of fibers in the headbox so that the fibers do not become unidirectional and that the surface kept clean; see column 1, lines 29-38.
2 See for example United State Patent No. .5,133,836; WO 2025/043238 A1, US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0023167 A1; United State Patent Nos. 6,165,324, 6,146,501 just to cite a few.
Prosecution Insights