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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites “with a fan”. It shall be “with one of the at least one fan”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 recites “the openings in the front wall”. It shall be “openings in a front wall”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 16, 17, 23-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,287,637 to Dixit.
In Reference to Claim 16
Dixit discloses a dryer for drying paper tubes conveyed in a multilayer stream transversely to the axis of the paper tubes comprising: an inlet (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) adapted to receiving a conveyor of the multilayer stream so that the conveyor passes through the inlet, an outlet (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) adapted to receiving the conveyor of the multilayer stream so that the conveyor passes through the outlet, at least one drying chamber (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) situated between the inlet and the outlet, adapted to receive the conveyor of the multilayer stream, at least one heater (Fig. 1, 102) to heat the air, at least one fan (Col. 3, Line 65, blower) to blow the heated air into the drying chamber, wherein at least one wall of the dryer is provided with at least one blowing element (Fig. 1, 104) for the heated air, and wherein the blowing direction of the heated air through the blowing element is situated substantially transversely (As showed in Fig. 1, the blower 104 draw air in the vertical direction which is also transverse to the horizontal transferring direction) to the longitudinal axis of the drying chamber of the dryer, and the conveyor of the multilayer stream is adapted to hold the multilayer stream at two sides by means of supporting surfaces (As showed in Fig. 1, the drying material is transferred between the upper and lower conveyor).
Dixit does not teach the drying system is for paper tube. The Office considers “drying paper tube" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 17
Dixit discloses the blowing element (Fig. 1, 104)
Dixit does not teach the air flow is parallel to the supporting surface.
Refer to Fig. 1, the air is drawn from one side of the drying chamber by the blower 104, obviously, the flow of the air would be parallel to the supporting surface as annotated by the Examiner.
In Reference to Claim 23
Dixit discloses the drying chamber.
Dixit does not teach the drying chamber is positioned vertically.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the drying chamber vertically since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 24
Dixit disclose the inlet and the outlet are adapted to a conveyor provided with two supporting elements (Fig. 1, 34 and 32).
In Reference to Claim 25
Dixit discloses a drying unit for drying paper tubes conveyed in a multilayer stream, comprising the dryer according to claim 1 and the conveyor of the multilayer stream, wherein the conveyor of the multilayer stream is provided with two supporting surfaces (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) adapted to hold the multilayer stream at two sides, and wherein the blowing direction of the heated air through the blowing element is transverse (As showed in Fig. 1, the blower 104 draw air in the vertical direction which is also transverse to the horizontal transferring direction) to the conveying direction of the multilayer stream of the paper tubes.
Dixit does not teach the drying system is for paper tube. The Office considers “drying paper tube" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus.
In Reference to Claim 26
Dixit discloses the blowing element (Fig. 1, 104)
Dixit does not teach the air flow is parallel to the supporting surface.
Refer to Fig. 1, the air is drawn from one side of the drying chamber by the blower 104, obviously, the flow of the air would be parallel to the supporting surface as annotated by the Examiner.
In Reference to Claim 28
Dixit discloses the supporting surfaces are formed on a chain conveyor. (Fig. 1A, 42 and 46)
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixit in view of US Patent 7,316,080 to Woolsey.
In Reference to Claim 19 and 21
Dixit discloses one drying zone with a fan.
Dixit does not teach a plurality of the drying zones.
Woolsey teaches at least two drying zones (As showed in Fig. 1) with fan (Fig. 1, 25), the plurality of heating chambers are separated from each other by walls (As showed in Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Woolsey into the design of Dixit. Doing so, would result in a plurality of drying chambers being formed for the drying process. since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 20
Dixit discloses one drying zone with a fan. The heater can be positioned at the any side of the chamber (Col. 6, Line 30-33).
Dixit does not teach a plurality of the drying zones.
Woolsey teaches at least two drying zones (As showed in Fig. 1, 30) with fan (Fig. 1, 34)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Woolsey into the design of Dixit. Doing so, would result in a plurality of drying chambers being formed for the drying process. since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Once the invention of Woolsey and Dixit is integrated, a plurality of the drying chambers are formed and blowers can be positioned at any side of the chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 22, 27 and 29 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/20/26