DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, the Examiner interprets the term “resilient damper” as a damper that is able to stretch, bend, or take pressure and return to its original shape.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors. In lines 3-4, “comprises plurality of ball bearings,” should be “comprises a plurality of ball bearings,”. In line 10, “the inner wall” should be “an inner wall”. In line 11, “the stiffness of the drive end damper ring” should be “a stiffness of the drive end damper ring”. In line 12, “the stiffness of the non-drive end damper ring” should be “a stiffness of the non-drive end damper ring”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. In line 1, “the stiffness” should “a stiffness”. In line 2, “the stiffness” should be “a stiffness”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. In line 2, the term “KDE” in the specification is “KDE” and “KNDE” in the specification is “KNDE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. In i), the term “5*105N/m” should be “5*105N/m” and “106N/m” should be “106N/m”. In ii), the term “15*105N/m” should be “15*105N/m” and “7*106N/m” should be “7*106N/m”. In iii), the term “5*106N/m” should be “5*106N/m”. Additionally, the term “KDE” in the specification is “KDE” and “KNDE” in the specification is “KNDE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The term “4000RPM” should be “4000 RPM” and the term “13000RPM” should be “13000 RPM”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. In line 7, “the first rotor” should be “a first rotor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 13, 15 and 17 is/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 5 claims the stiffness (KDE) in ii) as between “15*105N/m” and“7*106N/m” and the stiffness (KDE) in iii) is about “5*106N/m”. It is unclear to the Examiner what stiffness (KDE) is required in the claim.
Claim 13 claims the rotor comprising between about 10 and about 24 frustoconical dampers arranged annularly, but it is unclear to the Examiner if the frustoconical dampers are referencing one or more resilient dampers of each damper ring. Please clarify claim 13. Claim 17 depends from claim 13 and is also indefinite.
Claim 15 claims “collecting the fibres formed”, but fails to claim an active step of forming. The Examiner interprets “providing a mineral melt for formation of man-made vitreous fibers” should be “providing a mineral melt and forming man-made vitreous fibers” to provide antecedent basis for “the fibers formed”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (WO2021/048178A1 – hereinafter Sorensen) and Aizawa (JP2006-137351A).
Regarding claim 1, Sorensen (pg. 1, lines 1-5 and Figs. 1-12) discloses a rotor for a fiberizing apparatus. Sorensen discloses the rotor (Figs. 1 and 8a and pgs. 17-18 and 20) comprising a rotor housing 12; a drive end (DE) 3 having a first bearing assembly 5 (corresponding to a DE bearing assembly) and a non-drive end (NDE) 4 having a second bearing assembly 6 (corresponding to a NDE bearing assembly). Sorensen (Figs. 3-5, pg. 17, lines 25-27 and pg. 18, lines 25) discloses each bearing assembly comprises a plurality of ball bearings (bearings 7) each seated in a respective bearing seat 8. Sorensen (Figs. 1 and 8a, abstract, and pg. 7) discloses a substantially horizontal shaft (“shaft 2”) rotatably mounted between the DE bearing assembly and the NDE bearing assembly. Sorensen (abstract and Figs. 3, 4a, 4b, abstract, pg. 18) discloses a plurality of resilient dampers 11 arranged in an annular ring and each damper 11 connected at a first end to the bearing seat and connected to a second end of an inner wall of the rotor housing for the DE bearing assembly and for the NDE bearing assembly.
Sorensen (pg. 8, lines 1-5) discloses a stiffness for the damper rings (i.e. DE damper ring and the NDE damper ring). However, Sorensen fails to disclose wherein the stiffness of the DE damper ring is greater than the stiffness of the NDE damper ring.
However, Sorensen (pg. 1, line30 to pg. 2, line 7) teaches vibration of the motor mechanics at the DE and NDE during spinning causes significant wear on the bearings seated at each end of the rotor, and teaches the dampers reduce vibrations. Sorensen (pg. 10, lines 11-29) teaches the stiffness of the damping ring affects vibration which reduces wear on the bearings of the rotor. Accordingly, the stiffness of the damping is a prior art recognized result effective variable. Additionally, Aizawa (Figs. 1 and 2, abstract, and pgs. 3-4) teaches the use of a pair of dampers 7a and 7b with a pair of bearings 2a and 2b along a rotating shaft and teaches vibration from an electric motor and teaches dampers of different rigidity values (i.e. stiffness) can be used to suppress the vibration. Both Sorensen and Aizawa teach dampers for reducing vibration and both teach an end with a motor. Accordingly, since there are bearings on the drive end and the non-drive end where vibrations affect the wear on the bearings, as taught by Sorensen, a motor on the drive end of the rotor by Sorensen, a motor end as a source of vibration, as taught by Aizawa, and Aizawa teaches dampers with one end near a drive end (i.e. motor end) and dampers having different stiffness values to suppress vibration from a motor, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the stiffness of the damping rings of Sorensen could be optimized for the drive end (motor end) and the non-drive end with different values to further suppress vibration, such as from a motor, to reduce wear on the bearings. Routine optimization of vibration to reduce bearing wear on the drive end (i.e. end having the motor causing vibration) and the non-drive end, along with the obviousness to have different stiffness values to reduce vibration, as taught by Aizawa, it would be obvious during routine optimization to try the combination of the stiffness of the drive end damper ring is greater than the stiffness of the non-drive end damper ring to reduce vibration and reduce wear on the bearings.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen in view of Aizawa teaches bearings on the drive end (i.e. motor end) and the non-drive end, teaches the stiffness is a result effective variable, dampers at different ends having different values to suppress vibration, and routine optimization of the stiffness along with obviousness to try the combination of the stiffness of the drive end damper ring greater than a stiffness of the non-drive end damper ring to reduce vibration.
Sorensen (pg. 8, lines 1-3) also teaches an embodiment where each damper has the same Shore A hardness of about 55, therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified apparatus of Sorensen, the or each resilient damper having an identical hardness and stiffness in the DE damper ring, and therefore, each resilient damper having an identical hardness and stiffness in the NDE damper ring. Further with each damper having the same hardness and stiffness with each respective damper ring, along with the obviousness to optimize the stiffness, resulting in a stiffness of the drive end damper ring greater than the stiffness of the NDE damper ring, it would obvious the stiffness of the or each resilient damper in the DE damper ring is greater than the stiffness of the or each resilient damper in the NDE damper ring.
Regarding claim 3, a as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen in view of Aizawa teaches bearings on the drive end (i.e. motor end) and the non-drive end, teaches the stiffness is a result effective variable, dampers at different ends having different values to suppress vibration, and routine optimization of the stiffness along with obviousness to try the combination of the stiffness of the drive end damper ring greater than a stiffness of the non-drive end damper ring to reduce vibration.
Additionally, Sorensen (pg. 8, lines 1-3) teaches an embodiment where each damper has the same Shore A hardness, therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified apparatus of Sorensen the or each resilient damper having an identical hardness and stiffness in the DE damper ring, and/or each resilient damper having an identical hardness and stiffness in the NDE damper ring.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (pg. 8, lines 1-5) teaches the stiffness of damper ring (i.e. the NDE and DE damper ring) ranges between 5*105N/m and 106N/m. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified apparatus of Sorensen, the NDE damper ring stiffness ranges between 5*105N/m and 106N/m, which is the same range as embodiment i) claimed in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (pg. 8, lines 1-3) teaches the or each resilient damper in the damper rings (i.e. DE and NDE damper ring) is formed from a material having a Shore A hardness between 40 and 60, or even about 55. Therefore, it would be obvious in the modified apparatus of Sorensen, where the or each damper in the NDE damper ring has a Shore A hardness ranging from 40 to 60, or even about 55, which provides for a hardness of the or each damper in the NDE damper ring having a range overlapping the claimed range of 45 to 65 and a hardness value within the claimed range of 45 to 65.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (pg. 8, lines 10-29) teaches the damper ring stiffness optimized for rotation speeds ranging from 4000 RPM to 13000 RPM. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorensen, wherein the plurality of resistant dampers is adapted for a working rotation speed of the rotor of between about 4000 RPM and 13000 RPM.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (Figs. 5a-5c pg. 19, lines 4-9 line 30-35) discloses the damper shape as frustoconical. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorensen wherein each resilient damper is a frustrum.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (Figs. 1, 3, 4a-4b, 5a-5c, pg. 3, lines 15-19, and pg. 19, lines 4-15) discloses each resilient damper is connected at a first end of the bearing seat and is releasably connected to the inner wall of the rotor housing. Sorenson also discloses the damper shape as frustoconical and illustrates each damper has a greater diameter at the damper face adjacent to the inner wall of the rotor housing and a lesser diameter at the damper face adjacent to the bearing seat. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorensen comprising a plurality of frustoconical resilient dampers where each damper has a greater diameter at the damper face adjacent to the inner wall of the rotor housing and a lesser diameter at the damper face adjacent to the bearing seat.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (pg. 7, lines 30-34) discloses the damper as a rubber damper, silicone damper, or neoprene rubber damper. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorensen, wherein each damper is any of a rubber damper, silicone damper, or neoprene rubber damper.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (Figs. 1, 3, 4a-4b, 5a-5c, and pg. 19, lines 4-15) discloses each resilient damper with a threaded metal screw and the damper is connected to the bearing seat 8 by a screw connection, and each damper comprises a threaded aperture 11c for engagement with a threaded screw or bolt for connecting the damper to the rotor housing. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorenson where each resilient damper has a threaded metal screw and/or the damper is connected to the bearing seat 8 by a screw connection, and/or each damper comprises a threaded aperture 11c for engagement with a threaded screw or bolt for connecting the damper to the rotor housing.
Regarding claims 13, 16, and 17, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (Fig. 3 and pg. 8, line 30 to pg. 9, lines 11) discloses the NDE and DE bearing assemblies comprising 10 and 24 frustoconical dampers arranged annularly equidistant from each other around a substantially annular bearing assembly. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorensen wherein for each damper ring comprises about 10 and about 24 frustoconical dampers as the resilient dampers arranged annularly, as claimed in claim 13, each resilient damper is frustoconical, as claimed in claim 16, and wherein the frustoconical dampers are equidistant from each other around a substantially annular bearing assembly, as claimed in claim 17.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (Figs. 1-2 and pg. 13, lines 21-26) discloses a fiber apparatus comprising a set of at least three rotors, each rotor mounted for rotation about a differently substantially horizontal axis and arranged, such that when the rotors are rotating, melt poured on a periphery of the first rotor in the set is thrown successively onto the periphery of each of the subsequent rotors and fibers and thrown off from the rotors. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorensen provides for a set of at two rotors according to claim 1, wherein each rotor is mounted for rotation about a differently substantially horizontal axis and arranged, such that when the rotors are rotating, melt poured on a periphery of the first rotor in the set is thrown successively onto the periphery of each of the subsequent rotors and fibers and thrown off from the rotors.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Sorensen (Figs. 1-2 and pg.14, line 28 to pg. 15, line 1) Sorenson discloses the present invention provides a method of manufacture
of man-made vitreous fibres (MMVF) comprising: providing a fiberising apparatus comprising a set of at least three rotors as described herein, each mounted for rotation about a different substantially horizontal axis, wherein each rotor has a drive means; rotating the rotors; providing a mineral melt for formation of man-made vitreous fibres (MMVF) wherein the melt is poured on to the periphery of the first rotor; collecting the fibres formed. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Sorensen in a method for manufacturing MMVF comprising: providing a fiberizing apparatus comprising at least two rotors, modified as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, each mounted for rotation about a different substantially horizontal axis, wherein each rotor has a drive means; rotating the rotors; providing a mineral melt for formation (i.e. forming) of man-made vitreous fibres (MMVF) wherein the melt is poured on to the periphery of the first rotor; and collecting the fibres formed, as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter discussed below.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, as stated in the prior art rejections above, the closest prior art of Sorensen (pg. 8, lines 1-3) teaches the Shore A of the or each resilient damper in the damper rings (i.e. DE and NDE damper ring) is formed from a material having a Shore A hardness between 40 and 60, or even about 55. Therefore, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the claimed structure of the rotor of claim 1 with the specificity of the stiffness of the drive end damper ring is greater than the stiffness of the non-drive end damper ring by a factor in the range of 3 to 7, as claimed in claim 4, and fails to disclose or suggest the or each resilient damper in the drive end (DE) damper ring is formed from a material which has a Shore A hardness in the range of 75 to 100, as claimed in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights