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 Objections
Claims 3-9 and 14are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3-9 recite “the bearing chamber” for which there is no antecedent basis. Claim 14 recites “The method” and “the containers”; neither has antecedent basis in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,050,888 A to Pfister et al. (Pfister).
In reference to independent claim 1, Pfister discloses:
A pin oven (21, 29, 30, 31) for producing containers (C), the pin oven comprising:
a drying chamber (21) for drying the containers with a temperature-controlled process fluid (air, see col. 1 at lines 46-51);
at least one axle (P) for supporting a bearing element (13, 26) arranged inside the drying chamber (see Figs. 4 and 5); and
at least one axle bearing (14, 32) arranged outside the drying chamber (21) (see Figs. 2 and 5), with which the axle is supported,
wherein the axle bearing is arranged in a heat-insulating fashion relative to the surroundings of the pin oven (see Fig. 5).
In reference to independent claim 11, the claimed method is disclosed in Pfister (see the rejection of claim 1).
In reference to dependent claims 2 and 12, Pfister further discloses: a bearing chamber (see Fig. 5) arranged adjacent to the drying chamber (21) and into which the axle protrudes (P) and inside which the axle bearing (32) is arranged, the bearing chamber being designed to be arranged in a heat-insulating fashion, in particular fluid-tight, relative to the surroundings (see Fig. 5).
In reference to dependent claim 3, Pfister further discloses: a connecting space (see Fig. 5) extending between the drying chamber (21) and a bearing chamber, through which the axle (P) extends.
In reference to dependent claim 5, Pfister further discloses: a bearing chamber is formed by or comprises a chamber wall (see Fig. 5).
In reference to dependent claim 8, Pfister further discloses: a bearing chamber is formed by a cover element with a cavity (see Fig. 5).
In reference to dependent claim 9, Pfister further discloses: a fluid channel (see Fig. 5) fluidically coupled to the bearing chamber for providing a pressurized fluid to reduce or prevent an escape of the process fluid from the drying chamber into the bearing chamber. It is noted that the limitations “for providing a pressurized fluid to reduce or prevent an escape of the process fluid from the drying chamber into the bearing chamber” have been considered but are deemed not patentably distinguishable over the prior art Pfister because they merely states Applicant’s intended use of the fluid channel. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Thus, 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. Pfister discloses all of the structural elements required by claim 9 and, therefore, would be capable of being used as intended by Applicant. See MPEP 2114(II).
PNG
media_image1.png
1240
830
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(s) 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfister.
In reference to dependent claims 4, 6, 7, and 13, Pfister is silent regarding details of the bearing chamber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at such details as needed or desired as they only require routine skill in the art.
In reference dependent claim 10, Pfister is silent regarding the axle bearing being a high-temperature bearing. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a bearing that is capable of withstanding high temperatures given the location and nature of their usage, i.e. the cans are exposed to heat in the oven and drying process.
In reference to independent claim 14, Pfister discloses:
A method for increasing the energy efficiency of a pin oven (21, 29, 30, 31), the pin oven comprising a drying chamber (21) for drying containers (C) with a temperature-controlled process fluid (air), at least one axle (P) for supporting a support element arranged inside the drying chamber, and a stock bearing with which the axle is supported, the method comprising:
replacing the stock bearing by removing the stock bearing and arranging an axle bearing (14, 32) to support the axle (P) (see Figs. 2 and 5).
Pfister is silent regarding arranging a cover element with a cavity in such a way that the axle bearing is arranged in a heat-insulating fashion relative to the surroundings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pfister to include arranging a cover element with a cavity so that the axle bearing is arranged in a heat-insulating fashion relative to the surroundings as needed or desired doing so would only require routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights