Detailed Action
The communications received 04/07/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-11 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detection unit” in claim 6 which is tied to a photocoupler or its functional equivalent as suggested in paragraph 00106 of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2019/0381690) hereinafter WAT in view of Higuchi et al (US 2017/0066613) hereinafter HIG and Powell (US 2,973,798 A) hereinafter POW.
As for claim 1, WAT teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing a sheet from a material containing a fiber [Abstract], the sheet manufacturing apparatus comprising:
an accumulation unit configured to accumulate the material by using airflow to form a web [Fig. 1 #18; 0021];
a transport unit configured to transport the web [Fig. 1 #29; 0021];
and a pressing unit configured to press the web to form the sheet [Fig. 1 #20; 0022], wherein the accumulation unit includes:
a drum member configured to stir the material [Fig. 1 #181; 0068-69];
an accumulation belt on which the material discharged from the drum member is accumulated [Fig. 1 #191; 0074];
a first suction unit disposed on an opposite side of the accumulation belt from the drum member and configured to perform suction to accumulate the material on the accumulation belt [Fig. 1 #193; 0093]; and
a first frame on which the accumulation belt and the first suction unit are installed (on a lower panel of the frame) [Fig. 1 #222; 0100-101],
the transport unit includes:
a transport belt configured to come into contact with a first surface of the web to hold the web [Fig. 1 #191];
the transport belt is also installed on the frame [0100].
WAT additionally teaches a second and third frame (First fixing frame and third fixing frame) [Fig. 1 #212, 232; 0097; 0105].
WAT does not teach that the transport unit includes a second suction unit disposed above the transport belt and configured to perform suction to hold the web by suction; and
an eccentric cam is disposed between the first frame and the second frame, and
a position of the second frame with respect to the first frame is changed by rotation of the eccentric cam.
HIG teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus [Abstract] which includes a transport unit [Fig. 1 #40; 0038]. The transport unit includes a suction unit [Fig. 1 #43; 0038-40] and is used to transport the web to the pressing section [Fig. 1 #40 to #50; 0037].
In accordance with the MPEP a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the transport unit of WAT with the one of HIG as this would amount to a simple substitution of transport units with the expected result of transporting the web to the press section. As both WAT and HIG pertain to sheet manufacturing apparatuses and since both transport units pull from the accumulation belts [HIG: Fig. 1 #79 to #40 and WAT: Fig. 1 #19 to #29] they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the substitution.
As it pertains to the transport unit with its second suction unit and belt being affixed to the second frame, in accordance with the MPEP, a rearrangement of parts is a legal precedent rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have affixed the transport unit with its second suction unit and belt onto the second frame as this would have amounted to a rearrangement of parts which is a legal precedent rationale of obviousness.
WAT/HIG fails to teach an eccentric cam is disposed between the first frame and the second frame, and
a position of the second frame with respect to the first frame is changed by rotation of the eccentric cam.
POW teaches that when transporting continuous materials between and upper and lower roller sets [Fig. 4 #29] that one manner of maintaining appropriate spacing including when there is a machine malfunction is by using eccentric cams, camshafts, and bearings which distance the frame elements (blocks) which are attached to the rollers via rotation of the cams [Fig. 4 and 7 #93-99; col. 5 l. 4-62; col. 6 l. 63-col. 7 l. 5].
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 eccentric cams and drives of POW to the frames of WAT/HIG in order to control the distance between the first and second frame in order to achieve the desired operating distance of the transport unit and accumulation unit rollers even when there is a machine malfunction. As both POW and WAT/HIG pertain to using rollers to transport continuous material it is understood that they both address the same problem of transporting continuous material using roller-based devices and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 2, WAT/HIG/POW teach claim 1 and further teaches that the geared elements can be driven with a drive motor [POW: Fig. 3 #46 and 48; col. 3 l. 15-25].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the drive motor to drive the cams of the combination. As the drive motors are used to drive other gears and cams, one of ordinary skill in the art expects success.
As for claim 3, WAT/HIG/POW teach claim 1 and wherein the second frame is configured to be moved up from a first position with respect to eh first frame to a second position that is higher than the first position by rotation of the eccentric cam (as it is understood in the combination that the distance can be changed via rotational driving of the cams which includes the relative height of the second frame to the first) [see claim 1]. The movement itself is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 4, WAT/HIG/POW teach claim 3 and wherein the second frame is configured to be moved down from the second position to the first position by rotation of the eccentric cam (as it is understood in the combination that the distance can be changed via rotational driving of the cams which includes the relative height of the second frame to the first) [see claim 1]. The movement itself is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 5 the relative positioning of one position versus another is merely a manner of operating the claimed device which does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 7, WAT/HIG/POW teach claim 1 and further comprising a humidifying unit facing the transport belt and configured to apply moisture to a second surface of the web (as it is below the detangler #18 which in the context of figure 1 suggests that it is most likely on the opposite side of the web, therefore facing the transport belt) [WAT: 0079]
As for claim 8, WAT/HIG/POW teach claim 3 and “when a front end of the web is held by suction on the transport belt the second frame is position at the first position” is understood to be a manner of operating the claimed device which does not distinguish the claims over the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claims 9-11, WAT/HIG/POW teach claim 7 and the limitations “whereinafter the web is held by suction on the transport belt, the eccentric cam is rotated to move up the second frame from a first position to a second position before a front end of the web passes over the humidifying unit.”
“The sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein after a front end of the web passes over the humidifying unit, the eccentric cam is rotated to move down the second frame from a second position to a first position.”
and
“The sheet manufacturing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein when the web is torn off, the eccentric cam is rotated to move up the second frame from the first position to the second position.” Are all manners of operating the claimed device which does not distinguish the claims over the prior art [MPEP 2114].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2019/0381690) hereinafter WAT in view of Higuchi et al (US 2017/0066613) hereinafter HIG and Powell (US 2,973,798 A) hereinafter POW as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Reed et al (US 6,382,044) hereinafter REE.
As for claim 6, WAT/HIG/POW teach claim 1 and the eccentric cam has a protrusion (their shapes protrude from the central axis) [POW: Fig. 4 #98 and 106]. But does not teach a detection unit.
REE teaches that one manner of providing to control to a cam driven element in a more generalizable manner and aiding in diagnostics (as it appears to be a part of the diagnostic circuitry) is via providing a detection unit (position sensor with a probe) [Fig. 1 #30; col. 5 l. 15-19] that detects a protrusion (U shaped ramp) from the cam [col. 5 l. 59-67].
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 detection unit of and protrusion of REE to the cam of WAT/HIG/POW in order to allow for the controlling of a cam in a more generalizable manner and to aid in diagnostics of the machine. As both WAT/HIG/POW and REE address the operation of a cam, they are addressing a similar issue and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to REE for solutions to cam control in WAT/HIG/POW. As it pertains to the home position. That limitation is a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the claims from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
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
Prosecution Insights