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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 03/09/2026 has been entered and is currently und er consideration. Claims 1 and 3-18 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edberg et al. (US3015479 of record) hereinafter Edberg in view of Oguri (US4894517 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Edberg teaches:
An expanding device for expanding an expandable particle foam material (Fig 1; col 1, ln 10-18) with an expansion furnace which has an interior space for receiving the expandable particle foam material (Fig 1: bank 28; col 1, ln 59-61), wherein an emitter is formed which is arranged in the interior space of the expansion furnace (Fig 1: infrared lamps 24), and wherein a conveying device with a conveying surface is formed, which serves to guide a particle foam material received on the conveying surface in a conveying direction through the interior space of the expansion furnace (Fig 1: endless belt 14, vibratory means 23).
Edberg further teaches wherein the interior space of the expansion furnace is bounded on an upper side by the emitter and bounded on a lower side by the conveying surface of the conveying device (Fig 1).
Edberg does not teach wherein the interior space is bounded laterally by a first reflective element and a second reflective element, wherein the first reflective element and the second reflective element are each arranged at an acute angle to the emitter, wherein a first distance between the first reflective element and the second reflective element in a region of the emitter is greater than a second distance between the first reflective element and the second reflective element in a region of the conveying device, and wherein the first reflective element and the second reflective element each have a respective flat surface.
However, Edberg teaches IR heating.
In the same field of endeavor regarding furnaces, Oguri teaches a furnace having an interior space bounded laterally by a first reflective element and a second reflective element, wherein a first distance between the first reflective element and the second reflective element in a region of an emitter is greater than a second distance between the first reflective element and the second reflective element in a region of a conveying device, and wherein the first reflective element and the second reflective element each have a respective flat surface for the motivation of improving reflection factor of far infrared rays (Fig 7, Annotated Oguri Fig 7: far infrared heaters 30, conveyor belt 23, unlabeled lateral reflectors outward of heaters 32; col 5, ln 27-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the furnace as taught by Edberg with the lateral reflective furnace elements and as taught by Oguri in order to improve reflection factor of far infrared rays.
Edberg in view of Oguri does not explicitly recite wherein the first reflective element and the second reflective element are each arranged at an acute angle to the emitter.
However, Fig 7 of Oguri appears to show the reflectors are vertically oriented relative to the horizontally oriented infrared heaters 30, i.e., 90°. Applicant specification discloses that acute angles include angles of between 70° and 98°. Therefore Oguri further teaches wherein the first reflective element and the second reflective element are each arranged at an acute angle to the emitter.
Regarding claim 3, Edberg in view of Oguri teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Oguri further teaches wherein the first reflective element and the second reflective element are each arranged at an angle of between 70° and 98° to the emitter (Fig 7, Annotated Oguri Fig 7; see art rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Edberg in view of Oguri teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Edberg further teaches wherein a scraper is formed in a feed region, wherein the scraper is arranged at a scraper distance from the conveying surface of the conveying device (Fig 1: brush 41),
Edberg in view of Oguri does not explicitly recite wherein the particle diameter is between 50% and 99.9% of the scraper distance.
However, the above limitation is directed to the material worked upon and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 13, Edberg in view of Oguri teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Edberg further teaches wherein a separating device is formed, which serves to separate individual particles of the particle foam material from one another (Fig 1: tedder-wheel 36; col 2, ln 13-20).
Regarding claim 15, Edberg in view of Oguri teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Edberg further teaches wherein a vibrator device is formed, which acts on the conveying surface of the conveying device (Fig 1; vibratory means 23).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edberg in view of Oguri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stevens et al. (US3432937 of record) hereinafter Stevens.
Regarding claim 4, Edberg in view of Oguri teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Edberg in view of Oguri does not teach wherein receiving troughs are formed on the conveying surface of the conveying device.
In the same field of endeavor regarding expanding devise, Stevens teaches wherein receiving troughs are formed on a conveying surface of a conveying device for the motivation of effecting prefoaming or partial expansion of the particles (col 1, ln 30-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveying surface as taught by Edberg in view of Oguri with the mesh as taught by Stevens in order to effect prefoaming or partial expansion of the particles.
Edberg in view Oguri and Stevens of wherein the receiving troughs each serve to receive a single particle of the particle foam material.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. Applicant specification discloses that a mesh structure enables the claimed function, and Stevens teaches a mesh conveyor. Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Furthermore, the claimed function above also depends on the material worked upon. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 5, Edberg in view of Oguri and Stevens teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Stevens further teaches wherein a mesh structure is formed which defines the receiving troughs (col 1, ln 30-40).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edberg in view of Oguri and Stevens as applied to claim 4 above, and further evidenced by Osborne (2020 of record) and “Thermal Expansion of Solids and Liquids” (2012 of record).
Regarding claim 6, Edberg in view of Oguri and Stevens teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Edberg in view of Oguri and Stevens does not explicitly recite wherein the conveying surface of the conveying device comprises a thermally activatable material which is configured in such a way that an extension of the receiving troughs increases when heated.
However, Stevens teaches the receiving troughs in the form of steel mesh are formed of mesh, which by definition possesses extensions in the mesh.
As evidenced by Osborne, steel expands when heated (Section: Heat Expansion in Different Metals). Furthermore, as evidenced in “Thermal Expansion of Solids and Liquids”, when a material is heated, a hole in a material expands to the same degree (Section: Thermal Expansion in Two and Three Dimensions). Therefore the steel mesh of Stevens meets the limitations of a thermally activatable material which is configured in such a way that an extension of the receiving troughs increases when heated.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edberg in view of Oguri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Near.
Regarding claim 12, Edberg in view of Oguri teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Edberg in view of Oguri does not teach wherein a cooling device is formed, which serves for cooling the particle foam material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding expanding devices, Near teaches a cooling device for the motivation of cooling the material and conveyor (Fig 1: cooling unit 20; col 7, ln 20-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Edberg in view of Oguri to include the cooling unit of Near in order to cool the material and conveyor.
Regarding claim 14, Edberg in view of Oguri teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Edberg in view of Oguri does not teach wherein an intermediate storage and a further expansion furnace are formed, wherein the intermediate storage is arranged downstream of the expansion furnace and the further expansion furnace is arranged downstream of the intermediate storage as viewed in the conveying direction.
In the same field of endeavor regarding expanding devices, Near teaches an intermediate storage (Fig 1; the portion of conveyor belt 12 between oven 18 and oven 24 serves to provide intermediate storage of foam material waiting to enter the oven 24) and a further expansion furnace are formed (Fig 1: post curing oven 24; col 7, ln 45-col 8, ln 6), wherein the intermediate storage is arranged downstream of an expansion furnace and the further expansion furnace is arranged downstream of the intermediate storage as viewed in the conveying direction (Fig 1) for the motivation of fully completing the foaming reaction (col 7, ln 45-col 8, ln 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Edberg in view of Oguri with the intermediate storage and further expansion furnace as taught by Near in order to fully complete the foaming reaction.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edberg in view of Shannon et al. (US 2993871) hereinafter Shannon.
Regarding claim 18, Edberg teaches:
An expanding device for expanding an expandable particle foam material (Fig 1; col 1, ln 10-18) with an expansion furnace which has an interior space for receiving the expandable particle foam material (Fig 1: bank 28; col 1, ln 59-61),
wherein an emitter is formed which is arranged in the interior space of the expansion furnace (Fig 1: infrared lamps 24),
wherein a conveying device with a conveying surface is formed, which serves to guide a particle foam material received on the conveying surface in a conveying direction through the interior space of the expansion furnace (Fig 1: endless belt 14, vibratory means 23), and
a feed region between a granulate provision device and the expansion furnace (Fig 1: hopper 21).
Edberg does not teach wherein a scraper is formed in a feed region between a granulate provision device and the expansion furnace, wherein the scraper is configured to regulate the distribution of individual particles of the particle foam material on the conveying surface.
In the same field of endeavor regarding foam, Shannon teaches a scraper is formed in a feed region between a granulate provision device and an expansion furnace, wherein the scraper is configured to regulate the distribution of individual particles of a particle foam material on a conveying surface for the motivation of spreading the material into a thin, uniform layer (Fig 2: doctor blade 43; col 10, ln 60-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the feed region as taught by Edberg to include the doctor blade as taught by Shannon in order to spread the material into a thin, uniform layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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.
Regarding claim 7, Edberg in view of Oguri and Stevens teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Edberg further teaches a feed channel (col 1, ln 53-58).
Edberg in view of Oguri and Stevens does not teach wherein multiple feed channels are formed, wherein the feed channels are arranged next to one another as viewed in the conveying direction, wherein the feed channels are each aligned with a row of receiving troughs.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein multiple feed channels are formed, wherein the feed channels are arranged next to one another as viewed in the conveying direction, wherein the feed channels are each aligned with a row of receiving troughs in combination with the remaining claimed subject matter.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is indicated for allowable subject matter.
Claims 8-10 are indicated for allowable subject matter due to dependency on claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended subject matter of claim 1. However, the limitation of claim 1 are taught by the prior art in the art rejection above.
Applicant arguments regarding claim 18 are in light of the art rejection above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights