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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the mother chain” in line 2 where the Examiner is unclear as to what mother chain is being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. A review of the specification shows that the mother chain is referring back to the master chain introduced in claim 5. For examination purposes, the term “mother chain” of claim 6 will be treated as “master chain”.
Claim 8 recites “the support rollers” in line 2 where the Examiner is unclear as to what support rollers are being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. A review of the claims and specification shows that the support rollers are introduced in claim 4 and the claim dependency was amended prior to examination to prevent multiple dependencies. For examination purposes, the phrase “the support rollers” will be treated as “[[the]] two support rollers”.
Claim 11 “the chain tensioner” in line 2 where the Examiner is unclear as to what chain tensioner is being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. A review of the claims and specification shows that chain tensioner is introduced in claim 10 and the claim dependency was amended prior to examination to prevent multiple dependencies. For examination purposes, the phrase “the chain tensioner” will be treated as “[[the]] a chain tensioner”.
Claim 9 is rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6655041 (Schmidt hereinafter) in view of FR 2475201 (Escande hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a conveyor system that discloses a conveyor system with a plurality of sections extending one behind the other in the conveying direction for conveying passing boards to be dried in a plurality of levels per section (Figure 1 with Column1 Lines 13-17) with conveying devices arranged in the levels in the form of roller conveyors (Conveyors with endless chains 11 as seen in Figure 1), with a drive system (Drive 15 per Column 2 Line 66 through Column 3 Line 21), comprising a plurality of endless chains (Chains 11), at least one drive being assigned to each chain (Column 2 Line 66 through Column 3 Line 10).
Schmidt is silent with respect that the roller conveyors of all the levels of a respective section can be driven by at least one single chain which engages over the levels of the respective section.
However, Escande teaches a multilayer conveyor drying system that discloses a plurality of roller conveyors of all the levels of a respective section can be driven by at least one single chain which engages over the levels of the respective section (Figures 4 and 5 with drive E2 in Figure 4 and drive E-1 in Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive system of Schmidt with the multiple levels of the conveyor being driven by a single drive to minimize the amount of drives needed to drive the conveyor belts.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Escande would further disclose that in the case of a single chain per section or for a plurality of sections, this chain engages over the levels of the respective section or of the plurality of sections in a zigzag or meandering manner (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the single chain 9 shown in Figure 5 of Escande can be seen as a meandering manner).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Schmidt and Escande would further disclose that the chain is equipped with at least one drive motor (Schmidt drive 15 and motors Ex of Escande).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Schmidt and Escande would further disclose that in the case of a plurality of chains, two support rollers lying next to one another on a level can be driven in each case by a single chain spanning levels (Schmidt Column 2 Line 66 through Column 3 Line 10 where adjacent levels of Schmidt are driven together).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Escande would further disclose that the chains are guided via chain slide rails (Rails 7 of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Escande would further disclose a chain tensioning device is arranged for each chain or at least for each master chain (Chain tensioner 24 of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Schmidt and Escande would further disclose that the chain tensioning device is mounted in a suspended manner (The chain tensioner 24 is mounted in a broadly interpreted suspended manner in Schmidt).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6655041 (Schmidt) in view of FR 2475201 (Escande) and further in view of US 2017/0030645 (Hoffman hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 but are silent with respect that the chains per section can be synchronized with one another by a radio communication or in that the chains can be driven together via a master chain. Escande does teach the general control system used to control the drives Ex while showing the master chain in Figures 4 and 5.
However, Hoffman teaches a dryer control system that discloses chains per section can be synchronized with one another by a radio communication (¶ 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control of the dryer of Schmidt with the controller of Hoffman to allow for individual control of each chain while all being synchronized.
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Schmidt, Escande, and Hoffman would further disclose that the master chain is driven via at least one drive motor (Figure 5 of Escande with chain 9 and motor E1).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6655041 (Schmidt) in view of FR 2475201 (Escande) in view of US 2012/0246966 (Straetmans hereinafter) and further in view of US 2006/0220306 (Bottger hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the dryer can be used as a low-temperature dryer at temperatures below 150 °C.
However, Straetmans teaches a conveyor drywall dryer that discloses a low-temperature dryer at temperatures below 150 °C (¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operation temperature of Schmidt with the temperature settings of Straetmans to dry the target material at a desirable temperature.
Schmidt is silent with respect that two support rollers are mounted via roller bearings.
However, Bottger teaches a conveyor roller system that discloses support rollers mounted with roller bearings (¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conveyor rollers of Schmidt with the roller bearings of Bottger to minimize friction in the rollers of Schmidt.
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Schmidt, Escande, Straetmans, and Bottger would further disclose that the rolling bearings are designed as ball bearings, deep groove ball bearings or needle roller and cage bearings (Ball bearings and needle rollers of Bottger in ¶ 37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights