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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 9 recites “a fixing part configured for fixing”
Prong 1: The term “part” is a generic placeholder/nonce term.
Prong 2: The generic placeholder “part” is modified by functional language, “part configured for”.
Prong 3: The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure to defined by structure to perform the operation.
Interpretation: A review of the specification has shown the fixing part to be 160 in Figure 1 and is described in ¶ 77 of the submitted specification. The Applicant has not given any clarity to the constitution of “fixing part” and in fact uses the term “fixing means” in the specification. The Examiner will interpret the fixing part as any and all parts capable of fixing something such as screws, clamps, glue, or the like.
Claim 10 recites “a control device configured for automatically repositioning”
Prong 1: The term “device” is a generic placeholder/nonce term.
Prong 2: The generic placeholder “device” is modified by functional language, “device configured for”.
Prong 3: The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure to defined by structure to perform the operation.
Interpretation: A review of the specification has returned ¶ 81-83 describing the control device however there is no clarity given to the Examiner what constitutes the control device. The Examiner will interpret the term “control device” as any component capable of recognizing the location of the coated and uncoated part such as a sensor or processor receiving sensed data or the like.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are found in claims 15 and 16 which use the term “means” in a defining manner.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 recites “a fixing part configured for fixing the infrared heat source to the frame”. Applicant’s Figure 1 shows the fixing part 160 and ¶ 77 of the specification describes the fixing part. However, Applicant does not adequately convey or reasonably disclose the required structure for performing this limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10 recites “a control device configured for automatically repositioning” where the specification in ¶ 81-83 does not adequately convey or reasonably disclose the required structure for performing this limitation.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the shield film is mounted” in line 6 where the Examiner is unclear if this shield film and all latter instances of the shield film are different from the introduced “a first shield film” in line 4. A review of the claim structure and specification shows that these two shield films are same. For examination purposes, claim 1 will be treated as follows, “a frame extending in one direction; a first shield film mounted on the frame; and an infrared heat source mounted on the frame, wherein the first shield film is mounted on the frame and configured for repositioning along the one direction of the frame, and wherein the first shield film is configured for blocking at least a portion of the heat generated by the infrared heat source can be blocked.
Claim 3 recites “each of the shield films is” in line 3 where the Examiner is unclear if these shield films are the same as the newly introduced plurality of shield films. A review of the claim structure and specification shows that these are intended to be the same and will be treated as such. For examinations purposes, the term “each of the shield films is” will be treated as “each of the plurality of shield films [[is]] are”.
Claim 9 recites limitation “a fixing part configured for fixing the infrared heat source to the frame” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The drawings as shown with part 160 does not provide any information as to what constitutes the fixing part and the specification as cited above also fails at this. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 recites limitation “a control device configured for automatically repositioning” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s ¶ 81-83 does not provide adequate description as to what constitutes the control device and the Examiner is left unclear as to how to treat the limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 recites “configured for automatically repositioning the shield film” where the Examiner is unclear if the shield film is a new shield film or referring back to the first shield film of claim 1. A review of the claim structure and specification shows that the two are referring to the same shield film. For examination purposes, “configured for automatically repositioning the shield film” will be treated as “configured for automatically repositioning the first shield film”.
Claim 14 recites “the shield films is” in lines 3-4 where the Examiner is unclear if these shield films are the same as the newly introduced plurality of shield films. A review of the claim structure and specification shows that these are intended to be the same and will be treated as such. For examinations purposes, the term “the shield films” will be treated as “the plurality of shield films”.
Claim 15 recites “wherein W1 means the width of the shield film” where the Examiner is unclear if the shield film is a new shield film or referring back to the first shield film of claim 1 and claim 11. A review of the claim structure and specification shows that the two are referring to the same shield film. For examination purposes, “wherein W1 means the width of the shield film” will be treated as “wherein W1 means the width of the first shield film”.
Claim 16 recites “wherein H2 means the distance between the shield film and the infrared heat source, and wherein H1 means the distance between the current collector and the shield film” where the Examiner is unclear if the shield film is a new shield film or referring back to the first shield film of claim 1 and claim 11. A review of the claim structure and specification shows that the two are referring to the same shield film. For examination purposes, “wherein H2 means the distance between the shield film and the infrared heat source, and wherein H1 means the distance between the current collector and the shield film” will be treated as “wherein H2 means the distance between the first shield film and the infrared heat source, and wherein H1 means the distance between the current collector and the first shield film”.
All claims not explicitly rejected by 112(b) above are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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 1-7, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 206153096 (Ji hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ji teaches an infrared heat source for drying that discloses a frame extending in one direction (Figure 1, Frame 11 and G); a first shield film mounted on the frame (Shield 3); and an infrared heat source mounted on the frame (Lamp 2), wherein the shield film is mounted on the frame and configured for repositioning along the one direction of the frame (“each baffle 3 is suspended on the guide rail and can slide along the guide rail G”), and wherein the shield film is configured for blocking at least a portion of the heat generated by the infrared heat source can be blocked (“a baffle plate 3 shielding the infrared lighting tube corresponding to the baffle 3 part emits infrared ray, thereby avoiding coating C and the area corresponding to the baffle plate 3 under the action of infrared radiation heating, and avoid the coating C is directly influenced by the hot air jet and baffle 3 corresponding to the region”).
Regarding claim 2, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses that the frame includes an opening so that the heat generated from the infrared heat source is exposed to an outside of the infrared heat source module (Gaps shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses that wherein the infrared heat source module includes a plurality of shield films including the first shield film and wherein each of the plurality of shield films are independently configured for repositioning (Evident of the plurality of shields 3).
Regarding claim 4, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses that a position change part mounted on the frame to enable a position change of the first shield film (Guide rail G per “each baffle 3 is suspended on the guide rail and can slide along the guide rail G”).
Regarding claim 5, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 4 where Ji further discloses that a groove having a predetermined space is formed in the position change part (The broadest reasonable interpretation of the O-gap and U-gap of the baffle for interfacing with the guide rail).
Regarding claim 6, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 4 where Ji further discloses that the position change part comprises a rail provided with a moving device (Rail G in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 2 where Ji further discloses that the first shield film is positioned at one or more positions selected from the group consisting of an inside of the opening, an upper end of the opening, and a lower end of the opening (The shields 3 are able to be positioned along the guide rail at each of these positions).
Regarding claim 11, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising: drying an electrode slurry formed on a current collector (Figures 1, 5, and 6 with current collector P), by applying heat from the infrared heat source module of claim 1 (Evident from Figures 1, 5, and 6) in a state where the infrared heat source module is placed on a current collector coated with the electrode slurry (“facing the infrared lamp of the surface of substrate P 2 also has a coating adjacent to C extending along the longitudinal direction L un-coating area N, the corresponding N substrate P with the uncoated region of the baffle 3 in the transverse direction T is larger than a size of a substrate P of uncoated area N, so as to shield the infrared lamp 2 C corresponding to the edge close to the coating part so as to prevent the infrared lamp 2 emits infrared pair near the coating C of edge heating”).
Regarding claim 12, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 11 where Ji further discloses that the drying is performed while the current collector on which the electrode slurry is formed moves in one direction (Figures 1, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 14, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 11 where Ji further discloses that the current collector includes a further uncoated part (Additional N of Figures 1 and 3-5), the infrared heat source module includes a plurality of shield films including the first shield film (Shields 3), and the shield films of the infrared heat source module are arranged to be positioned between each of the uncoated parts and the infrared heat source (Evident from Figures 1 and 3-5).
Regarding claim 17, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 11 where Ji further discloses that during the applying of the heat from the infrared heat source module, the first shield film of the infrared heat source module is positioned to block at least some of the portion of the heat applied from the infrared heat source of the infrared heat source module (Inherent function of the shields 3 of Ji).
Regarding claim 18, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 17 where Ji further discloses that the current collector includes a coated part coated by the electrode slurry (Coated part C of the current collector P in Figures 1 and 3-5) and an uncoated part uncoated by the electrode slurry (Uncoated part N), and wherein the heat from the infrared heat source module blocked by the first shield film includes heat applied to the uncoated part of the current collector (Inherent of the shield 3 usage).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206153096 (Ji) in view of US 2018/0141072 (Kuribayashi hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the infrared heat source emits light having a wavelength ranging from 3 µm to 50 µm.
However, Kuribayashi teaches an IR heater that discloses the heat source operating with a wavelength ranging from 3 µm to 50 µm (¶ 12-13 and 63-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operating wavelength of the heater of Ji with the wavelengths of Kuribayashi to optimize power consumption while rapidly heating the target material per ¶ 64 of Kuribayashi.
Regarding claim 9, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a fixing part configured for fixing the infrared heat source to the frame.
However, Kuribayashi teaches an infrared heating system that discloses a fixing part configured for fixing the infrared heat source to the frame (Figure 2 with heaters 32 and 51 affixed to the equivalent frames of 3 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the infrared light and frame of Ji with the fixing part of Kuribayashi to securely hold the infrared light.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206153096 (Ji) in view of JP H1038462 (Fujiwara hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a control device configured for automatically repositioning the shield film.
However, Fujiwara teaches an infrared drier that discloses a control device configured for automatically repositioning the shield film (Figure 7 equivalent shield 12 with control by the driving device 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shields of Ji with the control device of Fujiwara to allow for automatic control of the shield.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206153096 (Ji) in view of EP 3026980 (Komaki hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 12 but are silent with respect that an A value according to the following general equation 1 is 1 to 10: [General Equation 1] A = W1/W and wherein, W1 means the width of the shield film, and W means the width of the uncoated part. The relative sizes can be approximately seen in Figure 2 of Ji.
However, Komaki teaches an infrared drying application that discloses relative sizing of the dried area and the area not dried by the infrared light (“In Fig. 14, Wa to Wd denote the widths of the overlapping portions of the transmission region 54 and the heating element region E (the size of the overlapping portions in the directions from the center C of the heating element region E outward along the upper surface of the first transmission layer 51). As the widths Wa to Wd become smaller, the selective reflection region 53 becomes larger, and the energy of infrared radiation emitted toward the coating 92 tends to increase. As the widths Wa to Wd become larger, the energy of infrared radiation reflected from the reflective surface 76 toward the heating element 40 tends to increase. Therefore, preferably, the widths Wa to Wd are determined in consideration of both of these tendencies. To be specific, preferably, each of the widths Wa and Wb is in the range of 10 to 20% of the length X of the heating element region E in the left-right direction. Preferably, each of the widths Wc and Wd is in the range of 10 to 20% of the length Y of the heating element region E in the front-back direction. The widths Wa to Wd may be in the range of 10 to 20% of the aforementioned representative dimension L. The widths Wa to Wd may be in the range of 90% to 110% of the aforementioned distance D. The widths Wa to Wd may be 10mm or more and 30mm or less. The area of the overlapping portions of the transmission region 54 and the heating element region E is preferably, for example, in the range of 30 % to 65% of the heating element region E (heating element area S).”) The resultant combination would show that the sizing of the shield and the size of the uncoated part would be a result effective variable and obtaining the ratio required of claim 15 would be taught by Komaki.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sizing and relative dimensions of the shield and uncoated part of Ji with the teachings of Komaki to allow for the user to size the coated and uncoated areas of the conductor as desired.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206153096 (Ji) in view of US 2020/0221546 (Nohara hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 12 where Ji further discloses that the current collector includes a coated part coated by the electrode slurry (Current collector P with coated part C) and an uncoated part uncoated by the electrode slurry (Uncoated part N).
Ji is silent with respect that the infrared heat source module is moveable in one direction in which the current collector moves; or in an opposite direction to the one direction, and wherein when moving the infrared heat source module, the first shield film of the infrared heat source module is positioned to block at least some of at the portion of heat applied from the infrared heat source to the uncoated part.
However, Nohara teaches an infrared heating device that discloses that the infrared heat source module is moveable in one direction in which the current collector moves (¶ 53-54); or in an opposite direction to the one direction (¶ 53-54), and wherein when moving the infrared heat source module, the first shield film of the infrared heat source module is positioned to block at least some of at the portion of heat applied from the infrared heat source to the uncoated part (Resultant combination that the shields of Ji would block the IR light of Ji per the movement taught by Nohara).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the infrared light heater of Ji with the movement of Nohara to allow for the infrared light to be positioned to adjust the heating and prevent temperatures being too cold or too hot.
Regarding claim 16, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 11 but are silent with respect to a B value according to the following general equation 2 is 0.1 to 5: [General Equation 2] B = H2/H1, and wherein, H2 means the distance between the shield film and the infrared heat source, and H1 means the distance between the current collector and the shield film.
However, Nohara teaches an infrared heating device that discloses that the ability to adjust the height of the infrared heat source from the equivalent current collector (¶ 53-54 and 7). The resultant combination would allow the user to size the gap between the infrared light and the current collector to teach following general equation 2 is 0.1 to 5: [General Equation 2] B = H2/H1, and wherein, H2 means the distance between the shield film and the infrared heat source, and H1 means the distance between the current collector and the shield film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size the gap between the infrared light, the shields, and the current collector to allow for the required heating to occur and prevent the use of too cold or too hot temperatures per ¶ 7 of Nohara.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 (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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights