DETAILED ACTION
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 4-5 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “controlling and/or affecting an average flow rate” is unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it difficult to differentiate the scope between the terms “controlling” and “affecting”, namely how one could affect the average flow rate without controlling it or control the average flow rate without affecting it. The term “and/or” must facilitate the exclusive “or”, consisting of one without the other, but one of ordinary skill in the art would find it unclear the difference in scope between controlling an average flow rate and affecting an average flow rate. The Office recommends amending the claim recitation of “and/or” to an inclusive “or” such as to avoid the use of the exclusive “or” inherent within the term “and/or”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “controlling and/or activating an operating mode of the gas burner (11) and/or of the electrical resistance heating element (12)” is unclear. The control unit of claim 5 is configured such that three modes of activation, namely of only the gas burner, only the electrical resistance heating element, and both the gas burner and the electrical resistance heating element. However, using the exclusive “or” in the limitation of “controlling and/or activating an operating mode of the gas burner (11) and/or of the electrical resistance heating element (12)” results in the control unit being incapable of performing one or more modes of operation. For example, if the control unit is only configured for controlling the gas burner, then the two modes requiring control of the electrical resistance heating element would be nonfunctional. The Office recommends amending the claim recitation of “and/or” to an inclusive “or” such as to avoid the use of the exclusive “or” inherent within the term “and/or”.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the gas burner" and “the electrical resistance heating element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected upon its dependency on claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (US 20110171590 A1) in view of JOHNEN (DE 102005029780 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guenter (US 20110171590 A1) teaches a heating device (1) (Figure 1) for heating rod-shaped, electroconductive workpieces (13) (Paragraph 13, device for heating rod-type, electrically conductive work pieces) which are conveyed along a conveying direction (R) through the heating device (1) (Paragraph 16, roller conveyor continuously conveys through the gas oven 1 and induction oven 2), said heating device (1) comprising a first heating module (2) in relation to the conveying direction (R) (Figure 1 Paragraph 16, gas oven 1), the first heating module (2) having a first input area (4) (Paragraph 16, a roller conveyor is introduced continuously through gas oven 1 and induction oven 2; thus it is inherent that the gas oven 1 consists of an input area which consists of wherein the roller conveyor begins within gas oven 1) and a first output area (5) (Figure 1 Paragraph 16, uncoupling ring 3), and a second heating module (3) in relation to the conveying direction (R) (induction oven 2), the second heating module (3) having a second input area (6) (uncoupling ring 3) and a second output area (7) (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, hot sheers 4 which follows the induction oven 2), the second heating module (3) being configured as an induction module (Figure 1, induction oven 2), wherein
the first heating module (2) (gas oven 1) and wherein the first output area (5) is structurally disposed directly on the second input area (6) (Figure 1, uncoupling ring 3 is the outlet of the gas oven and the inlet of the induction oven).
Guenter fails to explicitly teach:
the first heating module (2) is configured as a convection module (9) having heating mediums (10), the convection module (9) being designed and configured such that for heating the workpiece (13), a working gas circulates between the heating mediums (10) and the workpiece (13) to be heated, in such a manner that the working gas is initially heated by the heating mediums (10) and then, the heated working gas flows against the workpiece (13).
JOHNEN (DE 102005029780 A1) teaches a furnace for heating long aluminum strands, wherein:
the first heating module (2) having a first input area (4) (Figure 1 Paragraph 20, loading unit 2) and a first output area (5) (Figure 1 Paragraphs 20-21, hot saw 5 and transverse transport device 12; Paragraph 21, aluminum workpiece is then delivered to an induction furnace)
the first heating module (2) is configured as a convection module (9) (Paragraph 23, aluminum strands are heated by high convection 1 within furnace 3) having heating mediums (10) (Figure 3 Paragraph 23, nozzle system for delivering heated gas to the aluminum strands 1), the convection module (9) being designed and configured such that for heating the workpiece (13) (Figure 3 Paragraph 23, heated gas is delivered to the aluminum strands 1), a working gas circulates between the heating mediums (10) and the workpiece (13) to be heated (Figure 3 Paragraph 23, gas is heated via burners 22 before entering the nozzle system wherein the heated gas is delivered to the aluminum strands 1 and then returned through the return flow channels 21 to a radial fan and the burners), in such a manner that the working gas is initially heated by the heating mediums (10) (Paragraph 23, gas is heated via burners 22 before entering the nozzle system) and then, the heated working gas flows against the workpiece (13) (Figure 3 Paragraph 23, nozzle system 9 delivers the heated gas to the aluminum strands 1).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guenter with JOHNEN and have the gas oven comprise a high-convection furnace. This would have been done to quickly and evenly heat the aluminum workpieces (JOHNEN Paragraph 9).
The Office additionally notes that processing workpieces with burners and induction heating along a conveyor within a single structural furnace is known in the art as evidenced by BORGNAT (FR 2284847 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1.
JOHNEN further teaches:
the convection module (9) comprises at least one ventilation duct (16) (Figure 3, nozzle rib 20 and return flow channels 21) for guiding the working gas between the heating mediums (10) and the workpiece (13) to be heated (Paragraph 23, heated gas flows vertically over the nozzle fins 20 onto the aluminum strands 1 to be heated).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1.
JOHNEN further teaches:
the convection module (9) comprises nozzle elements (14) for affecting the flow rate of the working gas when it strikes the rod-shaped workpiece (13) (Paragraph 23, radial fan 18 draw the gas axially and expel it radially wherein gas flows over the nozzle fins onto the aluminum strands; both the fans and the nozzle fins would affect the flow rate of the gas).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 6.
JOHNEN further teaches:
the nozzle elements (14) are configured as a plurality of slot nozzles (15) which are disposed adjacent to each other in the conveying direction (R) (Figure 2, plurality of nozzles 20 are positioned adjacent to one another in the conveying direction) and which extend laterally to the rod-shaped workpiece (13) to be conveyed (Figures 2-3, plurality of nozzles extend laterally to the rod-shaped workpiece being conveyed wherein the nozzles extend significantly further in the length direction of the aluminum strands than they do in the conveying direction such that the nozzles can reasonably be considered slot nozzles).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
The Office further notes that the use of slot nozzles to deliver heated air onto a metal workpiece is well known in the art as evidenced by VALDER (EP 2508828 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1.
JOHNEN further teaches:
the first heating module (2) (oven 3) comprises at least two heating zones having a first convection module (81) and at least a second convection module (82) (Figure 3, at least two zones are shown comprising a first nozzle and a second nozzle each comprising their own fan 18 and burners 22).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1, wherein:
the first heating module (2) and the second heating module (3) are formed such that the conveying direction (R) in the first heating module (2) and the conveying direction (R) in the second heating module (3) extend along a shared longitudinal axis (L) (Paragraph 16, a roller conveyor is introduced continuously through gas oven 1 and induction oven 2; Figure 1, gas oven 1 and induction oven 2 convey in a single direction and thus the modules extend in a single direction).
The Office further notes that having a device wherein a gas heating module and an induction heating module extend along the same direction is well known in the art as evidenced by EXTRUTEC (DE 202016100564 U1).
Regarding claim 12, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1.
JOHNEN further teaches:
the heating device is an in-line heater (Paragraph 16, a roller conveyor is introduced continuously through gas oven 1 and induction oven 2).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1, wherein:
the rod-shaped, electroconductive workpieces (13) are metal rods and/or non-ferrous metal rods (Paragraph 1, device for heating rod-type electrically conductive work pieces).
Regarding claim 16, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 7.
JOHNEN further teaches:
the plurality of slot nozzles (15) extend laterally in sections to the rod-shaped workpiece (13) to be conveyed (Figures 2-3, nozzles extend laterally in sections to the aluminum strands being conveyed).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (US 20110171590 A1) in view of JOHNEN (DE 102005029780 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZWICKEL (US 20140151941 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1, wherein:
the heating mediums (10) comprise a gas burner (11) (Paragraph 19, gas oven which comprises gas heating)
JOHNEN further teaches:
the heating mediums (10) comprise a gas burner (11) (Paragraph 23, self-recuperating burners 22 wherein combustion air is preheated by exhaust air) and an electrical resistance heating element (12) (Paragraph 23, heating can be achieved via electrically resistance-heated gas nozzles).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
While Guenter modified with JOHNEN fails to explicitly teach that the heating device simultaneously comprises both a gas burner and electrical resistance heating element, ZWICKEL (US 20140151941 A1) teaches a hood-type annealing furnace comprising a gas burner and a resistance electric heating device (ZWICKEL Paragraphs 14 and 18) for heating a circulating gas used for heating a metal workpiece (ZWICKEL Paragraph 37). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guenter with ZWICKEL and have the gas oven comprise both a gas burner and an electrical resistance heating element. This would have been done to capitalize on an energy surplus which occurs because of overcapacities in public power networks (ZWICKEL Paragraphs 12 and 14).
Regarding claim 5, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1.
Guenter as modified fails to teach:
the convection module (9) comprises a control unit (19) for controlling and/or activating an operating mode of the gas burner (11) and/or of the electrical resistance heating element (12), the control unit (19) being formed and/or configured such that, depending on user-generated and/or parameter-generated input signals, only the gas burner (11) is activable in a first operating mode, only the electrical resistance heating element (12) is activable in a second operating mode, and the gas burner (11) and the electrical resistance heating element (12) are activable in a third operating mode.
ZWICKEL (US 20140151941 A1) teaches a hood-type annealing furnace, wherein:
the convection module (9) comprises a control unit (19) (Paragraph 31, control device or controller 22) for controlling and/or activating an operating mode of the gas burner (11) and/or of the electrical resistance heating element (12) (Paragraph 14, control device controls the burner and electric heating device), the control unit (19) being formed and/or configured such that, depending on user-generated and/or parameter-generated input signals (Paragraph 14, when a surplus of electrical energy occurs), only the gas burner (11) is activable in a first operating mode (Paragraph 11, operating the furnaces solely by the gas burner), only the electrical resistance heating element (12) is activable in a second operating mode (Paragraph 12, operation of the gas burner is interrupted and the electric heating device is activated), and the gas burner (11) and the electrical resistance heating element (12) are activable in a third operating mode (Paragraph 13, electric heating device and gas heating device are operated simultaneously).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guenter with ZWICKEL and have the gas oven comprise both a gas burner and an electrical resistance heating element. This would have been done to capitalize on an energy surplus which occurs because of overcapacities in public power networks (ZWICKEL Paragraphs 12 and 14).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (US 20110171590 A1) in view of JOHNEN (DE 102005029780 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grewe (US 20130313763 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1.
Guenter fails to teach:
the convection module (9) comprises gas-conveying elements (17) for controlling and/or affecting an average flow rate of the working gas.
Grewe (US 20130313763 A1) teaches a furnace and method of operating a furnace, wherein:
the convection module (9) comprises gas-conveying elements (17) for controlling and/or affecting an average flow rate of the working gas (Paragraph 39, temperature set in the metal component can be set by adjusting mutually different flow rates; Paragraph 100, each zone has its own blower which is set to a specific speed; Paragraph 31, adjustment parameters in conjunction with a temperature control such that the heating of the metal component can be adjusted via different air blower settings).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guenter with Grewe and have the blower in each zone be set to a specific speed. This would have been done such that the desired temperature of the light metal component can be specifically adjusted in the temperature zone by the airflow flowing across a light metal component (Grewe Paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 15, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 4.
JOHNEN further teaches:
the gas-conveying elements (17) are a ventilator or a fan (18) located within the at least one ventilation duct (Figure 3, centrifugal fans 18 located within nozzle ribs 20)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Grewe further teaches:
the gas-conveying elements (17) are a ventilator or a fan (18) (Paragraph 100, each zone has its own blower which is set to a specific speed), wherein the average flow rate of the working gas is in the at least one ventilation duct (16) (adjusting the blower to a specific speed would also adjust the speed of the gas within the duct since the blowers of JOHNEN are located within a duct).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (US 20110171590 A1) in view of JOHNEN (DE 102005029780 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KIM (US 20170183757 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1, wherein:
the induction module (8) (induction oven) comprises at least two independently controllable heating zones having a first induction module (91) and at least a second induction module (92) (Paragraphs 9 and 16, induction oven has at least two heating zones that can be regulated independently of each other).
While the Office does not concede the fact, the applicant may argue Guenter as modified does not explicitly show a first induction module and a second induction module and thus said modules are not inherent. However, KIM (US 20170183757 A1) teaches a method for method of induction heating for metal wherein the metal sheets are conveyed through an induction furnace comprising a plurality of zones, wherein each heating zone is provided with its own induction coil connected to a separate inverter (KIM Figure 2 Paragraphs 35-37), each of which can be independently controlled (KIM Paragraph 17). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guenter with Kim and have induction oven comprise at least a first induction module and a second induction module. This would have been done to facilitate having two induction heating zones which can independently be controlled (KIM Paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (US 20110171590 A1) in view of JOHNEN (DE 102005029780 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwartz (US 20090263758 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 1.
Guenter as modified fails to explicitly teach “the first heating module (2) comprises a length between 6 m to 15 m in the conveying direction (R), and the second heating module (3) comprises a length between 0.5 m to 4 m in the conveying direction (R)”. However, Schwartz (US 20090263758 A1) teaches a method and continuous furnace for heating workpieces wherein the length of the furnace and speed of transportation of the transportation device are suitable correspondingly selected so that the workpiece is moved continuously through the furnace and the desired temperature is achieved in the workpiece as soon as the front edge of the workpiece has completely traveled through the heating zone to the end of the furnace (Schwartz Paragraph 49). Thus, the prior art teaches that the length of the furnace is determined based on the desired temperature being achieved in the workpiece. It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Guenter so that “the first heating module (2) comprises a length between 6 m to 15 m in the conveying direction (R), and the second heating module (3) comprises a length between 0.5 m to 4 m in the conveying direction (R)”, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II).
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches 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. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the first heating module and second heating module comprise specific length ranges is not sufficient for the claimed device to be patentably distinct from the prior art devices.
Regarding claim 17, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 11.
Guenter as modified fails to explicitly teach “the first heating module (2) comprises a length between 6 m to 12 m, and wherein the second heating module (3) comprises a length between 0.8 m to 2 m”. However, Schwartz (US 20090263758 A1) teaches a method and continuous furnace for heating workpieces wherein the length of the furnace and speed of transportation of the transportation device are suitable correspondingly selected so that the workpiece is moved continuously through the furnace and the desired temperature is achieved in the workpiece as soon as the front edge of the workpiece has completely traveled through the heating zone to the end of the furnace (Schwartz Paragraph 49). Thus, the prior art teaches that the length of the furnace is determined based on the desired temperature being achieved in the workpiece. It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Guenter so that “the first heating module (2) comprises a length between 6 m to 12 m, and wherein the second heating module (3) comprises a length between 0.8 m to 2 m”, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II).
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches 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. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the first heating module and second heating module comprise specific length ranges is not sufficient for the claimed device to be patentably distinct from the prior art devices.
Regarding claim 18, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 11.
Guenter as modified fails to explicitly teach “the first heating module (2) comprises a length between 6 m to 10 m, and wherein the second heating module (3) comprises a length between 0.8 m to 1.6 m”. However, Schwartz (US 20090263758 A1) teaches a method and continuous furnace for heating workpieces wherein the length of the furnace and speed of transportation of the transportation device are suitable correspondingly selected so that the workpiece is moved continuously through the furnace and the desired temperature is achieved in the workpiece as soon as the front edge of the workpiece has completely traveled through the heating zone to the end of the furnace (Schwartz Paragraph 49). Thus, the prior art teaches that the length of the furnace is determined based on the desired temperature being achieved in the workpiece. It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Guenter so that “the first heating module (2) comprises a length between 6 m to 10 m, and wherein the second heating module (3) comprises a length between 0.8 m to 1.6 m”, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II).
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches 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. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the first heating module and second heating module comprise specific length ranges is not sufficient for the claimed device to be patentably distinct from the prior art devices.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (US 20110171590 A1) in view of JOHNEN (DE 102005029780 A1) and ZWICKEL (US 20140151941 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of SCHMITZ (WO 2014191368 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Guenter as modified teaches the heating device according to claim 2.
JOHNEN further teaches:
wherein the electrical resistance heating element (12) is a resistance-heated heating register (Paragraph 23, electrically resistance-heated gas nozzle).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
ZWICKEL further teaches:
wherein the electrical resistance heating element (12) is a resistance-heated heating register (ZWICKEL Paragraph 18, ohmic resistance heating device)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 2.
Guenter as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the gas burner (11) is a recuperative burner (22)
SCHMITZ (WO 2014191368 A1) teaches a device and method for heat treating method articles under a gas atmosphere, wherein:
the gas burner (11) is a recuperative burner (22) (Paragraphs 22 and 42-43, heating elements can be used as recuperative burner or designed as a regenerator burner)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guenter with SCHMITZ and have gas burner be a recuperative burner instead of a regenerator burner. This would have been done as the two are known in the art to be substitutable in function for one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights