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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claim 1, lines 4-6, states “with conveying means for conveying the material and with upper and lower nozzle boxes arranged transversely to the conveying direction, which extend over the width of the conveying means between the partition walls”
Prong 1: The term “means” is used in the above phrase.
Prong 2: The term “means” features functional language, “means for”.
Prong 3: There is not sufficient structure modifying the term “means for” and is only modified by the verb conveying without further description.
Interpretation: A review of the specification has shown that the Applicant is using “means for conveying” to read on rollers and therefore the aforementioned claim language will be treated as rollers or the like.
Claim 1, lines 10-13, states “wherein that adjustable baffle plates are provided at least on the first partition wall, by means of which the inflow openings of the upper and lower nozzle boxes can be adjusted.”
Prong 1: The term “means” is used in the phrase above.
Prong 2: The term “means” features functional language as “by means of” however a second interpretation appears to be calling back to the adjustable baffle plates.
Prong 3: The term means appears to be directed back towards the adjustable baffle plates which is sufficient structure being presented.
Interpretation: The three prongs are not met and therefore this instance of “means” will not be treated under 112f and recall to the adjustable baffle plates.
Claim 7, lines 2-3, states “wherein openings or doors are provided in the outer housing, by means of which the adjusting plates are adjustable mechanically.”
Prong 1: The term “means” is present.
Prong 2: The term “means” features functional language as “by means of” however a second interpretation appears to be calling back to the openings or doors.
Prong 3: The term appears to be directed back to the openings or doors being introduced in claim 7 which seems to be sufficient structure being presented.
Interpretation: The three prongs are not met and therefore this instance of “means” will not be treated under 112f and recall to the openings or doors.
Claim 8, lines 2-4, states “wherein the adjusting plates are adjustable by means of a transmission.”
Prong 1: The term “means” is present.
Prong 2: The term “means” features functional language “means of”.
Prong 3: The functional language “means of” is directed towards a transmission and this term while very broad in definition is sufficient structure for performing the means of adjusting an adjustable plate.
Interpretation: The three prongs are not met due to the provided structure in Prong 3 and the “means of” in claim 8 will be directed towards the claimed transmission or the like.
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 1-11 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 1 is replete with antecedent basis issues that cause indefinite issues for the examiner. A copy of the claim will be provided with the suggested amendments for the antecedent basis however the Examiner requests the Applicant to reread their claims in full to ensure all instances of antecedent basis are addressed.
“having a plurality of tiers, having an outer housing and an inner housing separated from the outer housing, with conveying means for conveying the material and with a plurality of upper and lower nozzle boxes arranged transversely to [[the]] a conveying direction, which extend over [[the]] a width of the conveying means between [[the]] a plurality of partition walls, wherein the plurality of upper and lower nozzle boxes each [having] have an inflow opening at one end associated with [[the]] a first partition wall and being closed at the other end associated with [[the]] a second partition wall, and the plurality of upper and lower nozzle boxes being provided with nozzle openings for blowing drying air at least onto one side of the material passing through, wherein a plurality of adjustable baffle plates are provided at least on the first partition wall, by means of which the inflow openings of the plurality of upper and lower nozzle boxes can be adjusted.”
Claim 2 states “wherein the adjusting plates” where the Examiner is unclear which adjusting plates are being referred back to. Claim 1 recites the use of adjustable baffle plates and the Examiner is unclear if these are same components. A review of the specification has shown that the adjustable baffle plates and the adjusting plates are the same. For claim interpretation purposes, the phrase “wherein the adjusting plates” will be treated as “wherein the plurality of adjustable baffle plates ”.
Claim 3 states “wherein the openings to the respective upper and lower nozzle boxes are adjustable jointly by the adjusting plates per level.” This claim features multiple antecedent basis issues involving the openings, the adjustable plates, and nozzle boxes which lead to clarity issues for the Examiner. For examination purses, claim 3 will be interpreted as follows, “wherein [[the]] a plurality of openings to [[the]] a respective upper and lower nozzle boxes are adjustable jointly by the plurality of adjustable baffle plates per level.”
Claim 4 states “wherein the cross-sections of the inflow openings of the nozzle boxes are fixable from above by the adjustment of the adjusting plates.” This claim features multiple antecedent basis issues involving the cross-sections, the adjustable plates, and nozzle boxes which lead to clarity issues for the Examiner. For examination purses, claim 4 will be interpreted as follows, “wherein [[the]] a plurality of cross-sections of the inflow openings of the plurality of nozzle boxes are fixable from above by the adjustment of the plurality of adjustable baffle plates .”
Claim 5 states “the adjusting plates” where the Examiner is unclear which adjusting plates are being referred back to. Claim 1 recites the use of adjustable baffle plates and the Examiner is unclear if these are same components. A review of the specification has shown that the adjustable baffle plates and the adjusting plates are the same. For claim interpretation purposes, the phrase “the adjusting plates” will be treated as “the plurality of adjustable baffle plates ”.
Claim 6 states “the adjusting plates” where the Examiner is unclear which adjusting plates are being referred back to. Claim 1 recites the use of adjustable baffle plates and the Examiner is unclear if these are same components. A review of the specification has shown that the adjustable baffle plates and the adjusting plates are the same. For claim interpretation purposes, the phrase “the adjusting plates” will be treated as “the plurality of adjustable baffle plates ”.
Claim 7 states “wherein openings or doors are provided in the outer housing, by means of which the adjusting plates are adjustable mechanically.” This claim features multiple antecedent basis issues involving the newly set forth openings, doors, and the recurring adjusting plates which lead to clarity issues for the Examiner. . For examination purses, claim 6 will be interpreted as follows, “wherein a plurality of openings or a plurality of doors are provided in the outer housing, by means of which the plurality of adjustable baffle plates are adjustable mechanically.”
Claim 8 states “the adjusting plates are adjustable by means of a transmission” where the Examiner is unclear which adjusting plates are being referred back to. Claim 1 recites the use of adjustable baffle plates and the Examiner is unclear if these are same components. A review of the specification has shown that the adjustable baffle plates and the adjusting plates are the same. For claim interpretation purposes, the phrase “the adjusting plates” will be treated as “the plurality of adjustable baffle plates ”.
Claim 9 states “wherein sensors for measuring the drying effect of the drying air are present and that the adjusting plates are adjustable in such a way that the drying effect is evened out on all levels.” This claim features multiple antecedent basis issues involving the sensors, drying effect, and the adjustable plates which lead to clarity issues for the Examiner. For examination purses, claim 9 will be interpreted as follows, “wherein a plurality of sensors for measuring [[the]] a drying effect of the drying air are present and that the plurality of adjustable baffle plates are adjustable in such a way that the drying effect is evened out on all levels.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein the air flow in the nozzle boxes is increased up to 20% by lifting the adjusting plates and is lowered by up to 20% by lowering the blend sheets.” This claim features multiple antecedent basis issues involving the nozzle boxes, adjusting plates, and newly introduced blend sheets. A review of the specification of the blend sheets appears to show them to be the same as the adjustable baffle plates. For examination purposes, claim 10 will be treated as “wherein [[the]] air flow in the plurality of nozzle boxes is increased up to 20% by lifting the plurality of adjustable baffle plates and is lowered by up to 20% by lowering the plurality of adjustable baffle plates .”
Claim 11 is rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
In addition, the Examiner kindly asks for the Applicant to further review each and every claim for antecedent basis issues in the event that any were missed.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5970626 (Schmidt hereinafter) in view of US 5640784 (Rocheleau hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a dryer for board shaped materials (Figures 1-5) that discloses having a plurality of tiers (Figures 1 and 3 with tiers from rollers 11), having an outer housing and an inner housing separated from the outer housing (Figure 1, Outer housing 1, 2, and 3), with conveying means for conveying the material (Rollers 11) and with upper and lower nozzle boxes arranged transversely to the conveying direction (Upper boxes 14a and lower boxes 14b in Figures 3 and 4), which extend over the width of the conveying means between the partition walls (Evident from Figures 1, 3, and 4), wherein the nozzle boxes each having an inflow opening at one end associated with the first partition wall (Inflow at 17 in wall 5) and being closed at the other end associated with the second partition wall (Closed end at 18 at wall 6), and the nozzle boxes being provided with nozzle openings for blowing drying air at least onto one side of the material passing through (Nozzle openings 15).
Schmidt is silent with respect to wherein adjustable baffle plates are provided at least on the first partition wall, by means of which the inflow openings of the upper and lower nozzle boxes can be adjusted.
However, Rocheleau teaches a floatation web dryer that discloses a plurality of adjustable baffle plates are provided at least on the first partition wall, by means of which the inflow openings of the upper and lower nozzle boxes can be adjusted (Dampers per Column 2 Lines 33-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airflow provided to the nozzle boxes with the adjustable baffle plates of Rocheleau to allow for a user or control system to determine the air flowing through the dryer.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that the adjusting baffle plates are adjustable in stages (Rocheleau Column 2 Lines 33-62).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that wherein a plurality of openings to a respective upper and lower nozzle boxes are adjustable jointly by the plurality of adjustable baffle plates per level (Rocheleau Column 2 Lines 33-62 as applied to the openings for each nozzle box of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose a plurality of cross-sections of the inflow openings of the plurality of nozzle boxes are fixable from above by the adjustment of the plurality of adjustable baffle plates (Resultant combination of Rocheleau and Schmidt for the dampers to be able to be moved in a vertical direction of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that the adjustable baffle pates are fixable at predetermined positions (Resultant combination of the movement of the dampers in Rocheleau Column 2 Lines 33-62 to move between open and closed positions)
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that the adjustable baffle plates are adjustable electronically (Rocheleau Column 3 Lines 14-26).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that a plurality of openings or a plurality of doors are provided in the outer housing, by means of which the plurality of adjustable baffle plates are adjustable mechanically (Rocheleau Column 2 Lines 33-62 as applying the dampers to Schmidt).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that the adjustable baffle plates re adjustable by means of a transmission (Rocheleau Figure 7 and Column 2 Lines 33-62 and Column 3 Lines 14-26).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that a plurality of sensors for measuring a drying effect of the drying air are present (Rocheleau Column 3 Lines 14-26) and that the plurality of adjustable baffle plates are adjustable in such a way that the drying effect is evened out on all levels (Rocheleau Column 3 Lines 14-26 where the Examiner is interpreting the balancing of the material long the drying path as evened out).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Rocheleau would further disclose that air flow in the plurality of nozzle boxes is increased up to 20% by lifting the plurality of adjustable baffle plates and is lowered by up to 20% by lowering the plurality of adjustable baffle plates (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Rocheleau in Column 3 Lines 14-26 allows for the control of the airflow and the ranges provided are being treated as result effective variables that are accounted for when balancing the sheet material in Rocheleau).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5970626 (Schmidt) in view of US 5640784 (Rocheleau) and further in view of US 4523391 (Smith hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that in order to compensate for flow differences, the air flow in the respective lower nozzle boxes is stronger than in the upper nozzle boxes.
However, Smith teaches a sheet dryer that discloses an air flow in the respective lower nozzle boxes is stronger than in the upper nozzle boxes (Column 4 Line 56 through Column 5 Line 10). The resultant combination would be such that the board control taught in Rocheleau (Column 3 Lines 14-26) would be adapted with the teachings of Smith such that that in order to compensate for flow differences, the air flow in the respective lower nozzle boxes is stronger than in the upper nozzle boxes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dryer control of Schmidt and Rocheleau with the teachings of Smith to ensure that the board being treated/dried is effectively positioned within the dryer to increase the drying effect while not contacting undesired components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762