DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 04/01/2024. Claim(s) 1–16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rebhan fails to disclose a “fluid flow device [having] a fluid flow element rotatable at a rotational speed for generating the fluid flow” because Rebhan instead discloses a “push air device”. Rebhan clearly states that the “compressed air device 29 comprises one or more fans” (¶ 0041). As is well known, fans operate by spinning blades about an axis.
Applicant also argues that Rebhan fails to disclose a control device controlling the rotational speed of the fluid flow element in dependence on at least one container property. As previously established, fans operate by spinning blades about an axis. Rebhan discloses that “the introduction of compressed air 27 into the duct 14 is automatically regulated” based on temperature measurements of the glass containers (temperature being a property of the container). As would be well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, one way to regulate the flow of compressed air would be to adjust the fan speed. Read in this context, one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading Rebhan, would understand the reference to disclose that it is known to regulate the flow of air by changing the speed of a fan in response to a container property (temperature).
Applicant further argues that Rebhan is concerned with heat “wandering” toward the cooling zone. Regardless of Rebhan’s reason, Rebhan discloses Applicant’s claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 6, & 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2,466,237 to Rebhan (citations are directed to the attached machine translation).
With regard to claims 1 & 15, Rebhan discloses a drying apparatus and its associated method for drying containers having at least one container property (¶ 0001), the apparatus comprising: a cooling portion (7, 17) in which the container can be cooled (¶¶ 0002, 0038); a fluid flow device (29) arranged and designed to apply a fluid flow to the container within the cooling portion (¶¶ 0042–0044), wherein the fluid flow device has a fluid flow element rotatable at a rotational speed for generating the fluid flow (¶ 0041; fans move air by rotating blade about an axis); and a control device designed to control the fluid flow device (29) (¶¶ 0042–0044), wherein the control device is designed to control the rotational speed of the fluid flow element in dependence on the at least one container property (¶¶ 0042–0044), such that a fluid volume per unit time of the fluid flow is set so as to cool the containers by the fluid flow (¶¶ 0042–0044).
With regard to claim 4, Rebhan further discloses the at least one container property is a container temperature and/or a heat capacity of the container (¶ 0043).
With regard to claim 6, Rebhan further discloses at least one temperature sensor coupled to the control device for detecting the container temperature and/or the air temperature (¶ 0043).
With regard to claim 13, Rebhan further discloses the cooling portion comprises a fluid outlet, wherein the fluid flow element is arranged and configured to affect a defined fluid flow from the fluid outlet (¶¶ 0041–0045).
With regard to claim 14, Rebhan further discloses the drying apparatus is a pin oven and/or a belt dryer or comprises a pin oven and/or a belt dryer (Figs. 4 & 5; ¶¶ 0041–0045).
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 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.
Claims 2–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebhan in view of US 2010/0016522 to Stueven et al.
With regard to claim 2, Rebhan further discloses a conveyor unit (21) with which the container can be moved through the cooling portion (17) at a conveying velocity (¶ 0035).
Rebhan fails to disclose the at least one container property is the conveying velocity. Stueven teaches the at least one container property is the conveying velocity (¶¶ 0021, 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying apparatus of Rebhan with the air control of Stueven because such a combination would have had the added benefit of ensuring the correct amount of air is delivered based on the belt passing through the device.
With regard to claim 3, Rebhan as previously combined with Stueven further discloses a velocity sensor coupled to the control device by signal technology for detecting the conveying velocity (Stueven: ¶¶ 0021, 0036; monitoring the speed of the conveyor belt inherently requires the use of a velocity sensor).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebhan in view of US 8,806,772 to Schaefer, Jr.
With regard to claim 5, Rebhan fails to disclose the at least one container property is an air temperature at a predefined distance from the containers. Schaefer teaches the at least one container property is an air temperature at a predefined distance from the containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying apparatus of Rebhan with the material sensor of Schaefer because such a combination would have had the added benefit of monitoring the temperature of the air surrounding the material to be cooled to ensure the material is being adequately cooled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7–10 & 16 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights