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/Restriction
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-10, drawn to an apparatus.
Group II, claim(s) 11-15, drawn to a method.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I & II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of claims 1 & 10, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of as discussed below. As discussed below, the combination renders obvious claims 1 & 10 and therefore there is no shared special technical feature between Groups I (claims 1-10) and Group II (claims 11-15).
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17: The term “close” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Given that “close” is used to modify the term “contact” it appears that applicant is claiming a scope broader than “in contact” but it is unclear how “close” is required to be considered in “close contact” vs “in contact” or “not in close contact” and thus one of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds.
For the purpose examination, if the substrate can be construed to be within the proximity roller it will be considered to be in “close contact”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10, 16, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama (US PG Pub 2016/0008764; hereafter ‘764) in view of Hikita (US Patent 6,427,941; hereafter ‘941).
Claim 1: ‘764 is directed towards a roll-to-roll coating and drying apparatus (see title, abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a drying oven provided with an internal space for drying a coated web (see #40, Fig. 1; ¶ 57); and
at least one or more rollers disposed downstream of the drying oven (see #s 65, 66, 67, 68, & 69, Fig. 1; ¶ 57),
wherein the temperature downstream from the drying oven is maintained from 15-35ºC (¶ 48) and the drying oven blows hot air to perform the drying (¶ 44).
‘764 does not provide details of the configuration of the rolls or that the rolls are configured to spray hot air to the web.
However, ‘941, which is directed towards a web transporting apparatus (title) discloses an air floating roller (see Figs. 1, 2, & 3) which float the web across the rollers by blowing air on the web (col. 3, lines 1-45) wherein the air flowing rollers prevent damage to the web or coatings on the web seen in non-air floating rollers (see col. 1, lines 40-50 and col. 3, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the air floating rollers of ‘941 as the downstream rollers the coating and drying apparatus of ‘764 because they are art recognized web rollers which would have provided the improvement of preventing damage to the web and coating.
The combination does not teach that the air floating rollers are configured to spray hot air to the web.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the same hot air source as the drying oven for the air floating rollers because it would have provided environmental control within the desired range of ‘764 as well as reducing the complexity of the apparatus but using the same source of air.
The combination does not teach that the hot air sprayed from the hot air spraying hole of the air-floating roller is at a temperature from 50-150ºC.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the temperature of the heated air sprayed from the air floating rollers because differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 2: The air-floating rollers has a hollow cylindrical shape and has a plurality of air spraying holes on an outer circumferential surface (see Fig. 1, ‘941).
Claim 3: The combination does not teach that the air spraying holes have a diameter in the range of 0.5-15 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the air spraying holes such that they have a diameter in the range of 0.5-15 mm because changes to shape and size are prima facie obvious.
Claim 4: Roll 65 has a contact angle of 90º (Fig. 1, ‘764).
Claim 5: At least one of the air-floating rollers is disposed to spray hot air to a first surface of the web facing upward in the oven (see Roll 66, Fig. 1, ‘764).
Claim 6: At least one of the air-floating rollers is disposed to spray hot air to a first surface of the web facing downward in the oven (see Roll 67, Fig. 1, ‘764).
Claim 7: A first air-floating rollers is disposed to spray hot air to a first surface of the web facing upward in the oven (see Roll 66, Fig. 1, ‘764) and a second air-floating rollers is disposed to spray hot air to a first surface of the web facing downward in the oven (see Roll 67, Fig. 1, ‘764).
Claim 8: The air-floating rollers of the combination also read on suction rollers because the air travels between the nozzles and web along the web and exit at the edge of the roll which in turn will cause suction as no air escapes (see col. 4, lines 28-50, ‘941).
Claim 9: A partition is installed around the air-floating roller to block it from an exterior space (the air-floating rollers are blocked by edge rollers on each end to block it from an exterior space; see Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 28-55).
Claim 10: ‘764 is directed towards a roll-to-roll coating and drying apparatus (see title, abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a winder configured for continuously unwinding a web (#10, Fig. 1; ¶ 57);
a coating part configured for applying a slurry to one surface of the web (#20, Fig. 1; ¶ 57);
a drying oven provided with an internal space for drying a coated web (see #40, Fig. 1; ¶ 57);
drying equipment comprising:
at least one or more rollers disposed downstream of the drying oven (see #s 65, 66, 67, 68, & 69, Fig. 1; ¶ 57),
wherein the temperature downstream from the drying oven is maintained from 15-35ºC (¶ 48) and the drying oven blows hot air to perform the drying (¶ 44); and
a rewinder configured for winding up a web sheet discharged from the drying equipment (see #50, Fig. 1; ¶ 57).
‘764 does not provide details of the configuration of the rolls or that the rolls are configured to spray hot air to the web.
However, ‘941, which is directed towards a web transporting apparatus (title) discloses an air floating roller (see Figs. 1, 2, & 3) which float the web across the rollers by blowing air on the web (col. 3, lines 1-45) wherein the air flowing rollers prevent damage to the web or coatings on the web seen in non-air floating rollers (see col. 1, lines 40-50 and col. 3, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the air floating rollers of ‘941 as the downstream rollers the coating and drying apparatus of ‘764 because they are art recognized web rollers which would have provided the improvement of preventing damage to the web and coating.
The combination does not teach that the air floating rollers are configured to spray hot air to the web.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the same hot air source as the drying oven for the air floating rollers because it would have provided environmental control within the desired range of ‘764 as well as reducing the complexity of the apparatus but using the same source of air.
Claim 16: As discussed above, the contact angle between the sheet and the air-floating roller is ~90º (see Fig. 1).
‘764 does not explicitly teach that the contact angle is less than 90º.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the contact angle less than 90º because less than 90º is similar and approaches 90º and without a showing of unexpected results and criticality, approaching and similar ranges are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 17: The substrate is wrapped around the roller (see Fig. 1) and there is no evidence that it is repelled from the roller so it is reasonable to presume that it is in “close contact” of said roller.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the combination does not teach that the apparatus is configured to spray hot air from the air spraying holes at 50-150ºC; as discussed above, the combination teaches spraying hot air at a controlled temperature and it is prima facie obvious to optimize the temperature for desired results and thus the combination renders obvious the claimed limitation as recited.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the combination does not render obvious the claim limitation “a diameter of the air spraying hole is in the range of 0.5 mm to 15 mm” as recited in claim 3; applicant is advised that it is prima facie obvious to change the shape and size of features/components of the apparatus unless a showing of critical and unexpected results are shown and applicant has not provided any arguments of criticality.
In regards to applicant’s argument that an air-floating roller disposed downstream of the first air-floating roller in the combination does not read on “a suction roller” as recited and it is “not the broadest reasonable interpretation” to define an air-floating roller with suction at the ends a suction roller; the Office does not find this argument convincing because applicant has not required anything more than “a suction roller” and thus the roller of the prior art must have suction which the roller of the prior art inherently has by the fact that the outlets are a pathway through which air is removed from the surface of the roller and thus create a degree of suction and thus reads on the limitation.
In regards to applicant’s argument directed towards newly added claims 16 & 17 as they depend from claim 4; applicant is advised that a certain degree of suction is not required but instead that there must be a suction present which the prior art inherently has.
In regards the limitation “close contact”; applicant is advised that the phrase is ambiguous as discussed above and that the prior art combination provides close contact because the substrate is wounds around the rollers as disclosed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “create tension and prevent wobble”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights