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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first roof and second roof must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first roof and second roof are not described it the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 28-34 are 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. The newly added claim 28 includes the limitation “the controller is configured to control an amount of the heat directed from the drying chamber to the end chamber based at least in part on information received from the humidity sensor,” which examiner cannot find in the specification or the claims as originally filed.
Claims 35-39 are 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. The newly added claim 35 includes the limitation “maintaining a humidity above a predetermined threshold in the first and second chambers by selectively transferring heat from a first heater to the first chamber through a first heater inlet duct and selectively transferring heat from a second heater to the second chamber through a second heater inlet duct.” The closest examiner could find is in published paragraph [0026] which recites “a desired relative humidity level is maintained within the first and second end chambers 102a and 102b.”
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 28-34 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 28 recites the limitation "a humidity sensor" in lines 4 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Whereas an antecedent error is usually an objection, in this case it is rejected because it is not clear if applicant meant to refer to the same humidity sensor or a second humidity sensor in a separate section of the kiln.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 20 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardi (US 9,423,176) in view of Millar (US 2022/0113088).
As for claim 20, Girardi discloses a kiln for processing lumber packages (title), the kiln comprising: a drying chamber (fig. 4, drying section 1546 discharges into); a first end chamber at an end of the drying chamber (fig. 4, left side); a second end chamber at an opposing end of the drying chamber (fig. 4, right side); a first lumber conveying line configured to transport lumber packages in a first direction through the first end chamber, the drying chamber, and the second end chamber; a second lumber conveying line configured to transport lumber packages in a second direction through the first end chamber, the drying chamber, and the second end chamber (fig. 1); a heat distributor system configured to direct heat from the drying chamber into the first end chamber and the second end chamber (246, fig. 4, air flows to both end chambers). Girardi discloses the first end chamber and/or the second end chamber (fig. 1) and the claimed invention except for one or more humidity sensors positioned in the chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the chamber based on the humidity information. Millar teaches one or more humidity sensors positioned in the chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information [0012]; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the chamber based on the humidity information [0012] in order to efficiently control heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber. Girardi would benefit equally from efficiently controlling heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Girardi with one or more humidity sensors positioned in the chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the chamber based on the humidity information as taught by Millar in order to efficiently control heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber.
As for claim 24, Girardi discloses the heat distributor system comprises a backflow duct that selectively allows heat to flow away from the drying chamber, the first end chamber, and the second end chamber (3350, fig. 11, 6:42-47).
As for claims 25 and 26, Girardi discloses the claimed invention except for a wet bulb temperature sensor and a dry bulb temperature sensor positioned in one of the first end chamber or the second end chamber in communication with the central control processor; wherein information from the wet bulb temperature sensor or the dry bulb temperature sensor is at least partially used to control operations of the heat distributor system. Millar teaches a wet bulb temperature sensor and a dry bulb temperature sensor positioned in one of the first end chamber or the second end chamber in communication with the central control processor [0075]; a wet bulb temperature sensor and a dry bulb temperature sensor positioned in one of the first end chamber or the second end chamber in communication with the central control processor; wherein information from the wet bulb temperature sensor or the dry bulb temperature sensor is at least partially used to control operations of the heat distributor system [0075] in order to supply the PLC controller with the relevant dry and wet temperatures. Girardi would benefit equally from supplying the PLC controller with the relevant dry and wet temperatures. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Girardi with a wet bulb temperature sensor and a dry bulb temperature sensor positioned in one of the first end chamber or the second end chamber in communication with the central control processor; a wet bulb temperature sensor and a dry bulb temperature sensor positioned in one of the first end chamber or the second end chamber in communication with the central control processor; wherein information from the wet bulb temperature sensor or the dry bulb temperature sensor is at least partially used to control operations of the heat distributor system as taught by Millar in order to supply the PLC controller with the relevant dry and wet temperatures.
Claims 21, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardi in view of Millar as to claim 20 above and further in view of Breckenridge (US 5,269,076).
As for claim 21 Girardi discloses the heat distributor system comprises: a drying chamber distribution duct in the drying chamber configured to receive heat from a heater (fig. 4, drying section 1546 discharges into); a first end chamber distribution duct in the first end chamber configured to receive heat from the drying chamber distribution duct and transfer the received heat to the first end chamber (fig. 4, duct feeding left side); a second end chamber distribution duct in the second end chamber configured to receive heat from the drying chamber distribution duct and transfer the received heat to the second end chamber (fig. 4, duct feeding right side). Girardi discloses the claimed invention except for a first heater fluidly coupled to the first end chamber distribution duct; and a second heater fluidly coupled to the second end chamber distribution duct, wherein the first and second heaters are configured to distribute heat into the first and second end chambers, respectively. Breckenridge teaches a first heater fluidly coupled to the first end chamber distribution duct; and a second heater fluidly coupled to the second end chamber distribution duct, wherein the first and second heaters are configured to distribute heat into the first and second end chambers, respectively (3:20-23) in order to increase the process control of the drying air system. Girardi would benefit equally from increasing the process control of the drying air system. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Girardi with a first heater fluidly coupled to the first end chamber distribution duct; and a second heater fluidly coupled to the second end chamber distribution duct, wherein the first and second heaters are configured to distribute heat into the first and second end chambers, respectively as taught by Breckenridge in order to increase the process control of the drying air system.
As for claim 23, Girardi discloses the claimed invention except for a first vent having a first vent lid and positioned in a first roof of the first end chamber, a second vent having a second vent lid and positioned in a second roof of the second end chamber, wherein the first and second vent lids are configured to selectively expel moist gas from the first and second end chambers, respectively, and wherein the first and second vent lids are operable by first and second vent lid actuators, respectively, operatively coupled to the central control processor. Breckenridge teaches a first vent having a first vent lid and positioned in a first roof of the first end chamber, a second vent having a second vent lid and positioned in a second roof of the second end chamber, wherein the first and second vent lids are configured to selectively expel moist gas from the first and second end chambers, respectively, and wherein the first and second vent lids are operable by first and second vent lid actuators, respectively, operatively coupled to the central control processor (30, 32, figs. 5 and 7, 1:17-27) in order to control timing of exhaust for increased process control. Girardi would benefit equally from controlling timing of exhaust for increased process control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Girardi with a first vent having a first vent lid and positioned in a first roof of the first end chamber, a second vent having a second vent lid and positioned in a second roof of the second end chamber, wherein the first and second vent lids are configured to selectively expel moist gas from the first and second end chambers, respectively, and wherein the first and second vent lids are operable by first and second vent lid actuators, respectively, operatively coupled to the central control processor as taught by Breckenridge in order to control timing of exhaust for increased process control.
As for claim 27, Girardi discloses the claimed invention except for a first vent positioned in a first roof of the first end chamber with a first vent lid, and a second vent positioned in a second roof of the second end chamber with a second vent lid, wherein: the first vent lid and the second vent lid are in communication with the central control processor, and the first vent lid and the second vent lid are configured to selectively expel moist gas from the first and second end chambers based on information from the one or more humidity sensors. Breckenridge teaches a first vent positioned in a first roof of the first end chamber with a first vent lid (26, 30, fig. 4), and a second vent positioned in a second roof of the second end chamber with a second vent lid (28, 32, fig. 4), wherein: the first vent lid and the second vent lid are in communication with the central control processor, and the first vent lid and the second vent lid are configured to selectively expel moist gas from the first and second end chambers based on information from the one or more humidity sensors (96, 98, 80, fig. 4) in order to control timing of exhaust for increased process control. Girardi would benefit equally from controlling timing of exhaust for increased process control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Girardi with a first vent positioned in a first roof of the first end chamber with a first vent lid, and a second vent positioned in a second roof of the second end chamber with a second vent lid, wherein: the first vent lid and the second vent lid are in communication with the central control processor, and the first vent lid and the second vent lid are configured to selectively expel moist gas from the first and second end chambers based on information from the one or more humidity sensors as taught by Breckenridge in order to control timing of exhaust for increased process control.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardi in view of Millar in view of Breckenridge as to claim 21 above and further Goodwin (US 5,595,000).
Girardi discloses the first end chamber distribution duct has a first outlet, the second end chamber distribution duct has a second outlet (fig. 4, terminus of the two ducts illustrated) discloses the claimed invention except for the outlets comprise diffusers. Goodwin teaches the outlets comprise diffusers (3:10-14) in order to better spread the conditioned air into the drying space. Girardi would benefit equally from better spreading the conditioned air into the drying space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Girardi with in view of Breckenridge as taught by Goodwin in order to better spread the conditioned air into the drying space.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. US 11,150,018 and US 11,940,212 in view of Millar.
US 11,150,018 discloses a kiln for processing lumber packages, the kiln comprising: a drying chamber (line 3); a first end chamber at an end of the drying chamber (lines 3-4); a second end chamber at an opposing end of the drying chamber (lines 3-4); a first lumber conveying line configured to transport lumber packages in a first direction through the first end chamber, the drying chamber, and the second end chamber (lines 6-9); a second lumber conveying line configured to transport lumber packages in a second direction through the first end chamber, the drying chamber, and the second end chamber; a heat distributor system configured to direct heat from the drying chamber into the first end chamber and the second end chamber (lines 10-14).
US 11,150,018 discloses the claimed invention except for one or more humidity sensors positioned in the first end chamber and/or the second end chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the first end chamber and the second end chamber based on the humidity information. Millar teaches one or more humidity sensors positioned in the first end chamber and/or the second end chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information [0012]; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the first end chamber and the second end chamber based on the humidity information [0012] in order to efficiently control heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber. US 11,150,018 would benefit equally from efficiently controlling heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by US 11,150,018 with one or more humidity sensors positioned in the first end chamber and/or the second end chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the first end chamber and the second end chamber based on the humidity information as taught by Millar in order to efficiently control heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber.
US 11,940,212 discloses a kiln for processing lumber packages, the kiln comprising: a drying chamber (line 3); a first end chamber at an end of the drying chamber (line 4); a second end chamber at an opposing end of the drying chamber (lines 5-6); a first lumber conveying line configured to transport lumber packages in a first direction through the first end chamber, the drying chamber, and the second end chamber (lines 7-10); a second lumber conveying line configured to transport lumber packages in a second direction through the first end chamber, the drying chamber, and the second end chamber; a heat distributor system configured to direct heat from the drying chamber into the first end chamber and the second end chamber (lines 11-14). US 11,940,212 discloses the claimed invention except for one or more humidity sensors positioned in the first end chamber and/or the second end chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the first end chamber and the second end chamber based on the humidity information. Millar teaches one or more humidity sensors positioned in the first end chamber and/or the second end chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information [0012]; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the first end chamber and the second end chamber based on the humidity information [0012] in order to efficiently control heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber. US 11,150,018 would benefit equally from efficiently controlling heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by US 11,150,018 with one or more humidity sensors positioned in the first end chamber and/or the second end chamber, wherein the one or more humidity sensors are configured to produce humidity information; and a central control processor operably coupled to the heat distributor system and the one or more humidity sensors, wherein the central control processor is configured to adjust an amount of heat delivered to the first end chamber and the second end chamber based on the humidity information as taught by Millar in order to efficiently control heat based on the sensed humidity of the lumber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights