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 .
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 6 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 6 recites “the second position of the movable part displaces a foil of an accelerator from a coil to obtain a second gap in the emission zone”. The claim does not recite a first gap in the emission zone. Also “second position of the movable part displaces a foil” should read “in the second position the movable part displaces a foil”.
Claim 7 is rejected for its dependence on claim 6.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan (US 6,488,993 B2) in view of Cleveland Steel (Ebeam Metal Coil Coating: Cleveland Steel Container Case Study, RadTech Europe Conference 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Madigan teaches a method for curing coils (col. 1 lines 31-38), the method being performed on an electron beam apparatus (curing apparatus 600) having an input gate and an output gate, the method comprising:
Receiving at least one coil at the input gate (entrance portion 644),
Rotating a rotator (roller 646) for curing of the coil;
Emitting electrons (col. 6 lines 41-65) for curing at least a part of the coil; and
Outputting the cured coil from the output gate (exit portion 645).
Madigan does not teach determining an arrival of a splice.
Cleveland Steel teaches an e-beam system which can determine the arrival of a splice (p. 1 paragraph 3, “ebeam line can sense an incoming splice”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Madigan to have the splice sensor of Cleveland Steel, in order to adjust the properties of the system as described by Cleveland Steel to ensure that the thicker splice section of the coil is properly cured.
Regarding claim 2, Cleveland Steel teaches that the step of determining the arrival of the splice comprises:
Receiving a splice signal indicating the arrival of the splice (“sensing an incoming splice”, p. 1 paragraph 3, implicitly by a signal), the splice being a common portion between a first coil and a second coil (definition of a splice);
Changing at least one parameter of the apparatus from a first setting to a second setting on receiving the splice signal (adjusting the system for the increased thickness, p. 1 paragraph 3);
Passing the splice from an emission zone; and
Outputting the splice from the emission gate (implicitly the splice is treated and passed through the system, since “adjusting the system for the increased thickness” implies that the thicker part will be treated).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Cleveland Steel and in further view of Yoshida (JP 2014189631 A) .
Regarding claim 8, Madigan and Cleveland Steel teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Madigan and Cleveland Steel do not teach that changing at least one parameter of the apparatus from a first setting to a second setting comprises changing a beam signal configured to control the electron beam, the beam signal changing from a first beam signal to a second beam signal.
Yoshida teaches an e-beam curing system which adjusts the electron beam signal based on the thickness of a coating to be cured (p. 6 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust a parameter of the e-beam of Madigan based on the splice detection, as Yoshida teaches that the appropriate beam parameters depend on the coating thickness and so adjusting the beam parameters when a splice having “increased thickness” (Cleveland Steel) is detected would provide optimized curing parameters with no unexpected result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Cleveland Steel and in further view of Tausch (US 20070187027 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Madigan and Cleveland Steel teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Madigan and Cleveland Steel do not teach that changing at least one parameter of the apparatus from a first setting to a second setting on receiving the splice signal is performed by a microprocessor.
Tausch teaches a curing system in which the settings of the device are controlled by a microprocessor (computer 102, control [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Madigan and Cleveland Steel to have the microprocessor control of Tausch in order to allow automated program control of the curing process parameters with no unexpected result.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Cleveland Steel and in further view of Kakimoto (US 20220274429 A1) .
Regarding claim 15, Madigan and Cleveland Steel teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Madigan and Cleveland Steel do not teach determining the exit of the splice.
Kakimodo teaches a drying system which can determine the entrance and exit of a splice from a system (checking if splice portion has passed drying system, [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Madigan and Cleveland Steel to have the splice exit determination of Kakimodo, in order to reset the parameters of the system to appropriately treat the non-spliced part of the coil when the splice has passed without interrupting the processing.
Regarding claim 16, Kakimodo teaches that determining the exit of the splice comprises waiting a predefined time ([0108]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-5, 9-12, 14 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3-7, 9-12, 14 and 18-20, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious an E-beam curing system which adjusts the speed of a roller, moves a movable part, turns the beam off or adjusts the nitrogen concentration of the system upon detection of a splice, or in which the splice detection device is a switch, or which determines the exit of a splice based on a second splice signal..
Regarding claim 17, the predetermined time of 3.5 seconds has been found by the applicant to be a critical value in allowing the system to return to a steady state after the beam is turned off upon detection of a splice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881