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 § 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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2011/0192048 to Leitner.
In Reference to Claim 1
Leitner discloses a drying device, used for drying a part to be dried, the drying device comprising: a drying oven (Fig. 1, 12) having a first surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) and a second surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner), the first surface and the second surface being arranged opposite (As showed in Fig. 1) to and spaced apart from each other to form a drying channel allowing the part to be dried to pass through, the first surface being provided with a first air blow port (Fig. 1, 27), and the first surface and/or the second surface being provided with an air exhaust port (Fig. 1, 26); wherein the second surface is further provided with an air suction port (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner).
In Reference to Claim 2
Leitner discloses the first air blow port and the air suction port are used to apply force to the part to be dried to suspend the part to be dried within the drying channel. (AS showed in Fig. 1, the material 1264 is supported by flow channel in the chamber)
In Reference to Claim 4
Leitner discloses the air suction port (Fig. 1, 26) is arranged directly opposite the first air blow port (Fig. 1, 22).
In Reference to Claim 5
Leitner discloses along the extension direction of the drying channel, the first surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) is provided with a plurality of first air blow ports (Fig. 1, 22s) that are spaced apart, and the second surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) is provided with a plurality of air suction ports that are spaced apart (Fig. 1, 26s).
In Reference to Claim 10
Leitner discloses the second surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) is further provided with a second air blow port (As showed in Fig. 1, there are multiple blow port 22), and the second air blow port is spaced apart (As showed in Fig. 1, ports 22 are spaced apart) from the air suction port.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitner in view of US Patent 4,719,708 to Karlsson.
In Reference to Claim 3
Leitner teaches a second air nozzle (Fig. 1, 22) disposed on the first surface and/or the second surface, the second air nozzle has a second air nozzle tip (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) in communication with the air exhaust port, and; and/or the drying oven further comprises a third air nozzle disposed on the second surface, the third air nozzle has a third air nozzle tip (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) in communication with the air suction port
Leitner does not teach the detail of the nozzle tip.
Karlsson teaches the plane where the second air nozzle tip is located is inclined (Fig. 3, 11) or perpendicular (Fig. 1, 34) relative to an extension direction of the drying channel
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 Karlsson into the design of Leitner. Doing so, would result in the nozzle design of Karlsoon being incorporated into the design of Leitner. Both inventions of Karlsoon and Leitner are for drying web material in a dry chamber by jetted air flow. Karlsoon teaches a method of reducing the velocity vector of the supply air stream on the exiting direction of the exiting air streams (Col. 3, Line 10-20)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitner in view of US Patent 3,874,091 to Fukumoto.
In Reference to Claims 6-8
Leitner discloses the drying chamber with inject ports and suction ports, along the extension direction of the drying channel, the first surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) is provided with a plurality of first air blow ports (As showed in Fig. 1, 22), and the second surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) is provided with a plurality of air suction ports (As showed in Fig. 1);
Leitner does not teach the details of the air supply system.
Fukumoto teaches the drying device further comprises a circulating fan (Fig. 4, 35), the circulating fan has an air inlet and an air outlet (As showed in Fig. 4), the air inlet is in communication with the air suction port, and the air outlet is in communication with the first air blow port (As indicated by the air flow line 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 Fukumoto into the design of Leitner. Doing so, would result in the air circulation system of Fukumoto into the design of Leitner. Both designs of Leitner and Fukumoto provide drying chamber using hot air, Fukumoto teaches an air circulation system with increased heating efficiency and most economical utilization of heat (Col 1, Line 35-46)
PNG
media_image2.png
557
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitner in view of US Patent 4,591,517 to Whipple.
In Reference to Claim 9
Leitner discloses hot air is supplied to the dry chamber.
Leitner does not teach the valve in the air supply system.
Whipple teaches the drying device further comprises a first air volume regulation valve (Fig. 8, 12), the first air volume regulation valve (50)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teach teaches from Whipple into the design of Leitner. Doing so, would result in valve being integrated into the air supply line of Leitner. Both invention of Whipple and Leitner are for web dryer, Whipple teaches a method of actively control the environment in the drying chamber with a predictable result of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Leitner and Fukumoto as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Whipple.
In Reference to Claim 8
The combination of Leitner and Fukumoto as applied to Claim 6 teaches a blower to supply hotted air into the drying chamber.
The combination of Leitner and Fukumoto as applied to Claim 6 does not teach a variable frequency fan.
Whipple teaches a variable frequency fan to supply hot air (abstract)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teach teaches from Whipple into the combination of Leitner and Fukumoto as applied to Claim 6. Doing so, would result in valve being integrated into the air supply line of Leitner. Both invention of Whipple and Leitner are for web dryer, Whipple teaches a method of actively control the environment in the drying chamber with a predictable result of success.
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 9/8/26
Prosecution Insights