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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a first moveable plane (11) and a first mobile plane (11). Applicant should use the same term for the same feature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term minimize is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim term(s) or limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the heating means and the motor means in claims 1-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9-11 are 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. Claims 9 and 11 have been amended to depend from claim 1 which requires: when the first detector (104) detects the presence of a portion of a ceramic product coming from the first mobile plane (11), the control module is provided to activate the first mobile plane (11) and the second mobile plane (103) at a same first speed. However, claims 9 and 11 require when the ceramic product completely or at least partially abandons the first mobile plane (11), activating the inlet segment (106) and the second mobile plane (103) at the second advancement speed, greater than the first advancement speed. Claim 1 requires the second plane to be going at the same speed as the first plane at the time the presence of a portion of a ceramic produce is partially abandoning the first plane. Whereas claims 9 and 11 require the second mobile plane to be traveling at the second, greater speed at this same period in time in conflict with the above limitations of claim 1. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marazzi (US 4,009,993) in view of Raque (US 2005/0072655).
As for claim 1, Marazzi discloses a dryer for ceramic products comprising: a casing that encloses a drying chamber (22, fig. 4); one or more drying channels (fig. 4 tunnel illustrated enclosing conveyor 52), contained in the drying chamber (22), each of which comprises a first movable plane (22a), equipped with a motor means (rollers 52 necessitate motor means), provided to transport the ceramic products along a main direction (along 52); a heating means, provided to heat the drying chamber (6:12-19); one or more outlet channels, contained in the drying chamber, each of which is aligned with a respective drying channel along the respective main direction (52, 22a-22b) and comprises a second mobile plane, equipped with a motor means, aligned along the main direction to a respective mobile plane of a drying channel (52, 22c-22d, rollers change speed), wherein the motor means of each first mobile plane can be activated independently from the motor means of the second mobile plane (5:20-36, rollers of varying speed requires independent control) with which it is aligned; a control module, provided to regulate the advancement speed of the first mobile plane and of the second mobile plane (5:20-36); wherein for each second mobile plane a first detector is provided, connected to the control module, which is provided to detect the presence of a portion of a ceramic product at an inlet section of the second mobile plane, and to process a corresponding signal (5:20-36).
Marazzi discloses the claimed invention except for a first mobile plane and a second mobile plane; and when the first detector detects the presence of a portion of a product coming from the first mobile plane, the control module is provided to activate the first mobile plane and the second mobile plane at a same first speed; when the first detector does not detect the presence of a portion of a ceramic product, the control module is provided to activate the second mobile plane at a second speed, greater than the first speed, up to the outlet of the product from the outlet channel. Raque teaches a first mobile plane and a second mobile plane [0009]; and when the first detector detects the presence of a portion of a product coming from the first mobile plane, the control module is provided to activate the first mobile plane and the second mobile plane at a same first speed ([0009], baseline speed); when the first detector does not detect the presence of a portion of a ceramic product, the control module is provided to activate the second mobile plane at a second speed, greater than the first speed, up to the outlet of the product from the outlet channel [0009] in order to control the spacing and/or positioning of the component pieces on a given transporter to ensure adequate processing of the component pieces. Marazzi would benefit equally from controlling the spacing and/or positioning of the component pieces on a given transporter to ensure adequate processing of the component pieces. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Marazzi with a first mobile plane and a second mobile plane; and when the first detector detects the presence of a portion of a product coming from the first mobile plane, the control module is provided to activate the first mobile plane and the second mobile plane at a same first speed; when the first detector does not detect the presence of a portion of a ceramic product, the control module is provided to activate the second mobile plane at a second speed, greater than the first speed, up to the outlet of the product from the outlet channel as taught by Raque in order to control the spacing and/or positioning of the component pieces on a given transporter to ensure adequate processing of the component pieces.
As for claim 2, Marazzi discloses the claimed invention except for the control module is provided to regulate the advancement speed of each first mobile plane and of each second mobile plane so as to minimise the time necessary for a ceramic product to cross the respective outlet channel and to exit from the drying chamber. Raque teaches the control module is provided to regulate the advancement speed of each first mobile plane and of each second mobile plane so as to minimise the time necessary for a ceramic product to cross the respective outlet channel and to exit from the drying chamber [0009] in order to control the spacing and/or positioning of the component pieces on a given transporter to ensure adequate processing of the component pieces. Marazzi would benefit equally from controlling the spacing and/or positioning of the component pieces on a given transporter to ensure adequate processing of the component pieces. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Marazzi with the control module is provided to regulate the advancement speed of each first mobile plane and of each second mobile plane so as to minimise the time necessary for a ceramic product to cross the respective outlet channel and to exit from the drying chamber as taught by Raque in order to control the spacing and/or positioning of the component pieces on a given transporter to ensure adequate processing of the component pieces.
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marazzi in view of Raque as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Coen (US 9,027,738).
Marazzi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each second mobile plane comprises an inlet segment, arranged consecutively to a respective first mobile plane, structured to enable the free sliding of the ceramic products; each second mobile plane comprises an inlet segment, arranged consecutively to a respective first mobile plane, structured to enable the free sliding of the ceramic products; wherein the inlet segment comprises one or more idle rollers. Coen teaches wherein each second mobile plane comprises an inlet segment, arranged consecutively to a respective first mobile plane, structured to enable the free sliding of the ceramic products (130, fig. 1) each second mobile plane comprises an inlet segment, arranged consecutively to a respective first mobile plane, structured to enable the free sliding of the ceramic products (100, fig. 1); wherein the inlet segment comprises one or more idle rollers (135, fig. 1, abstract) in order to provide an inertial run of transported object when transferring from a first conveying belt to a second conveying belt. Marazzi would benefit equally from providing an inertial run of transported object when transferring from a first conveying belt to a second conveying belt. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Marazzi with wherein each second mobile plane comprises an inlet segment, arranged consecutively to a respective first mobile plane, structured to enable the free sliding of the ceramic products; each second mobile plane comprises an inlet segment, arranged consecutively to a respective first mobile plane, structured to enable the free sliding of the ceramic products; wherein the inlet segment comprises one or more idle rollers as taught by Coen in order to provide an inertial run of transported object when transferring from a first conveying belt to a second conveying belt.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marazzi in view of Raque as applied to claim 1.
Marazzi discloses photoelectric sensors to control conveyor speed (5:20-36) but not expressly disclose for each second mobile plane, an outlet detector is provided, for detecting the presence of a portion of a ceramic product at an outlet section of the second mobile plane, and for processing a corresponding signal. However Raque teaches for each first mobile plane, an outlet detector is provided, for detecting the presence of a portion of a product at an outlet section of the first mobile plane, and for processing a corresponding signal [0009] but not for each second mobile plane, an outlet detector is provided, for detecting the presence of a portion of a ceramic product at an outlet section of the second mobile plane, and for processing a corresponding signal. However the Raque sensor placement is used in the same manner for the same purpose as applicant except the sensor is targeted at the exit of first mobile plane. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Marazzi and taught by Raque with for each second mobile plane, an outlet detector is provided, for detecting the presence of a portion of a ceramic product at an outlet section of the second mobile plane, and for processing a corresponding signal because doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as an obvious rearrangement of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 4 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the inlet segment is equipped with a motor means that can be activated by the control module independently with respect to the motor means of the first and of the second mobile plane with all of the limitations of independent claim1 and claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762