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 § 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 2 and 5 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 2 recites the limitation "the cylindrical container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Higuchi et al, US Patent Publication 2020/002894.
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi teaches a sheet manufacturing apparatus (see abstract) comprising:
a powdered-and-granular-material supply unit that supplies powdered and granular material (additive supply unit [0103]);
a mixing unit (item 50) that mixes fibers and the supplied powdered and granular material to form a mixture [0098-0110];
a deposition unit that deposits the mixture to form a web [0112]; and
a forming unit that compresses the web to form the web into a sheet [0064], wherein the powdered-and-granular-material supply unit includes a holding unit that detachably holds a container (additive cartridge [0103]) configured to store the powdered and granular material, a powdered-and-granular-material tank that receives the powdered and granular material discharged from the container [0103], and
a screw that conveys the powdered and granular material in the powdered-and-granular-material tank outward from the powdered-and-granular-material supply unit [0161].
Regarding claim 3, Higuchi further teaches a supply pipe communicating with the powdered-and-granular-material tank and connected to the mixing unit (item 54 [0161-0170]), wherein a part of the screw is disposed in the powdered-and- granular-material tank [0161], one end of the screw is disposed in the supply pipe (see figure 1), and the powdered and granular material in the powdered-and-granular-material tank is supplied to the mixing unit through the supply pipe by rotation of the screw [0161].
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi further teaches the use of a control unit (item 110) that utilizes stored tables to make adjustments to all of the different elements [0151] including the addition of additives form the supply through activation and modification of the feeder [0162-0163]. Higuchi is silent on the sue of a sensor unit, but the presence of storage tables to compare values against to enact chares by the controller provides an implicit teaching that the measurements must be taken in order for them to be compared. This would have to occur with some form of sensor unit, and since the claims do not specify what type of sensor or its location or function, the implicit teaching of a sensory unit is sufficient to read on the claims as currently written.
Regarding claim 6, Higuchi further teaches the use of controlling the speed and movement of the screw in order to feed the material form supply into the mixing unit [0162], reading on the limitations of an auger screw.
Regarding claim 7, Higuchi further teaches wherein the number of revolutions per unit time is determined according to manufacturing conditions of the sheet [0162].
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) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0002894 in view of Scott et al, US Patent publication 2015/0131406.
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi further teaches wherein the powdered-and-granular-material tank includes a first storage tank that stores the powdered and granular material fallen from the cylindrical container (item 52),
a second storage tank (item 52a is a supply unit [0161]) that stores the powdered and granular material swept out of the first storage tank [0161], and
the screw conveys the powdered and granular material outward from the second storage tank (screw feeder [0161]).
Higuchi teaches the act of controlling the metering of the materials into the feeder but is simply silent on the use of a paddle that sweeps out the powdered and granular material from the first storage tank.
In the same field of endeavor of controlling the metering of materials out of a storage tank, Scott teaches that the first powder supply consists of a hopper that includes a paddle to rotate and move the powder into the powder supply passage [0048] as it is eventually fed to the auger feeder system [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the conventional means of powder transportations within a holding device with a sweeping paddle as taught by Scott in the Higuchi device as this is a simple addition of a known element to arrive at a predictable end result of controlling the movement of the powder through the hopper and into the screw in a conventional fashion.
Regarding claim 5, Scott remains as applied above and teaches that the ratio of length of the paddle to length of the first storage tank is 50% or more and 100% or less in a direction parallel to an axis around which the paddle rotates (see figures as the paddle is held within the hopper and transported directly into the screw feeder).
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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 19/336584, 19/183977, and 15/768276 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the intimations are identical except for the copending applications do not have the same explicit positioning of the screw feeder and simply focus on the concept of its inclusion. The use and positioning of the screw feeder is an obvious engineering action in view of the teachings of feeding the powder form the supply to the mixer as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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