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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification recites “a cover opening 20b” in paragraph 52. The cover opening is 20a. 20b is the cover hinge.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “each through aperture” in Line 7, it shall be “each of the through aperture”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,154,010 to Klemm.
In Reference to Claim 1
Klemm discloses a suction device (10) for drying at least one plastic strand, comprising a suction housing (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner),consisting of a top side, a bottom side and a several lateral surfaces (as showed in Fig. 1-3), the top side having an inlet opening (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) and one of the other surfaces having an outlet opening (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) made therein for the flow of a drying medium therethrough, a screening element (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) with a drying area which has through apertures (Fig. 3, 31) made therein in a distributed manner and which has a base area of a maximum length and a maximum width (As showed in Fig. 2), each through aperture (Fig. 3, 31) having an aperture cross-sectional area, and the sum of the aperture cross-sectional areas of all through apertures of the screening element (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) together forming a total aperture cross-sectional area (As showed in Fig. 2/3, the through apertures formed an array, obviously, the apertures forms a total aperture cross-section area), wherein the screening element (32) is arranged at the top and with its drying area above the inlet opening of the suction housing, wherein the at least one plastic strand (The Office considers that the plastic strand is the working environment of the recited structure) is moved in a process direction (Fig. 2, the working media moves in the longitudinal direction of the dryer) on the screening element, wherein the process direction (As showed in Fig. 2) is aligned in a longitudinal direction of the screening element,
PNG
media_image1.png
683
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Klemm discloses the filter has opening.
Klemm does not teach the size of the though aperture.
The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the shape and opening size of the through aperture in order to improve the high efficiency of the drying.
In Reference to Claim 2
Klemm discloses the filter has opening.
Klemm does not teach the size of the though aperture.
The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the shape and opening size of the through aperture in order to improve the high efficiency of the drying.
In Reference to Claim 3
Klemm discloses the base area of the drying area of the screening element (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) and a base area of the screening element (Fig. 2 annotated by the examiner) are identical or nearly identical. (As showed in Fig. 2, the drying area is almost the same size of the conveyor)
In Reference to Claim 4-7
Klemm discloses the though aperture.
Klemm does not teach the though aperture is a slot shaped.
The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the shape and opening size of the through aperture in order to improve the high efficiency of the drying.
In Reference to Claim 8
Klemm discloses the through apertures (Fig. 3, 31) are aligned side by side perpendicular to the process direction (As showed in Fig. 2, the array of the through apertures are aligned side by side, the perpendicular to the process direction since the array is in a square shape)
In Reference to Claim 9
Klemm discloses several rows of through apertures (Fig. 3, 31) are provided, which are aligned parallel to each other in their longitudinal direction.(As showed in Fig. 2)
In Reference to Claim 10
Klemm discloses the array of through holes.
Lem does not teach the distance between through holes.
The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the shape and opening size of the through aperture in order to improve the high efficiency of the drying.
In Reference to Claim 11
Klemm discloses rows of through apertures.
Klemm does not teach a distance from one another.
The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the shape and opening size of the through aperture in order to improve the high efficiency of the drying.
In Reference to Claims 23 and 13
Klemm discloses the screen element (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) is made of a heat-resistant material (Col. 5, Lines 1-3)
Klemm does not teach the scree element is made by sheet metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a metal sheet conveyor , 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 Reference to Claim 14
Klemm discloses through aperture.
Klemm does not teach how the through aperture is made.
According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
In Reference to Claim 20
Klemm discloses the base area of the top side of the suction housing (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) is larger than the base area of the bottom side of the suction housing (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner).
In Reference to Claim 21
Klemm discloses a suction unit (Fig. 3, 8) is provided which conveys drying medium, in particular ambient air, into the suction housing (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) through the inlet opening and out of the suction housing through the outlet opening.
In Reference to Claim 22
Klemm discloses the suction unit (Fig. 3, 8) is arranged outside of the suction housing (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner)
In Reference to Claim 23
Klemm disclose the suction unit.
Klemm does not teach the water separator.
The Office considers that the waster separator is a working environment of the recited structure. If the applicant considers that water separator is a required structure, it must be positively recited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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 Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/5/26