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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 6 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Anmelder (DE 102012005021 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification failed to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed drive mechanism that drives the conveyor, the drive mechanism passing between at least two of the sections as claimed in claim 8.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, drive mechanism that drives the conveyor and the drive mechanism passing between at least two of the sections claimed in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: drive mechanism in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchholz (US 4,026,037) in view of Wurster (De 10 2012 005 021 A1).
Buchholz discloses a dryer 10 for drying veneers (abstract) comprising a plurality of sections 12, 14 in which drying means 57, 66, 76 (Fig. 2) for drying the veneers are present, wherein in at least one of the sections 12, 14, there is a means for generating a negative pressure in the respective section (col. 7, lines 44-52, blower fan or other gas impelling means). Wherein the means comprises at least one suction device or fan 57 (col. 7, lines 44-52, blower fan or other gas impelling means) for sucking air out of the interior of the respective section (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 25-30) . Wherein the at least one fan 57 is arranged on the upper side of the respective section 12 (Fig. 2). However, Buchholz does not disclose wherein sealing means are provided for sealing an interior of the respective section, and wherein the sealing means comprise seal on a chain for driving rollers in a region of an end-side outer wall of the respective section. Wurster discloses a dryer 10 comprising sealing means 26, 28, 30, 32, 38, 40, 42, 44 for sealing an interior of the respective section (Fig. 1), wherein the sealing means 26, 28, 30, 32, 38, 40, 42, 44 comprise seal on a chain 20, 22 for driving rollers in a region of an end-side outer wall of the respective section (Fig. 1). 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 dryer of Buchholz to include sealing means are provided for sealing an interior of the respective section, and wherein the sealing means comprise seal on a chain for driving rollers in a region of an end-side outer wall of the respective section as taught by Wurster in order to seal the interior of the dryer to the outside.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchholz (US 4,026,037) in view of Wurster (De 10 2012 005 021 A1) as applied to claim 2 as above, and furthe in view of McMahon, Jr. (US 5,603,168).
The dryer of Buchholz as modified by Wurster as above includes all that is recited in claim 4 except for a circulating air fan and the at least one fan is arranged in each case above the circulating air fan. McMahon, Jr. discloses a dryer for drying veneers (abstract) comprising a circulating air fan 22 and at least one fan 140 for sucking air out of an interior of a dryer section 16a (Fig. 1). 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 dryer of Buchholz to include a circulating air fan and to arrange the at least one fan above the circulating air fan as taught by McMahon, Jr. in order to evenly distribute the air within the dryer section.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchholz (US 4,026,037) in view of Wurster (De 10 2012 005 021 A1) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Tsuboi (JP 2000230781 A).
The dryer of Buchholz as modified by Wurster as above includes all that is recited in claim 7 except for sealing devices for sealing rollers in the region of the end-side outer wall. Tsuboi discloses a veneer dryer comprising means 24, 25 for sealing the interior of the dryer section 1; wherein the means 24, 25 have sealing devices 25 for sealing rollers 23 in the region of the end-side outer wall (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the dryer of Buchholz to include means for sealing the interior of the respective section; wherein the means have sealing devices for sealing rollers in the region of the end-side outer wall as taught by Tsuboi in order to shield the air inside the dryer (Tsuboi, abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon, Jr. (US 5,603,168) in view of Wurster (De 10 2012 005 021 A1).
McMahon, Jr discloses a dryer 10 for drying veneers (abstract) comprising a plurality of sections 16, a conveyor that conveys the panels through the sections (col. 5, lines 29-43, col. 6, lines 14-17), a drive mechanism 84 that drives the conveyor, a recirculating fan 22 that aids in drying the panel in each section 16 (Fig. 1), an exhaust fan 140 that sucks air from at least one of the sections 16a and generates a negative pressure in the respective section 16a (Fig. 1). However, McMahon, Jr does not disclose the drive mechanism passing between at least two of the sections, a drive mechanism seal that seals an interior of the respective section by sealing between he drive mechanism and an end-side outer wall of the respective section. Wurster discloses a dryer 10 comprising a conveyor 12 that conveys the workpieces through the sections (Fig. 4, section with walls 16, 18 and section without walls 16, 18), a drive mechanism 20, 22 that drives the conveyor 12, the drive mechanism 20,22 passing between at least two of the sections (Fig. 4), a drive mechanism seal 26, 28, 30, 32, 38, 40, 42, 44 seals an interior of the respective section by sealing between the drive mechanism 20, 22 and an end-side outer wall 16, 18 of the respective section (Fig. 4). 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 dryer of Buchholz to include a drive mechanism passing between at least two of the sections, a drive mechanism seal that seals an interior of the respective section by sealing between he drive mechanism and an end-side outer wall of the respective section as taught by Wurster in order to seal the interior of the dryer to the outside.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon, Jr. (US 5,603,168) in view of Wurster (De 10 2012 005 021 A1) as applied to claim 8 as above, and further in view of Tsuboi (JP 2000230781 A).
The dryer of McMahon, Jr. as modified by Wurster as above includes all that is recited in claim 9 except for a roller seal that seal between a roller and the end-side outer wall. Tsuboi discloses a veneer dryer comprising means 24, 25 for sealing the interior of the dryer section 1; wherein the means 24, 25 have roller seal 25 that seal between rollers 23 and the end-side outer wall (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the dryer of Buchholz to include a roller seal that seal between a roller and the end-side outer wall as taught by Tsuboi in order to shield the air inside the dryer (Tsuboi, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights