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 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 2-8 and 10-14 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 2 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the amount of water” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Since claims 3-7 depend upon an on indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claim 4 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “said item reduces further” does not reference the metes and bounds of reduction. Claim 7 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the weigh” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 8 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the amplitude” and “the frequency” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claims 10-14 are construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the amount of water” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 12 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the mount of electrostatic charge” lacks a positive antecedent basis and the recitation “said item reduces further” does not reference the metes and bounds of reduction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 Candor (US 3,641,680). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Candor as teaching:
a drying device for drying an item (see title and abstract), the drying device comprising:
a vibration plate 819, the vibration plate being operable to vibrate to force water droplets off an item that is in contact with the vibration plate (vibration on a plate inherently will force water droplets off an item in contact with that plate); and
a charge generator 822 for generating an electrostatic charge on the vibration plate;
the charge generator being operable to generate an electrostatic charge on the vibration plate to hold a said item in contact with the vibration plate during operation of the vibration plate (column 3 lines 1-15 and column 4 lines 38-69).
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Candor (US 4,975,166). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Candor as teaching:
applying an electrostatic charge 28C to a vibration plate 22 to hold an item 23 to be dried in contact with the vibration plate (column 8 line 34 through column 9 line 22 and column 13 lines 24-53); and
operating the vibration plate to vibrate to force water droplets off the item when the item is in contact with the vibration plate (column 13 lines 54-65, especially line 61). Candor also discloses the claim 10 feature of measuring the amount of water contained in the item, and varying the amount of electrostatic charge on the vibration plate according to the amount of water contained in the item (column 34 lines 54-66 wherein the disclosed dewater step inherently meets the claimed measuring amount of water because both remove an amount of water). The claim 11 feature of reducing the amount of electrostatic charge generated on the vibration plate as the amount of water contained in the item reduces (column 36 lines 33-53), the claim 14 feature of measuring the amount of water contained in the item, and driving the vibration plate such that at least one of the amplitude and the frequency of vibration of the vibration plate depends on the amount of water contained in the item (column 36 lines 33-53).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Candor (US 2,641,680). Candor teaches the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the amount of water reduction, different location sensors and drive configuration. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features, since the teaches of Candor would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those recitations and applicants have not specified or claimed the criticality necessary for patentability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Candor (US 4,975,166). Candor teaches the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the different location amounts. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite that feature, since the teaches of Candor would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of that recitation and applicants have not specified or claimed the criticality necessary for patentability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, and 12 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. Claims 4, 8, 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action, may teach one or more claim features but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, N, O, P, Q, cited with this action are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, cited with this action, teach drying devices and methods thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Sunday, December 7, 2025
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753