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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
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 the combination of Yoneyama (US PG Pub 2016/0008764) and Hikita (US Patent 6,427,941). 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).
During a telephone conversation with Matthew Shatynski on 1/21/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 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.
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.
Conclusion
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