DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 01/30/2026. Claim(s) 1–22 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16–22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/30/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 4–5, 11, & 14–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3,296,462 to Wagner (citations are directed to the machine translation provided by Applicant).
With regard to claim 1, Wagner discloses a flame protection apparatus (22) for installation in a dryer drum (12) (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0034), the flame protection apparatus (22) comprising: a plurality of sheet metal lamellae (25) that form a ring arrangement about a longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0037), wherein each sheet metal lamella (25) of the plurality of sheet metal lamellae (25) includes a concave inner contour in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and on an outer side facing away from the inner contour (Figs. 1–3), an installation member (36) configured for installing the sheet metal lamella (25) on the dryer drum (12) (Figs. 1 & 2; ¶ 0040).
With regard to claim 4, Wagner further discloses the installation member (36) includes a connecting portion oriented with respect to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 & 2).
With regard to claim 5, Wagner further discloses the connecting portion is oriented radially with respect to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 & 2).
With regard to claim 11, Wagner further discloses a baffle wall (45) arranged at a distance from the ring arrangement in the axial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3; ¶ 0061).
With regard to claim 14, Wagner further discloses the ring arrangement (25) is a first ring arrangement, and further including a second ring arrangement (25) positioned to one side of the first ring arrangement in the axial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1–3).
With regard to claim 15, Wagner further discloses the first and second ring arrangements are arranged along a heat propagation direction (Figs. 1–3).
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 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.
Claims 2–3, 6, & 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner.
With regard to claim 2, Wagner fails to explicitly disclose the installation member is integrally formed as one piece with the sheet metal lamella. However, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to integrally form the installation member and the sheet metal lamella, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
With regard to claim 3, Wagner fails to disclose the installation member is formed as a folded edge. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the installation member formed as a folded edge, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the choice of shape has no significant impact on the operation of the invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to claim 6, Wagner fails to explicitly disclose the installation member is arranged at an end of the sheet metal lamella in the circumferential direction with respect to the longitudinal axis. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the installation member at an end of the sheet metal lamella in the circumferential direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 9, Wagner further discloses the sheet metal lamella (25) includes a plurality of sheet metal strips in the circumferential direction with respect to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1–3).
Wagner fails to disclose the sheet metal strips are connected to one another in one piece. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have the sheet metal strips connected to one another in one piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
With regard to claim 10, Wagner fails to disclose the sheet metal strips are connected to one another by bending. However, bending sheet metal strips together to form a single piece is old and well-known in the art. For example, HVAC ducts are typically made of sheet metal strips that are connected together by bending/crimping. As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the sheet metal lamellae of Wagner with the bending connection known to the prior art because such a combination would have been one of limited number of alternatives for connecting sheet metal strips.
Claims 7–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of US 2007/0041265 to Dillman et al.
With regard to claim 7, Wagner fails to disclose at least one coupling member fastened to the sheet metal lamella for coupling with another sheet metal lamella arranged adjacent in the circumferential direction. Dillman teaches at least one coupling member (65 fastened to the sheet metal lamella for coupling with another sheet metal lamella arranged adjacent in the circumferential direction (¶ 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the sheet metal lamella of Wagner with the coupling member of Dillman because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increased structural integrity.
With regard to claim 8, Wagner as previously combined with Belloli further discloses the at least one coupling member (Dillman: 65) protrudes in the circumferential direction on the sheet metal lamella (Dillman: Fig. 6A).
Claims 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of EP 2,549,016 to Belloli.
With regard to claim 12, Wagner fails to disclose a corrugated ring arrangement arranged in the axial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis. Belloli teaches a corrugated ring arrangement (24) arranged in the axial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Wagner with the additional ring arrangement of Belloli because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increased combustion efficiency.
With regard to claim 13, Wagner as previously combined with Belloli further discloses the corrugated ring arrangement (Belloli: 24) is arranged downstream from the ring arrangement (Belloli: 23) (Belloli: Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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 B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
February 18, 2026