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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2019/0344291 to Vandepitte.
In Reference to Claim 1
Vandepitte discloses a hot air nozzle comprising: a leading-end face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) having an outlet (Fig. 3, 14); and at least one side face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) extending between the leading-end face and a base end (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner), wherein the leading-end face has a shape making a lengthwise direction and a widthwise direction of the leading-end face distinguishable, and has a center section (Fig.3, annotated by the examiner) in the lengthwise direction protruding from two opposite ends, in the lengthwise direction, of the leading-end face, the outlet extends along a protruding shape (As showed in the center section is protruded) of the leading-end face (As showed in Fig. 3), and in a cross-section taken along the widthwise direction, a distance between the two side faces at the leading-end is larger than a width of the outlet (As showed in Fig. 3).
In Reference to Claim 2
Vandepitte discloses the leading-end face is a continuously curved face (As showed in Fig. 3, the Office considers that the top leading-end face is a single surface, and the curved face continues from the flat portion of the leading end face), and the outlet extends along a curved shape (As showed in Fig. 3) of the leading-end face.
In Reference to Claim 9
Vandepitte discloses the outlet (Fig. 3, 14) is a slit (as showed in Fig. 3) being open along the lengthwise direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandepitte.
In Reference to Claims 3 and 8
Vandepitte discloses the outlet (As showed in Fig. 3)
Vandepitte does not teach the outlet has a width of 5 mm or more and 20 mm or less in a cross- section taken along the widthwise direction. The cross-section taken along the widthwise direction, widths of solid sections of the leading-end face which sandwich the outlet are 5 mm or more for each solid section
According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 4-6, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant provided prior art US Patent Publication 2020/0033058 to Hakata in view of Vandepitte.
In Reference to Claim 4
Hakata discloses a drying oven comprising: a booth (Fig. 1, 10); a support section (Fig. 1, 14) configured to support a workpiece; and a plurality of hot air nozzles (Fig. 1, 30), wherein each of the plurality of hot air nozzles includes a leading-end face having an outlet (As showed in Fig. 3, the outlet is formed by w1 and w2)
Hakata does not teach the outlet nozzle formed as recited in Claim 4.
Vandepitte teaches the plurality of hot air nozzles includes a leading end face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) and at least one side face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) extending between the leading-end face and a base end, the leading-end face has a shape making a lengthwise direction and a widthwise direction of the leading-end face distinguishable (As showed in Fig. 3, the center portion of the leading end is projected), and has a center section (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) in the lengthwise direction protruding from two opposite ends, in the lengthwise direction, of the leading-end face, the outlet (Fig. 3, 14) extends along a protruding shape (As showed in Fig. 3) of the leading-end face, in a cross-section taken along the widthwise direction, a distance between the two side faces at the leading-end is larger than a width of the outlet (as showed in Fig. 3),
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Vandepitte into the design of Hakata. Doing so, would result in the spray nozzle design of Vandepitte being used to replace the nozzle design of Hakata. Both inventions of Vandepitte and Hakata are used fluid spray nozzle, Vandepitte teaches a nozzle design to produce a spray jet fanned out. The flow power (speed) is increased. So the efficiency would be improved.
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 4 teaches the plurality of nozzle are apart from each other.
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 4 does not teach the plurality of hot air nozzles are in at least one nozzle row in which the plurality of hot air nozzles are in a straight line, and of the at least one side face of each of the plurality of hot air nozzles, opposes the side face extending in the lengthwise direction, of the at least one side face of an adjacent one of the plurality of hot air nozzles in the at least one nozzle row.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reposition the plurality of nozzles to align the nozzles in a straight line as recited by the Applicant, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 5
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 5 teaches the plurality of the nozzles.
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 5 does not teach an extension direction of a nozzle row to which the hot air nozzle belongs form an angle of more than 0o and less than 90o
According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The Office considers “ one of the plurality of hot air nozzles is present in an area in the extension direction partially overlapping an area where an adjacent one of the plurality of hot air nozzles is present in the extension direction as the result of the opening size of the nozzle " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since a plurality of nozzles are arranged, it must cover the spray area with meets the functional limitation.
In Reference to Claim 6
Hakata discloses the booth has a bottom face (Fig. 1, 12) demarcating a bottom section of the booth, a side wall face (Fig. 1, the side wall of the chamber as showed) demarcating a side face of the booth, and an inclined face (Fig. 1, the inclined surface where nozzle 30s are arranged) extending between the bottom face and the side wall face, and the plurality of hot air nozzles (Fig. 1, 30) extend from the inclined face.
In Reference to Claim 10
Hakata discloses a drying oven comprising: a booth (Fig. 1, 10); a support section (Fig. 1, 14) configured to support a workpiece; and a plurality of hot air nozzles (Fig. 1, 30), the plurality of hot air nozzles are apart from each other while a side face extending in the lengthwise direction (AS showed in Fig. 1)
Hakata does not teach the details of nozzle as recited by the Applicant.
Vandepitte teaches wherein each of the plurality of hot air nozzles includes a leading-end face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) having an outlet (Fig. 3, 14), and at least one side face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) extending between the leading-end face and a base end (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner), the leading-end face has a shape making a lengthwise direction and a widthwise direction of the leading-end face distinguishable, and is provided as a curved face (Fig. 3, showed by the examiner) having a center section (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) in the lengthwise direction protruding from two opposite ends and being continuously curved (Fig. 3 as showed), in the lengthwise direction, of the leading-end face, the outlet extends along a curving shape (Fig. 3, shows a curved shape) of the leading-end face
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Vandepitte into the design of Hakata. Doing so, would result in the spray nozzle design of Vandepitte being used to replace the nozzle design of Hakata. Both inventions of Vandepitte and Hakata are used fluid spray nozzle, Vandepitte teaches a nozzle design to produce a spray jet fanned out. The flow power (speed) is increased. So the efficiency would be improved.
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 10 does not teach the plurality of hot air nozzles are in at least one nozzle row in which the plurality of hot air nozzles are in a straight line, and of the at least one side face of each of the plurality of hot air nozzles, opposes the side face extending in the lengthwise direction, of the at least one side face of an adjacent one of the plurality of hot air nozzles in the at least one nozzle row.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reposition the plurality of nozzles to align the nozzles in a straight line as recited by the Applicant, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 11
Hakata discloses a drying oven comprising: a booth (Fig. 1, 1); a support section (Fig. 1, 14) configured to support a workpiece; and a plurality of hot air nozzles (Fig. 1, 30) , the plurality of hot air nozzles are apart from each other (As showed in Fig. 1, 30s are separated)
Hakata does not teach the nozzle structure as recited by the Applicant.
Vandepitte teaches wherein each of the plurality of hot air nozzles includes a leading-end face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) having an outlet, and at least one side face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) extending between the leading-end face and a base end (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner), the leading-end face has a shape making a lengthwise direction and a widthwise direction of the leading-end face distinguishable (As showed in Fig. 3), and has a center section in the lengthwise direction protruding (As showed in Fig. 3) from two opposite ends, in the lengthwise direction, of the leading-end face, the outlet extends along a protruding shape of the leading-end face,
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Vandepitte into the design of Hakata. Doing so, would result in the spray nozzle design of Vandepitte being used to replace the nozzle design of Hakata. Both inventions of Vandepitte and Hakata are used fluid spray nozzle, Vandepitte teaches a nozzle design to produce a spray jet fanned out. The flow power (speed) is increased. So the efficiency would be improved.
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 10 does not teach the plurality of hot air nozzles are in at least one nozzle row in which the plurality of hot air nozzles are in a straight line while a side face extending in the lengthwise direction, of the at least one side face of each of the plurality of hot air nozzles, opposes the side face extending in the lengthwise direction, of the at least one side face of an adjacent one of the plurality of hot air nozzles in the at least one nozzle row.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reposition the plurality of nozzles to align the nozzles in a straight line as recited by the Applicant, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Further, the combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 11 does not teach each of the plurality of hot air nozzles is at a position at which the lengthwise direction of the hot air nozzle and an extension direction of a nozzle row to which the hot air nozzle belongs form an angle of more than 0o and less than 90o, and one of the plurality of hot air nozzles is present in an area in the extension direction partially overlapping an area where an adjacent one of the plurality of hot air nozzles is present in the extension direction.
According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The Office considers “ one of the plurality of hot air nozzles is present in an area in the extension direction partially overlapping an area where an adjacent one of the plurality of hot air nozzles is present in the extension direction as the result of the opening size of the nozzle " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since a plurality of nozzles are arranged, it must cover the spray area with meets the functional limitation.
In Reference to Claim 12
Hakata discloses a drying oven comprising: a booth (Fig. 1, 1); a support section (Fig. 1, 14) configured to convey a workpiece in a predetermined conveyance direction; and a plurality of hot air nozzles (Fig. 1, 30), and the plurality of hot air nozzles are apart from each other (AS showed in Fig. 1)
Hakata does not teach the detail nozzle as recited by the Applicant.
Vandepitte teaches wherein each of the plurality of hot air nozzles includes a leading-end face (Fig.3, annotated by the examiner) having an outlet (Fig. 3, 14), and at least one side face (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) extending between the leading-end face and a base end, the leading-end face has a shape making a lengthwise direction and a widthwise direction of the leading-end face distinguishable, and has a center section (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) in the lengthwise direction protruding from two opposite ends, in the lengthwise direction, of the leading-end face, the outlet extends along a protruding shape (As showed in Fig. 3) of the leading-end face,
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Vandepitte into the design of Hakata. Doing so, would result in the spray nozzle design of Vandepitte being used to replace the nozzle design of Hakata. Both inventions of Vandepitte and Hakata are used fluid spray nozzle, Vandepitte teaches a nozzle design to produce a spray jet fanned out. The flow power (speed) is increased. So the efficiency would be improved.
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 10 does not teach the plurality of hot air nozzles are in at least one nozzle row in which the plurality of hot air nozzles are in a straight line along with the conveyance direction, while a side face extending in the lengthwise direction, of the at least one side face of each of the plurality of hot air nozzles, opposes the side face extending in the lengthwise direction, of the at least one side face of an adjacent one of the plurality of hot air nozzles in the at least one nozzle row.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reposition the plurality of nozzles to align the nozzles in a straight line as recited by the Applicant, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
609
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP4044686 (JP686) (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 7
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 7 teaches the dry chamber as discloses.
The combination of Hakata and Vandepitte as applied to Claim 7 does not teach the baffle.
JP686 teaches baffles (Fig. 1, 103) in the drying chamber.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from JP686 in the combination of Hakata and Vandeplitte as applied to Claim 7. Doing so, would result in baffles on JP686 being used in the chamber of Hakata. Both inventions of Hakata and JP686 are in the same field of endeavor, JP686 teaches a method of improving the flow orientation in the drying chamber as showed in Fig. 14. So the efficiency of the system would be improved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 10/30/25