DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 05/14/2026 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 for further examination. Claims 9-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2024, 04/15/2025, 07/11/2025 & 02/12/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections
4. 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 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-3, 5 & 7-8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2023/0282802 A1) hereinafter Kang (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Kang are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Kang discloses an apparatus for drying a web coating (220) on a region of a travelling web (20/210), the web (20/210) being at least partially electrically conductive (abs; fig 1-3), comprising:
a dryer enclosure (110) having a web entry opening (see fig 1-2, right side of 100) and a web exit opening (see fig 1-2, left side of 100) spaced from the web entry opening (see fig 1-2, right side of 100), and at least one drying chamber (zone1 to zone10) with at least one nozzle (110) for convectively heating the web (20/210), and having at least one inductive heater (120) for inductively heating the web (20/210) ([0017]-[0025]; [0031]-[0050]; [0055]-[0060]; fig 1-2);
wherein the at least one nozzle (110) and the at least one inductive heater (120) are positioned in the apparatus (see fig 1-2) to concurrently heat the web coating (220) on the region of the web (20/210) ([0017]-[0025]; [0031]-[0050]; [0055]-[0060]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 2, Kang discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the dryer enclosure (110) has a first drying chamber (zone8) and a second drying chamber (zone9) downstream, in the direction of web (20/210) travel, of the first drying chamber (zone8) ([0017]-[0025]; [0031]-[0050]; [0055]-[0060]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 3, Kang discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the at least one inductive heater (120) is positioned in the first drying chamber (zone8), and wherein there is at least one nozzle (110) for convectively heating the web (20/210) positioned in the first drying chamber (zone8) and at least one nozzle (110) for convectively heating the web (20/210) positioned in the second drying chamber (zone9) ([0017]-[0025]; [0031]-[0050]; [0055]-[0060]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 5, Kang discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the at least one inductive heater (120) comprises one or more electromagnetic coils located in the dryer enclosure (110) so that convective air jets from the at least one nozzle (110) travel in a space between the one or more electromagnetic coils and a surface of the web (20/210) such that an oscillating magnetic field penetrating the web (20/210) and a convective jet field from the at least one nozzle (110) act on the same location of the web (20/210) at the same time ([0017]-[0025]; [0031]-[0050]; [0055]-[0060]; fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “to deliver an inductive energy flux absorbed by the web in the range of 1 to 75% of a total drying heat flux in the dryer enclosure”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kang since Kang meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of delivering an inductive energy flux absorbed by the web in the range of 1 to 75% of a total drying heat flux in the dryer enclosure, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 7, Kang discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the location of the inductive heater (120) and an attendant oscillating power supply (2.4 kW to 3.2 kW) are capable of delivering an inductive energy flux absorbed by the web (20/210) in the range of 1 to 75% of a total drying heat flux in the dryer enclosure (110) ([0043]-[0044]; [0052]-[0057]; fig 2, clm 11-16).
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “wherein the inductive energy flux absorbed by the web is in the range of 10 to 50% of a total drying heat flux in the dryer enclosure”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kang since Kang meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of delivering an inductive energy flux absorbed by the web in the range of 10 to 50% of a total drying heat flux in the dryer enclosure, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 8, Kang discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the inductive energy flux absorbed by the web (20/210) is capable of being in the range of 10 to 50% of a total drying heat flux in the dryer enclosure (110) ([0043]-[0044]; [0052]-[0057]; fig 2, clm 11-16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 1 above.
As regards to claim 4, Kang discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-3), a dryer enclosure (110) having at least one inductive heater (120) for inductively heating the web (20/210) ([0017]-[0025]; [0031]-[0050]; [0055]-[0060]; fig 1-2), however Kang does not disclose at least one inductive heater positioned outside of the dryer enclosure (110), upstream of the web entry opening (see fig 1-2, right side of 100).
Although the figures of Kang only depict a singular inductive heater, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kang to have additional inductive heaters as recited in the claim to accommodate additional substrates/substrate drying or as needed for an intended coating method and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way. Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated more than one inductive heater since It is held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.; and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 1 93 USPQ 8.; and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kang to position the inductive heater outside of the dryer enclosure as recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al (US 2023/0155105 A1) hereinafter Lee (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Lee are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 6, Kang discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-3), the dryer enclosure (110) extends from the web entry opening (see fig 1-2, right side of 100) to a location in the dryer enclosure (110) ([0017]-[0025]; [0031]-[0050]; [0055]-[0060]; fig 1-2), however Kang does not disclose wherein an inductive heating region extends from the web entry to a location in the dryer where a constant rate period drying ends and a falling rate period of drying begins.
Lee discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-4), wherein an inductive heating region in the dryer (130) extends from the web entry to a location in the dryer (130) where a constant rate period drying ends and a falling rate period of drying begins ([0040]-[0042]; [0065]-[0072]; fig 2-3; clm 5). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein an inductive heating region extends from the web entry to a location in the dryer where a constant rate period drying ends and a falling rate period of drying begins in the apparatus of Kang, because Lee teaches the use of wherein an inductive heating region in the dryer (130) extends from the web entry to a location in the dryer (130) where a constant rate period drying ends and a falling rate period of drying begins to avoid cracking of the coating ([0040]-[0042]).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights