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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “the container condition” in Line 1. It shall be “a container condition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “safety unit” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “safety unit” is disclosed as a locking unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Applicant provided prior art US Patent Publication 2019/0316841 to Di Lucrezia.
In Reference to Claim 1
Di Lucrezia discloses a drying device for drying container units (Fig. 1, 11, the office considers any unit containing solvent can be a container unit) that exhibiting solvent comprising: a drying chamber (Fig. 1, 12) with an inlet side (Fig. 1, 13) and an outlet side (Fig. 1.14), in which a process fluid (Fig. 1, 17) is applied to the container units; a conveying unit (Fig. 1, 16) arranged and configured to move the container units from the input side to the output side through the drying chamber; a fluid flow device (Fig. 1, 17) arranged and configured to provide the process fluid and to apply a fluid flow of the process fluid to the container units within the drying chamber; and a control device (Fig. 1, 28) which is set up to control the fluid flow device based on a determined solvent input (Paragraph 42).
In Reference to Claim 2
Di Lucrezia discloses the control device (Fig. 1, 28) is set up to determine a desired fluid flow (Paragraph 42) as a function of the solvent input (The Office considers that that solvent input is the residue in the chamber measured by the sensor 27) and to control the fluid flow device in such a way that a fluid flow flowing out of the drying chamber corresponds at least to the desired fluid flow.
In Reference to Claim 3
Di Lucrezia discloses the target fluid flow is selected such that a solvent content in the drying chamber does not exceed a predetermined value. (Paragraph 49, the controller is operated based on the solvent concentration measured by sensor 27)
In Reference to Claim 7
Di Lucrezia discloses a density measuring unit (Fig. 1, 27), arranged for detecting the container unit density, wherein preferably the density measuring unit (Sensor 27 measures the concentration of the solvent) exhibits two or more density measuring sensors (Fig. 1 shows two sensor 27) for redundantly detecting the container unit density.
In Reference to Claim 8
Di Lucrezia discloses a condition measuring unit (Fig. 1, 27) which is arranged and configured to detect a container condition, and wherein the control device is set up to determine a solvent quantity per container unit (since sensor 27 measures the concentration of the solvent near the unit) based on the detected container condition.
In Reference to Claim 12
Di Lucrezia discloses a guide device (Fig. 1, 20) arranged adjacent to the input side for guiding the container units onto a side section of the conveying unit (Fig. 1, 16), wherein preferably the control device is arranged to control the guide device as a function of the container unit density in such a way that the container units are moved through the drying chamber at a predetermined distance (As showed in Fig. 1, units are arranged at a distance).
In Reference to Claim 13
Di Lucrezia discloses the fluid flow device (Fig. 1, 30) is arranged and configured to direct the fluid flow towards the side section.
In Reference to Claim 15
Di Lucrezia discloses method for drying container units exhibiting solvent comprising the steps: moving (Fig. 1, 16) the container units through a drying chamber (Fig. 1, 12); determining (Fig. 1, 27, measuring the concentration of a solvent) a solvent input into the drying chamber caused by the container units; applying a fluid flow (Fig. 1, 30) of a processing fluid to the container units; and adjusting (Fig. 1, 28 adjusted by a controller 28) a fluid flow flowing out of the drying chamber based on the determined solvent input.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Lucrezia in view of JH042830 (JH830).
In Reference to Claim 4
Di Lucrezia discloses the controller.
Di Lucrezia does not teach the controller having a safety unit.
JH830 teaches the control device exhibits a safety unit (Fig. 1, 1) which is set up so that the fluid flow flowing out of the drying chamber cannot be adjusted by an operator during intended operation.
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 JH830 into the design of Di Lucrezia. Doing so, would result in a controller locker box design being used in the system of Di Lucrezia. Doing so, would result in the controller of Di Lucrezia being replaced with the controller box with locker design to provide to clean working environment without be affected by outside working conditions.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Lucrezia.
In Reference to Claim 5
Di Lucrezia discloses the control device (Fig. 1, 28) is arranged to control the fluid flow device (Fig. 1, 18) such that the fluid flow flowing out of the drying chamber substantially corresponds to a fluid flow flowing into the drying chamber. (As taught in paragraph 49, Di Lucrezia teaches the controller controls the supplying of the air based on the solvent concentration in the chamber, therefore, it will be obvious that the control controls both the supply of the fluid flow and the discharge of the fluid flow)
In Reference to Claim 9
Di Lucrezia teaches the container condition is a surface area, a height of the container units. (In Paragraph 13, Di Lucrezia teaches the shape of the subject needs to be considered in the process, obvisouly, the shape includes a surface area, a height)
Claims 6 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Lucrezia in view of US Patent 9,316,406 to Wieland.
In Reference to Claim 6
Di Lucrezia discloses the control is based on the solvent concentration.
Di Lucrezia does not teach the number of the container is measured.
Wieland teaches describing a container unit number entering the drying chamber per time unit (Col. 4, Line 50-55)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate teachings from Wieland into the design of Di Lucrezia. Doing so, would result in the number of containers would be measured as a control parameter to control the density of the solvent. Both inventions of Di Lucrezia and Wieland are in the same field of endeavor, Wieland teaches of method of accurately measuring the solvent density with a predictable result of success.
In Reference to Claim 10
Di Lucrezia discloses the drying system.
Di Lucrezia does not teach the flow measuring unit of the fluid flow.
Wieland teaches a fluid flow measuring unit (Fig. 1, 69/71) for detecting the fluid flow flowing out of the drying chamber and/or a fluid flow flowing into the drying chamber, wherein preferably the fluid flow measuring unit exhibits two or more fluid flow measuring sensors (Fig. 1, 69/71) for redundantly detecting the fluid flow.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate teachings from Wieland into the design of Di Lucrezia. Doing so, would result in temperature sensors being integrated into the fluid flow path to measure the flow. Both inventions of Di Lucrezia and Wieland are in the same field of endeavor, Wieland teaches of method of accurately measuring the fluid temperature to improve the process result with a predictable result of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 11 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:
Claim 11 recites the drying device comprising a combustion unit as heating device configured to heat the process fluid.
Claim 14 recites the drying device comprising a fluid barrier configured to adjust a height of a clearance height of the outlet, the control device is set the clear height as a function of the height of the container units.
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 7/29/26
Prosecution Insights