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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group in the reply filed on September 04, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that 1) that the examiner has not demonstrated that the groups are distinct, since the apparatus/system was configured for a paper manufacturing process and not for a generic fibrous process/system; and 2) that it would not be burden to the examination if the groups are examined together. This is not found persuasive because for 1) apparatus/systems are evaluated by its structure rather than by its intended use and therefore, the search for the system would not only be in the paper making area. Note that the system could be used in any other industry, e.g., textile, which deals with fibers or just by changing some of the parameters of the database in some other industry, i.e., renaming the variables of the program. 2)
As to the Burden of search, the MPEP 803 states:
"For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant. Insofar as the criteria for restriction practice relating to Markush-type claims is concerned, the criteria is set forth in MPEP § 803.02. Insofar as the criteria for restriction or election practice relating to claims to genus-species, see MPEP §806.04(a) - §806.04(i) and § 808.01(a)."
Applicant's arguments do not point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 04, 2026.
The examiner will consider a rejoinder of the groups when/if the system is found allowable and the process includes all the scope of the device/system.
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 1-8 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 is vague and indefinite since it is unclear if the analyzing limitation, i.e., “…configured to analyze one or more fiber materials, a single-layer paper, and a paper product,” refers to alternatives, i.e., “the one or more fiber materials or a single layer, or paper product,” or all the options are analyzed. For the purpose of this office action, it has been interpreted in the alternative.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junjun et al., (hereinafter Junjun), CN 112560294 A (Machine Translation used for the purpose of this office action).
With regard to claims 1-8, Junjun teaches an intelligent prediction system for papermaking process; comprising:
A database storing a plurality of papermaking parameters, including manufacturing and forming functions: see ¶-[0057];
An input unit connected to the database which would receive data from the papermaking manufacturing process (reading on claim 2, since several pulp/paper properties are obtained and evaluated); see ¶-[0057];
Processing unit connected to the database to compare values obtained with a target value; see ¶-[0058];
Communication interface and analysis of the data to compare a target value to the actual value and evaluate the conditions of the process and correcting the process depending of the data, which correspond to the fiber or paper analysis and the changing of the recipe of then process (reading also on claims 3-8); see ¶-[0058]-[0062]. Note that the use of a display and performing calculations is implicit, or at the very least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as well-known processes, which optimizes the production.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Evaluating System of Paper Manufacturing and Evaluating Method of Paper Manufacturing.”
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
Prosecution Insights