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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-10, 15, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claims 3 and 4 recite the broad recitation “one or more floor extraction devices”, and the claims also recite “in particular one or more suction slots” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “one or more”, and the claim also recites “in particular all” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “a first separating fluid”, and the claim also recites “in particular heated fresh air” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “a second separating fluid”, and the claim also recites “in particular circulating air” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 6, 7, 9 and 10 recite the broad recitation “one or more guide devices”, and the claims also recite “in particular the first guide device and/or the second guide device” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the broad recitation “two guide elements”, and the claims also recite “in particular guide plates” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “s supply opening”, and the claim also recites “in particular a supply slot” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 16 recites the broad recitation “A treatment installation for treating workpieces”, and the claim also recites “in particular a drying system for drying coated vehicle bodies” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 recites the broad recitation “for treating workpieces”, and the claim also recites “in particular for drying coated vehicle bodies” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 15, the indefinite claim language is “a flow eddy is formed or can be formed”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (form a flow eddy below/under/between guide devices) without providing any indication about how the function is performed (i.e. how the flow eddy is formed). The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e. guide devices, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of position the guide devices in a certain manner.
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, 5-11, 13-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuta et al. (JPH03275160 A).
With regard to claim 1, Mitsuta et al. discloses a separating device 22 for separating two spatial regions 2, 3, the separating device comprising: one or more guide devices 20, by which at least one separating fluid (page 6, line 18, outside air) can be introduced into a connecting region (Fig. 2, at 22) arranged or formed between the two spatial regions 2, 3 (Fig. 2.).
With regard to claim 2, Mitsuta et al. discloses the separating device 22 includes at least two guide devices 20 for supplying at least two separating fluids to the connecting region (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 3, Mitsuta et al. discloses the separating device 22 includes one or more floor extraction devices 12, in particular one or more suction slots, wherein the one or more floor extraction devices are arranged between two guide devices of the separating device or wherein the one or more, in particular all, floor extraction devices 12 are arranged outside the connecting region (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 5, Mitsuta et al. discloses the separating device 22 includes at least two guide devices 20 for supplying at least two separating fluids different from one another into the connecting region (Fig. 2, two separate fluids supplied to front and rear 20 respectively), wherein a first separating fluid (i.e. outside air near front 20), in particular heated fresh air, can be supplied to the connecting region (Fig. 2, connecting region formed between front and rear 20) by a first of the guide devices (Fig. 2, front 20) and wherein a second separating fluid (i.e. outside air near rear 20), in particular circulating air, can be supplied to the connecting region by a second of the guide devices 20.
With regard to claim 6, Mitsuta et al. discloses the one or more guide devices 20 in particular the first guide device 20 and/or the second guide device 20, are in each case designed as a fixed, baffle element 19(Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 7, Mitsuta et al. discloses the one or more guide devices 20, in particular the first guide device 20 (Fig. 2, front 20) and/or the second guide device (Fig. 2, rear 20), in each case include two guide elements 19 in particular guide plates (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 8, Mitsuta et al. discloses the guide elements19, in particular the guide plates, are oriented at least approximately parallel to one another (Fig. 2) and/or at a lower end in relation to a direction of gravity form a supply opening, in particular a supply slot, for supplying the at least one separating fluid to the connecting region (alternative limitation is not necessary required by the claim).
With regard to claim 9, Mitsuta et al. discloses the one or more guide devices 20, in particular the first guide device and/or the second guide device, are each arranged in such a way that an outflow direction of the separating fluid flowing out of a respective supply opening of the respective guide device runs obliquely to the direction of gravity and/or obliquely to a conveying direction and/or obliquely to a horizontal, wherein an angle between approximately 55° and approximately 80° is enclosed between the outflow direction and a horizontal running perpendicular to the direction of gravity and/or the conveying direction (see air flow arrows in Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 10, Mitsuta et al. discloses the plurality of guide devices 20, in particular the first guide device and/or the second guide device, are arranged relative to one another in such a way that outflow directions of the separating fluid flowing out of a respective supply opening of the respective guide device
With regard to claim 11, Mitsuta et al. discloses a movable baffle element 19. With regard to the limitation which can optionally be introduced into ore moved from the connecting region for selectively reducing or increasing an opening cross-section of the connecting region, this limitation is optional and not necessary required by the claim.
With regard to claim 13, Mitsuta et al. discloses a first of the spatial regions 2 is a treatment space for treating workpieces 4 and/or wherein a second of the spatial regions 2 is a treatment space for treating workpieces 4, and wherein the first spatial region 3 is a holding zone for holding the workpieces at a prespecified temperature and/or the second spatial region is a cooling zone for cooling the workpieces (alternative limitation is not necessary required by the claim).
With regard to claim 14, Mitsuta discloses the separating device 22 includes one or more guide devices 20 and two or more than two blocking elements (Fig. 2, portions located at bottom of 22 protrudes towards cover 6a, 6b are considered as blocking element) arranged in a floor region of the separating device 22, wherein one or more deflecting regions is formed between the blocking elements for deflecting one or more fluid flows (Fig. 2) and/or for forming one or more flow eddies (alternative limitation is not necessary required by the claim).
With regard to claim 16, Mitsuta et al. discloses a treatment installation (Figs. 1-2) for treating workpieces 4, in particular a drying system 2 for drying coated vehicle bodies, the treatment installation comprising: a treatment space 2, 3 for treating workpieces 4, which includes one or more treatment space portions 2, 3; and at least one separating device 22 according to Claim 1 (see above), wherein at least one treatment space portion 2, 3 forms one of the spatial regions, which can be separated from another of the spatial regions 2, 3 by means of the at least one separating device 22 (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 17, Mitsuta et al. discloses the treatment installation includes a conveyor device 5 for conveying the workpieces 4 (Fig. 1), which conveyor device 5 extends through the separating device 22 in a conveying direction of the conveyor device 5 (Figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 18, Mitsuta et al. discloses a lower face of the guide elements 20 is at least partially and/or at least approximately complementary to a conveying contour of the workpieces 4 to be conveyed by the conveyor device 5 (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 19, Mitsuta et al. discloses a method for treating workpieces 4, in particular for drying coated vehicle bodies, the method comprising: separating two spatial regions 2, 3 from one another by a separating device 22 according to Claim 1 (see above); and conveying workpieces through the separating device 22 (Fig. 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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuta et al. (JPH03275160 A) in view of Iglauer-Angrik et al. (WO 2020/001706 A1).
The separating device of Mitsuta et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 4, one or more floor extraction devices, in particular one or more suction slots, wherein the one or more floor extraction devices are arranged and/or formed in an imaginary extension of one of the guide devices in a floor wall of the connecting region. Iglauer-Angrik et al. discloses a separating device 100 comprising one or more floor extraction device 169, in particular one or more suction slots, wherein the one or more floor extraction devices 169 are arranged and/or formed in an imaginary extension of one of the guide devices in a floor wall of the connecting region (Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the separating device of Mitsuta et al. to include one or more floor extraction devices, in particular one or more suction slots, wherein the one or more floor extraction devices are arranged and/or formed in an imaginary extension of one of the guide devices in a floor wall of the connecting region as taught by Iglauer-Angrik et al. in order to extract fluid between the two regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for allowance of claim 12 is the inclusion of the limitation “movable baffle element is arranged between two of the guide devices in relation to a connecting direction, which is oriented substantially perpendicular to a separating plane separating the two spatial regions from one another” in claim 12in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY