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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al, US Patent Publication 2024/0191001.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a pulp dissolving device for refined cotton (teaches pretreating, but as an apparatus that makes the device must simply be capable of performing the function of dissolving, which this pretreatment device is – see abstract and claims), comprising a supporting base (item 2), wherein a pulp dissolving unit A (5) is installed on the top of the supporting base, and a pulp discharging unit (discharge door [0007]) is installed in front of the pulp dissolving unit A;
a pulp dissolving unit Bis installed on the right side of the pulp dissolving unit A, and a pulp dissolving unit C is installed on the pulp dissolving unit A (2) and the pulp dissolving unit B (this is a mere duplication of parts see MPEP 2144.04 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that states that “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”);
the pulp dissolving unit A comprises a pulp dissolving frame (see figure 1), stirring shafts (Figure 3) and stirring supports (figures 3-5);
the pulp dissolving frame is welded to the top of the supporting base (item 7 figure 3); the number of the stirring shafts (item 20, figure 5) is two.
The reference displays four as an example and [0057 and 0065] describes the shafts as connected to gears 22 simply as a plurality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the number of a plurality of items to fit the desired outcome as a multitude of shafts is directly taught.
Zhou further teaches that the stirring shafts are rotationally installed on the pulp dissolving frame (see figure 5); and the number of the stirring supports is two rows, and the two rows of stirring shafts are welded to the outside of the two stirring shafts (see above where the average artisan is known to adjust the number of shafts in an obvious manner to arrive at the same end result.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou remains as applied above and further teaches that the pulping unit comprises a tracked system for controlling the rotation of the shafts (shown in figures 4 and 5 with two stroke switches and gears to connect and rotate the blocks and discs [0057]. The Examiner is stating that this performs the same function as a”v-belt” and a pair of pulleys as the same actions occur with the same operation. This will make the gear system and the pulley system to be functional equivalents, and it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another is obvious when they are functional equivalents (see KSR rationales, MPEP 2141).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou remains as applied above and further teaches that the device further includes a motor [0015-0016] to control the stroke switch (argued above as a functional equivalent of the pulley system [0025-0026]) with a semicircular tooth system (items 15 and 18 figure 4) acting as the linking blocks of the system to the rotary shafts (see figures 4 and 5)
Regarding claims 4-5, Zhou remains as applied above and further teaches that the discharge area is a door (reading on a valve) which is attached to the device wall near the bottom [0056] with additional liquid outlets (items 25 and 66) on the front and back of the drum [0056]. All of the same components are present and it has also been held that a simple rearrangement of parts for the same functionality has been held to be obvious under In re Japikse, see MPEP 2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
While many of the limitations of claim 6 (and its dependents) are conventional in of themselves, the specific placement in relation to each other and the functionality they provide are not presented in an obvious manner by the prior art. While the average artisan could put each claimed piece in the claimed locations, there is no reason as to why they would utilize this specific combination of limitations at their claimed locations.
The physical components and positioning of each limitations has risen to the level of more than routine optimization and mere rearrangement of parts for claims 6 and beyond, and it would be unreasonable to assume they placements to be obvious without motivation provided by the prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/456289 and 18/963816 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims (at least claims 1-5 are much broader in scope than the copending applications which include all of the claimed limitations and additional limitations focus on additional aspects of their inventions. Under broadest reasonably interpretation, the claims of the copending applications do read on claims 1-5. Starting in claim 6 the level of specificity arise to being non-obvious even over the copending applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications 2015/0343450 and 2015/0314486 and USP 5,964,984, 5,244,585, 4,657,636, and 4,200,537 all have devices for treating cotton pulp that provide teaching of at least claim 1 in the instant invention. All of the above cited references teach devices with the secured stirring devices in a tank of some kind to pretreat the cotton or pulp. As above the level of specificity achieved in claim 6 is sufficient to overcome all of these other example in the prior art of devices to dissolve or pretreat cotton and pulp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights