Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 9/12/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 12 has been amended. 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that HU does not teach a white water tank coupled to said combining point or that the headbox is disposed downstream of said whitewater tank.
In response the Examiner agrees that HU does not disclose any whitewater tanks and therefore withdraws the rejections based on HU alone. However, any wet laid paper machine will inevitably have to drain white water from the wire. HU is now combined with SMOOK which teaches a white water tank and the headbox being downstream of said tank.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0121627 HU et al., hereinafter HU, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claim 12, HU discloses a paper machine for wet-laying a non-woven web [Figure 1]. HU discloses a first tank (1) feeds pulp via pump (2) which feeds headbox (6) [Figure 1, 0019, 0043]. A second stream fed by metering pump (5) combines with the pulp stream from tank (1) to generate a mixture before entering into the headbox (6) which then forms the sheet on belt (7) and suction box (8) [Figure 1, 0043]. There is no mixing tank between metering pump (5) and the headbox (6).
A metering pump is a type of positive-displacement/volumetric pump. The Examiner recognizes that metering (volumetric) pump (5) is stated in HU to supply add ivies (latex, reactive composition) [0043] into the fiber suspension and does not disclose regenerated cellulose fibers fed therethrough. However, an apparatus is not limited by the materials worked upon [MPEP 2115]. The tank feeding the chemicals to metering pump (5) could instead by fed with regenerated cellulose fibers.
[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims."
In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)
HU does not disclose explicitly disclose white-water tank. SMOOK discloses that a paper machine wire drains liquid (white water) into a wire pit tank [pg. 229 Figure 16-2] which feeds into the fan pump. The pulp of HU also enters into the fan pump. The wire pit is a tank and it can comprises white water. Therefore it can reasonably read on the term ‘white water tank”. This is especially true as the term “white water” refers to a material worked upon inside the tank and not a structure of the tank itself [MPEP 2115]. Given the recirculating nature of a paper machine the wire pit is both downstream and upstream of the headbox. The white water from the wire pit flows into the fan pump and eventually into the headbox.
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to combine the approach system features of SMOOK with the paper machine of HU. The approach system features allow for the recirculation of drained white water from the machine and are required for dilution of pulp prior to the headbox [pg. 208 col. 1 last par.]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as the wire pit and whitewater recirculation is part of a paper machine which HU did not show
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0121627 HU et al., hereinafter HU, and Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK, in further view of CA3178585 TISCHER, hereinafter TISCHER.
As for claim 13, HU does not disclose waterjet needling of the tissue produced. TISCHER discloses water-jet needling [pg. 17 lines 20-25]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to apply waterjet treatment of TISCHER to the apparatus/method of HU/SMOOK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so TISCHER to increase the strength of the web of HU/SMOOK by entangling fibers [pg. 11 lines 10-17].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0121627 HU et al., hereinafter HU, and Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK, in further view of U.S. 2020/0181846 SUTTNER, hereinafter SUTTNER.
As for claim 14, HU discloses a metering pump (volumetric pump) but does not disclose the type. SUTTNER in the same art of papermaking discloses eccentric screw pumps as a known metering pump [0023]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to substitute one known metering pump for another known metering pump absent evidence of unexpected results. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect both pumps to be capable of pumping the chemicals of HU/SMOOK.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
