Detailed Action
The communications received 11/26/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-14 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 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) 1-4 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YODA et al (US 2019/0062996) hereinafter YOD in view of OGUCHI et al (US 2019/0270220) hereinafter OGU.
As for claim 1, YOD teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus comprising [Abstract]:
a deposition unit configured to deposit a material containing fibers to form a web [Fig. 11 #60];
a humidification unit configured to moisten the formed web [Fig. 11 #212];
and a forming unit [Fig. 11 #86A; 0148], wherein the forming unit includes a first roller configured to heat and dry the moistened web [Fig. 5 #172B], and a pressing roller [Fig. 5 #171B; 0161-162] configured to press the web wound around the first roller against the first roller.
YOD fails to teach a winding roller configured to wind the web around the first roller,
OGU teaches a winding roller (tension roller) [Fig. 3 #88] that is configured to wind the web around a first roller [Fig. 3 #84a; 0110] in a sheet manufacturing apparatus [Abstract]. This is done to prevent the web from being loose against the rollers (it is understood that the nip is substantially how the web is wound against the rollers and that ) [0110].
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 winding roller of OGU to the rollers of YOD in order to prevent the web from winding loose against the rollers.
As for claim 2, YOD/OGU teaches claim 1 and further the width of the web is an aspect that pertains to the material worked upon by the apparatus (as this limitation can be met by the web merely being narrower than the pressing roller) therefore this limitation is further limiting the material worked upon by the apparatus and does not differentiate the claimed invention form the prior art [MPEP 2115].
As for claim 3, YOD/OGU teach claim 1 and its is understood that as they are in contact that the pressing roller would be at least partially driven by rotation of the first roller.
As for claim 4, YOD/OGU teach claim 1 and YOD further teaches a second roller that is located upstream of the pressing roller between which and the first roller the web is nipped and heats the web (any one of the rollers of #81) [Abstract; Fig. 4; 0152; 0156].
As for claim 7, YOD/OGU teach claim 4 and the pressure exerted is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the claim from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 8, YOD/OGU teach claim 4 and the heat of the surface of the rollers is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the claim from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 9, YOD/OGU teach claim 1 and YOD further teaches wherein the forming unit includes a plurality of the pressing rollers spaced in a transportation direction [Fig. 11 #86A].
As for claim 10, YOD/OGU teach claim 1 and YOD further teaches wherein the forming unit further includes a peeling plate located downstream of the pressing roller and configured to peel the web off the first roller (flappers that by switching paths at least partially peel the web off the first roller) [Fig. 11 #89; 0276].
As for claim 11, YOD/OGU teach claim 1 and the heat of the surface of the rollers is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the claim from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 12, YOD/OGU teach claim 1 and YOD further teaches wherein the humidification unit moistens the web from a side of front and back sides of the web, the side being in contact with the first roller [Fig. 11 #212; 0087].
As for claim 13, YOD/OGU teach claim 1 and wherein the deposition unit deposits a material containing fibers and starch to form the web is both a manner of operating the device and a limitation further claiming the material worked upon, both of which do not differentiate the claim from the prior art [MPEP 2114-2115].
As for claim 14, YOD/OGU teach the apparatus of claim 1 which performs the method as claimed which comprises: depositing a material containing fibers to form a web [YOD: Fig. 11 #60];
moistening the web [Fig. 11 #212; 0087];
winding the moistened web around a first roller by using a winding roller [as would be done in the combination as applied in claim 1];
pressing the web wound around the first roller against the first roller by using a pressing roller (as would be done by compressing the web between them) [YOD: Fig. 11 #81-82; 0151];
and heating and drying the moistened web by using the first roller [YOD: Fig. 11 #81-82; 01151-152].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YODA et al (US 2019/0062996) hereinafter YOD in view of OGUCHI et al (US 2019/0270220) hereinafter OGU as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Gomi et al (US 2015/0204015) hereinafter GOM.
As for claim 5, YOD/OGU teach claim 4 but fail to teach wherein the pressing roller has a smaller outer diameter than the second roller.
GOM teaches that in sheet manufacturing apparatuses [Abstract; 0120] that the diameters of rollers are set to correspond to the thickness and properties of the manufactured web as well as desired handling and transferring capabilities of the rollers against the size of the overall machine [0120].
In accordance with the MPEP "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP: 2144.05(II)(A)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived to the claimed diameter differences between the pressing roller and the second roller as GOM teaches that the diameters of the rollers are routinely optimized variables to achieve desired handling and transferring characteristics that correspond to desired thickness and properties of the manufactured web against the resultant sizing of the overall machine.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YODA et al (US 2019/0062996) hereinafter YOD in view of OGUCHI et al (US 2019/0270220) hereinafter OGU as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Nagai et al (US 2018/0237992) hereinafter NAG.
As for claim 6, YOD/OGU teaches claim 4 but fails to teach wherein a surface of the pressing roller has a higher hardness than a surface of the second roller.
NAG teaches that in sheet handling apparatuses [Abstract; 0006] that the hardness is generally desired to better impart heat [0006] and that one roller is harder than the other which improves nip width and heating efficiency [0025; 0028].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have either of the pressing roller or second roller of YOD/OGU have a higher hardness than the other as NAG teaches that this improves the nip width which improves the heating efficiency. As the selection of one roller over the other is a matter of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success which the MPEP teaches is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)], the pressing roller having a higher hardness than a surface of the second roller 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
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
