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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu (CN 110037327A).
Hu discloses in reference to claim:
PNG
media_image1.png
239
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1. An apparatus for making and/or treating a sheet 2 made of material comprising vegetable and/or alkaloid substances (tobacco sheet material) wherein the sheet is provided with a first face and with a second face opposite each other (implied by “sheet”), the apparatus including a heating unit 6 , a cooling unit 9, and a collecting unit (the tobacco 2 is reduced to meet packaging) arranged in this order along an advancement direction of the sheet 2, the heating unit 6 being configured to heat the sheet, the cooling unit being configured to receive the sheet in a cooling space 9 and herein to cool the sheet by means of forced gas cooling means(the low temperature air generated by the low temperature air generator 10 through a low temperature air nozzle 11, so that the complex 2 is temperature of the tobacco after baking to meets the requirement of packing box), and the collecting unit (packaging) being configured to collect the sheet or portions thereof, wherein the forced gas cooling means are configured to provide a first forced cooling gas flow and a second forced cooling gas flow at the cooling space (see Figure 1 showing the forced air from above and below the sheet 2), and the forced gas cooling means are further configured to operatively direct the first forced cooling gas flow on at least a portion of the first face of the sheet (upper) and the second forced cooling gas flow on at least a portion of the second face of the sheet (lower) –See Figure 1.
2. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the forced gas cooling means are further configured to direct the first forced cooling gas flow and the second forced cooling gas flow along directions at least partially opposite each other at the faces of the sheet. See Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
189
151
media_image2.png
Greyscale
6. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the forced gas cooling means further comprise a forced gas generation device and optionally a gas cooling device.
-- the low temperature air generated by the low temperature air generator 10 through a low temperature air nozzle 11, so that the complex 2 is temperature of the tobacco after baking to meets the requirement of packing box
8. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cooling unit further comprises conveyor means configured to receive and transport the sheet inside the cooling space along the advancement direction, the conveyor means comprising one or more opening portions configured to allow the entry of at least one of the forced gas flows into the cooling space through the conveyor means. See Figure 1 showing the forced gas from below the conveyor 3 for cooling the sheet 2—implying that the conveyor comprises an opening for the interaction of cooling air flow with the underside of the sheet 2
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.
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hu (CN 110037327A).
Hu discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
3. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the forced gas cooling means 10 comprise a first conduit line portion adapted to provide the first forced cooling gas flow (at A) , and a second conduit line portion adapted to provide the second forced cooling gas flow at B, the conduit line portions being upstream fluidly connected to cooling—forced-gas-generating-means 10 and each downstream providing for a respective first outlet section A and second outlet section B respectively comprising at least a first injection opening D and at least a second injection opening C open towards the cooling space 9 so as to therein provide at least a portion of the respective forced cooling gas flow, and each of the at least an injection opening operatively facing towards at least a portion of a respective one of the faces of the sheet.
Note Figure 1 of Hu shows a single air flow generator 10 (provided upstream from the cooling air flow nozzles C) supplying cooling air flow that is directed in at least two opposing flow pipes A from above and B from below which also serve first and second outlet sections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a first conduit line portion from the air flow generator 10 adapted to provide the first forced cooling gas flow (at A) , and a second conduit line portion from the air flow generator 10 adapted to provide the second forced cooling gas flow at B since that would be a routine and predictable way to provide the upper and lower air flows.
PNG
media_image3.png
244
223
media_image3.png
Greyscale
7. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the forced gas cooling means further comprise a gas recovery line configured to receive or collect gas from the cooling space, or gas leaving the cooling space, so as to obtain an amount of recovered gas flow, and further configured to provide the amount of recovered gas flow upstream of cooling-forced-gas-generating-means.
It is generally known in the art of manufacturing conveyor systems to provide wherever feasible a recovery/recycling means to enhance the efficiency of the manufacturing system in addition to reducing the pollution of the manufacturing system. As such the provision of a gas recovery line configured to receive or collect gas from the cooling space, or gas leaving the cooling space, so as to obtain an amount of recovered gas flow, and further configured to provide the amount of recovered gas flow upstream of cooling-forced-gas-generating-means would have been an obvious improvement to the Hu system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights