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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the U.S.C 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under U.S.C 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that “As the Examiner has not indicated any requirement or need to include such labeling, Figs. 5 and 6 as originally presented are believed to in accordance with all requirements and thus the objection should be withdrawn.”
Figs. 5 and 6 were objected to for not showing every feature specified in claim 10. This includes the support pins in Figs. 5-6 which appear to correspond to the support elements of claim 10. This is a requirement of 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Applicants argue that Ban is limited to an arrangement similar to Sprenger wherein a tube is heated via a coil external to the tube. And that absent impermissible hindsight, the arrangement of Ban does not lend itself to being readily combined with Scholey.
The Office disagrees. Ban discloses that it is known to cure deposits on a substrate using susceptors that are heated by either resistance heating coils (disclosed by Scholey) or induction coils. While Ban, does not disclose an array of induction coils with susceptors, Scholey already discloses the array of heating units. And Ban discloses that is known to heat with either resistance heating or induction heating. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to substitute one form of heating for another.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 does not label what is the support elements for the conveyance arrangement.
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, the support elements in claim 10 for the conveyance arrangement must be shown or the featured. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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:
Conveyance arrangement in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: par. 16 and 65 “conveyance arrangement may include a plurality of support elements…. conveyance arrangement 30 is shown generally as a conveyor type arrangement moving a plurality of can bodies.”
Induction heating unit in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: par. 8 “Each induction heating unit may comprise: a heating element; and an induction coil positioned around the heating element”.
Adjustable mounting assembly in claim 7. T A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: par. 71 “one or more actuators 52 or adjustable mounting assemblies may be provided to selectively adjust the spacing between the induction heating elements 42”.
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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholey (US 20200080778 A1) in view of Ban (US 4401689 A).
Claim 1. Scholey discloses a can curing oven (can decorator, Fig. 1) structured to cure a coating on a surface of a sidewall of a number of can bodies (apparatus cures the can’s coating, par. 3), the can curing oven comprising:
a heating assembly (100, Fig. 1) including a number of
a conveyance arrangement structured to support and move a number of can bodies along a workpath through the generally enclosed space (transfer assembly 70 for supporting and moving the can bodies along a path, Fig. 1).
Scholey does not disclose induction heating units wherein:
each induction heating unit comprises:
a heating element (induction coil 44, Fig. 1, Ban); and
an induction coil positioned around the heating element (induction coil is around the susceptor 17, Fig. 1, Ban), the induction coil structured to be coupled to a controlled source of AC power (a source applies RF energy to the coil which has a frequency of 450 kHz, col 15-25).
Ban discloses an heating oven for curing material that has been deposited on a substrate through chemical vapor deposition (col 1, lines 5-10) the coils cure the coating (col 1, lines 60-65 and col 2, lines 1-5), wherein:
each induction heating unit comprises:
a heating element (induction coil 44, Fig. 1, Ban); and
an induction coil positioned around the heating element (induction coil is around the susceptor 17, Fig. 1, Ban), the induction coil structured to be coupled to a controlled source of AC power (a source applies RF energy to the coil which has a frequency of 450 kHz, col 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholey to incorporate the teachings of Ban and use induction coils to heat the susceptors. Ban demonstrates that it is known within the art that induction coils can be used to heat a susceptor for curing a coating.
Claim 3. Scholey in view of Ban does not disclose the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein the heating element comprises a length of c-channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholey in view of Ban and have a c-channel shaped susceptor since it has been held that the mere change in shape of has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04.IV.B.
Claim 4. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein:
at least two induction heating units of the plurality of induction heating units are disposed on opposing sides of the workpath (two heating units on opposite sides of the workpath, Fig. 4).
Claim 5. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein:
at least two induction heating units of the plurality of induction heating units are disposed on a single side of the workpath (two heating units on the same side of the workpath, Fig. 6).
Claim 6. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, further comprising a housing assembly at least partially enclosing the heating assembly (Fig. 6, heating assembly is partially enclosed).
Claim 7. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein the can curing oven is structured to cure a coating of a can body in a first configuration and a can body in a second configuration wherein a can body of the first configuration is different than a can body of the second configuration (claim 5), and wherein:
the housing assembly includes an adjustable mounting assembly (adjustable mounting assembly, claim 5); and
the adjustable mounting assembly is structured to position each induction heating unit in:
a first position, wherein each induction heating unit is structured to generate a proportional effective amount of received heat for a can body of a first configuration (first position, wherein each heating unit is structured to generate a proportional effective amount of received heat for a can body of a first configuration, claim 5), and
a second position, wherein each induction heating unit is structured to generate a proportional effective amount of received heat for a can body of a second configuration (a second position, wherein each heating unit is structured to generate a proportional effective amount of received heat for a can body of a second configuration, claim 5).
Claim 8. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein each induction heating unit is a modular induction heating unit (claim 3).
Claim 9. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 2, wherein each induction coil is structured to be selectively powered by the controlled source of AC power when the outer surface of the can body is an effective distance away (claim 7).
Claim 10. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein:
the conveyance arrangement includes a plurality of support elements (support pad body 82, Fig. 4); and
each support element of the plurality of support elements is structured to be coupled to and support a can body of the number of can bodies (cans sit on the support pad body, Fig. 4).
Claim 12. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein the number of heating units are structured to process can bodies at a maximum can decorator speed (can decorator can operate at a maximum speed, par. 53).
Claim 13. Scholey in view of Ban discloses the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein the conveyance arrangement is structured to support and move the number of can bodies along a linear workpath through the generally enclosed space (cans move along a linear workpath, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholey in view of Ban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sprenger (US 5821504 A1).
Claim 11. Scholey in view of Ban does not explicitly disclose the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein at least one induction heating unit of the number of induction heating units is positioned between two different portions of the workpath or between a portion of the workpath and
a portion of another workpath along which the conveyance arrangement and/or another conveyance arrangement is structured to move can bodies of the number of can bodies.
Sprenger discloses a can curing oven using induction coils wherein the can curing oven of claim 1, wherein at least one induction heating unit of the number of induction heating units is positioned between two different portions of the workpath or between a portion of the workpath (the heating apparatus sits between two sections 138 and 140 of a workpath, Fig. 7) and
a portion of another workpath along which the conveyance arrangement and/or another conveyance arrangement is structured to move can bodies of the number of can bodies (conveyer moves the cans along the section 140 to the next processing station, col 11, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholey in view of Ban to incorporate the teachings of Sprenger and have the decorator move the cans between two sections. Sprenger demonstrates that these can ovens that cure a coating are commonly placed between two stations within a total workflow and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able and motivated to place the disclosed can decorator within a similar setup.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights