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 Amendment
The amendments the claims filed 5/22/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. In light of the amendments, the previous objections rejections to the claims under 112 have been withdrawn. Also, the rejections to claims 16-19 under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. As indicated above, the rejections to claims 16-20 have been withdrawn. However, the rejections to claims 1-3 and 5-15 are being maintained. The applicant argues that Griffin does not teach the newly recited limitation that the guard is configured to exhaust steam from the inlet/outlet structure…away from the operator, as presently claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Griffin teaches that the guard is configured to exhaust steam away from the operator, as shown in part 270 (steam exhaust) which would exhaust steam from the guard and away from the operator, which would read on the claimed configuration (Figs. 10-11, col. 13, lines 43-56).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. 2,698,983 to Griffin (hereinafter “Griffin”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7,
Griffin discloses a system comprising:
a heatset steam tunnel (formed by tank 31 and hood 155; see Fig. 1, 7-8) extending along a longitudinal axis, the heatset steam tunnel having an inlet/outlet structure (at 26, 193; see Fig. 7-8), the inlet/outlet structure extending along a horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and a vertical axis that is perpendicular to the horizontal axis and the longitudinal axis;
an operator space (spaced along the horizontal axis adjacent to inlet/outlet structure) positioned adjacent the inlet/outlet structure of the heatset steam tunnel [see Fig. 2-3]; and
a guard (155) at least partially covering the inlet/outlet structure [see Fig. 7-8], wherein the guard comprises a window material (e.g. 201, 202 in Fig. 4, 6) that permits an operator to see therethrough into the inlet/outlet structure, wherein the guard is configured to direct steam from the inlet/outlet structure of the heatset steam tunnel away from the operator space while permitting viewing into the inlet/outlet structure from the operator space [see col. 4, line 51 – col. 13, line 29]. Griffin teaches that the guard is configured to exhaust steam away from the operator, as shown in part 270 (steam exhaust) which would exhaust steam from the guard and away from the operator, which would read on the claimed configuration (Figs. 10-11, col. 13, lines 43-56).
Regarding claims 2-3,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the guard further comprises a frame, wherein the frame defines a plurality of openings (e.g. at 195, 196), wherein the window material (201, 202) extends across each of the openings of the plurality of openings of the frame [see Fig. 4, 6].
Regarding claim 5,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the window material comprises a plurality of panes (201, 202) [see Fig. 4, 6].
Regarding claim 6,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the guard (155) is configured to direct steam in a downward or at least partially downward direction along the vertical axis [see Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 1-29].
Regarding claim 8,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operator space comprises at least a first zone that is positioned on a first side of the inlet/outlet structure along the horizontal axis and a second zone that is positioned on an opposed second side of the inlet/outlet structure along the horizontal axis [See Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 9,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the guard comprises: a pair of side coverings (156, 157) that are spaced along the horizontal axis; and a top covering (155) that extends between the pair of side coverings [see Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 10,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the top covering (155) comprises: a first section that extends along the longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end; and a second section that extends downwardly from the second end of the first section at an obtuse angle [see Fig. 6-8].
Regarding claim 11,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the guard comprises an upper portion and a lower portion, wherein the upper portion comprises the pair of side coverings (156, 157) and the top covering (155), wherein the lower portion comprises a pair of lower side coverings (40, 41) , and wherein the lower portion comprises a lower vent (at 42) that is configured to permit downward release of steam [see Fig. 7-8].
Regarding claim 12,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the window material comprises an amorphous polymeric material (“plastic”).
Regarding claims 13-14,
Griffin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the window material is transparent and clear [“transparent panels”; col. 9, lines 75-81].
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin.
Regarding claim 15,
Griffin teaches that the window material “may be made from glass, plastic, or any other suitable material” [col. 9, lines 75-81], but does not explicitly teach that the window material is translucent. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select a window material that is translucent, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. [see MPEP 2144.07].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 16-20,
Griffin does not teach or suggest that the guard further comprises at least one screen that is configured to cover the plurality of openings, wherein the at least one screen defines a plurality of apertures, wherein the guard further comprises a plurality of fasteners that extend through respective apertures of the plurality of apertures and couple the window material to the at least one screen. Griffin also does not teach the guard having a lower vent that is configured to permit downward exhaust of steam. Upon a comprehensive search no available prior art was able to teach or suggest, singly or in combination, all features of claims 4 and 16-20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BARR whose telephone number is (571)272-1414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 6:30-4.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
MICHAEL BARR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights