Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/824,100

HEATING DEVICE FOR CALENDER CYLINDERS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 25, 2022
Examiner
TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES
Art Unit
3700
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Pht - Petrelli Heating Technologies S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
222 granted / 312 resolved
+1.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
569 currently pending
Career history
881
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 312 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 1-6 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 scope and subject matter of claim 1 is not definite. It is not definite what is meant by “a core cylinder arranged coaxially in a cylinder adapted to support a plurality of heating elements, said core cylinder and said cylinder adapted to support said heating elements being configured to be accommodated in a fixed manner within a rotating calender cylinder”. It is not definite if both the core cylinder and the cylinder are adapted to support said heating elements. It is also not definite if the plurality of heater elements and rotating calender cylinder are actually part of the claim scope as elements of the claim. In claim 3, it is not definite what is meant by “said cylinder adapted to support the heating elements is fixed to said core cylinder so as to be able to have sliding as a consequence of dilation”. In particular, it is not definite what “…so as to be able to have sliding as a consequence of dilation” refers to or whether this recitation is structural, functional or intended use. The scope and subject matter of claim 6 is not definite. It is not definite what claim 6 is claiming beyond what is already claimed in claim 1, which claim 6 depends from. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As best understood, claim 6 only recites subject matter already recited in claim 1, which claim 6 depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6137087 A to Tomatsu (“Tomatsu”). Tomatsu discloses: Regarding claim 1, as best understood: a heating device for calender cylinders, comprising a core cylinder (e.g., pressing body 103b, pressure resilient body 36 is a hollow tube) arranged coaxially in a cylinder (e.g., layer 35) adapted to support a plurality of heating elements (e.g., heating member 113, sections/patterns of thermal layer 34 and heat generating layer 55 such as patterns A to D) (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and Fig. 7-8 and 12 and col 1-2 and col 9-10), said core cylinder and said cylinder adapted to support said heating elements being configured to be accommodated in a fixed manner within a rotating calender cylinder (e.g., roller 110, roller body 31) (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and Fig. 7-8 and col 1-2 and col 9-10), wherein said core cylinder has an inlet (e.g., opening of the hollow tube of body 36) for a passage of air which is adapted to make air flow and gather inside said core cylinder (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and Fig. 7-8 and col 1-2 and col 9-10); Regarding claim 3, as best understood: the heating device according to claim 1, wherein said cylinder adapted to support the heating elements is fixed to said core cylinder so as to be able to have sliding as a consequence of dilation (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and Fig. 7-12 and col 1-2 and col 9-10); Regarding claim 5, as best understood: the heating device according to claim 1, further comprising an outlet (e.g., opening of the hollow tube of body 36) for venting of the air (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and Fig. 7-12 and col 1-2 and col 9-10); and Regarding claim 6, as best understood: a rotating calender cylinder, comprising, fixed inside it, a heating device (e.g., thermal layer 34 and heat generating layer 55) according to claim 1 (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and Fig. 7-12 and col 1-2 and col 9-10). To the extent that it may be argued that a single embodiment does not disclose all of the claimed subject matter, such as a plurality of heating elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Fig. 1 embodiment by the Fig. 12 embodiment in order to produce a uniform heat across the entire outer peripheral surface of the thermal roller. Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu in view of US 5821498 A to Niskanen et al. (“Niskanen”). Tomatsu discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above. Tomatsu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of holes arranged with a decreasing pitch (as recited in claim 2) or slots (as recited in claim 4). However, Niskanen discloses: Regarding claim 2, as best understood: the calender cylinder heating device according to claim 1, wherein said core cylinder has, on an outer surface (e.g., an outer surface of Niskanen comprising the surface of axle 11 and mantle 12), a plurality of holes (e.g., holes 1, ducts 16, rooves 21) arranged with a decreasing pitch (e.g., Fig. 2-5 and col 3, ln 35-65, col 6, ln 8-65 and col 7, ln 1-51); and Regarding claim 4, as best understood: the heating device according to claim 1, wherein said core cylinder comprises slots (e.g., grooves 21) for the passage of the cables (e.g., Fig. 3-5 and col 6, ln 8-65 and col 7, ln 1-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Tomatsu as suggested and taught by Niskanen in order to equalize the temperatures in the roll mantle. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours. 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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. /ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 August 22, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12350762
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HEIGHT CONTROL IN LASER METAL DEPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12349847
MOP HEAD AND SELF-WRINGING MOP APPARATUS AND ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF WRINGING A MOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12352306
Workpiece Support For A Thermal Processing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12350227
BUBBLE MASSAGE FLOAT APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12343473
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATING HYPERAROUSAL DISORDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 312 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month