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 1-26 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.
The term “compact” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “compact” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what volume is the compact configuration.
Since claims 2-26 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the high flow circuitous path" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleissner (US 3,476,367).
Fleissner discloses a high performance through-air apparatus 1 comprising: a through-air roll 2 configured for rotational movement about a first axis 11; a high flow circuitous air path (see air flow arrow in Figs. 2-3) inside of the apparatus that includes a path extending through a supply conduit (Figs. 2-3, between 8 and 9), through the through-air roll 2, and also through an exhaust conduit (Figs. 2-3, between roll 2, through fan 3 and to the supply conduit formed between 8 and 9); a plurality of turning vanes 10 positioned within the high flow circuitous path positioned to guide the flow of air through the apparatus 1 (Fig. 2); wherein the through-air apparatus has a length, a width, a height (Figs. 1-3), which together define a volume having a compact configuration; and wherein the high flow circuitous air path inside of the apparatus has a length (Fig. 2). However, Fleissner does not expressly disclose the ratio of the volume of the through-air apparatus to the length of the high flow circuitous air path is less than 20 m2 (claim 1), less than 10m2 (claim 15). It appears that the device of Fleissner would operate equally well with the claimed ratio since applicant has not disclosed that the range claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (specification page 10, lines 6-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the apparatus of Fleissner to have a ratio of the volume of the through-air apparatus to the length of the high flow circuitous air path is less than 20 m2 , less than 15 m2 because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Fleissner. For example, assuming that the cross-machine direction length of the apparatus of Fleissner is about 10 m (approximately the same as the length of the embodiment of the current application as shown in Fig. 11), the apparatus of Fleissner is approximately a cube, i.e., each of the length, width and height of the apparatus is 10 m, the volume of the apparatus is 1000 m3. As shown in Fig. 2 of Fleissner, two rectangular air flow path (Fig. 2, one above and one below shaft 11) are formed within the apparatus 1, each with a length of the air path about 9 m and width about 4.5 m. Therefore the total air path length for each air flow path is 9m + 4.5m + 9m +4.5m=27m and total air flow path length for two rectangular air flow path is 54m. The ratio of the volume of the apparatus to the length of the air path is 1000 m3 ÷54m=18.5 m2 which is within the claimed range of less than 20 m2.
For claim 3. Fleissner discloses wherein the through-air roll 2 has a single exhaust end (Fig. 2, at 3) which is coupled to the exhaust conduit.
For claim 5, Fleissner discloses wherein the first axis 11 is substantially parallel to the length of the through-air apparatus (Figs. 1-2).
For claim 6, Fleissner discloses wherein the supply conduit of the high flow circuitous air path inside of the apparatus is bifurcated to include a first supply conduit positioned on a right side of the through-air apparatus, and a second supply conduit positioned on a left side of the through-air apparatus (view while turning Fig. 2 90 degrees clockwise).
For claim 7, Fleissner discloses wherein the exhaust conduit is interposed between the first supply conduit and the second supply conduit (Fig. 2).
For claim 8, Fleissner discloses wherein the second supply conduit is a mirror image of the first supply conduit (Fig. 2).
For claim 9, Fleissner discloses wherein the first supply conduit positioned on the right side of the through-air apparatus includes a first set of turning vanes 10 configures to turn the air path, and a second set of turning vanes 10 configured to turn the air path (view while turning Fig. 2 90 degrees clockwise).
For claim 10, Fleissner discloses wherein the second supply conduit positioned on the left side of the through-air apparatus includes a third set of turning vanes 10 configures to turn the air path, and a fourth set of turning vanes 10 configured to turn the air path (view while turning Fig. 2 90 degrees clockwise).
For claim 11, Fleissner discloses wherein the first and second set of turning vanes are each configured to turn the air path at least approximately 90° within the first supply conduit (Fig. 2).
For claim 17, Fleissner discloses wherein the apparatus has a substantially cubic shape (Figs. 1-3).
Claims 2, 12-14, 18-19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleissner (US 3,476,367) in view of Bohn (US 2014/0223765 A1).
The high performance through-air apparatus of Fleissner as above includes all that is recited in claims 2, 12 except for further comprising one or more flow straighteners/static mixers positioned within the high flow circuitous path positioned to guide the flow of air through the apparatus. Bohn discloses a flow straightener/static mixers positioned within the high flow circuitous path to guide the flow of air through the apparatus (paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fleissner to include one or more flow straighteners/static mixers positioned within the high flow circuitous path positioned to guide the flow of air through the apparatus as taught by Bohn in order to effective in reducing disturbances in a flow. With regard to claims 13-14, Bohn discloses wherein the exhaust conduit 40 further comprises a heating source 38, wherein the one or more flow straighteners are positioned adjacent the heating source (Figs. 3-5,paragraph [0072]); wherein the exhaust conduit 40 further comprises a heating source 38, wherein the exhaust conduit further comprises a plurality of mixing plates (paragraph [0073]) adjacent the heating source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fleissner to include a heating source, wherein the one or more flow straighteners are positioned adjacent the heating source; wherein the exhaust conduit further comprises a heating source, wherein the exhaust conduit further comprises a plurality of mixing plates adjacent the heating source as taught by Bohn in order to improve the system operation efficiency.
For claims 18-19, Bohn discloses the apparatus further comprising an extraction conduit (Fig. 3, conduit connects 30 to 36) in fluid communication with the high flow circuitous air path, wherein the extraction conduit is configured to extract air inside of the apparatus to atmosphere (Fig. 3, thru 32); wherein the extraction conduit is positioned proximate the exhaust conduit 30 (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fleissner to include an extraction conduit in fluid communication with the high flow circuitous air path, wherein the extraction conduit is configured to extract air inside of the apparatus to atmosphere; wherein the extraction conduit is positioned proximate the exhaust conduit as taught by Bohn in order to release the exhaust to atmosphere.
With regard to claim 24, Bohn discloses at least one of a fan 42 and a damper within the high flow circuitous air path configured to control the rate of air flow through the apparatus (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fleissner to include at least one of a fan or a damper within the high flow circuitous air path configured to control the rate of air flow through the apparatus as taught by Bohn in order to improve the air circulation efficiency.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleissner (US 3,476,367) in view of Spooner (US 2,065,032).
The high performance through-air apparatus of Fleissner as above includes all that is recited in claim 4 except for the apparatus having a panelized construction comprising a plurality of panels assembled together to form the through-air apparatus. Spooner discloses a high performance through-air apparatus 1 having a panelized construction comprising a plurality of panels 2 assembled together to form the through-air apparatus (page 1, right column, line 54 to page 2, left column, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fleissner to include a panelized construction comprising a plurality of panels assembled together to form the through-air apparatus as taught by Spooner in order to facilitate the assembling the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 20-23, 25-26, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the primary reason for allowance of claims 16, 20-22, 25-26 is the inclusion of the limitations “a cart configured to receive the through-air roll, wherein the cart has a plurality of wheels, wherein the cart and through-air roll are configured to slide into the through-air apparatus” in claim 16; “wherein the extraction conduit includes a bifurcated conduit which includes … a second outlet configured for inspection of inside of the apparatus” in claim 20; “a diverter in the extraction conduit, wherein the diverter is extendable and retractable into the exhaust conduit to aid in the control the amount of air that is extracted to atmosphere” in claim 22; “a plurality of turning vanes positioned within the extraction conduit to guide the flow of air through the extraction conduit” in claim 23; and “an external support system coupled to the supply conduit and the exhaust conduit. wherein the external support system is configured to secure the supply conduit and the exhaust conduit to a ground surface, and wherein all load bearing surfaces from the supply conduit and the exhaust conduit to the external support system are in a common horizontal plane” in claim 25 in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herman et al. (US 2006/0085998 A1) discloses a through-air apparatus having compact size (paragraph [0143]) and comprises roller 9 (Fig. 1). .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY