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 03/07/2024. Claim(s) 1–12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, “zone adjoining the second zone” appears to be a typographical mistake. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “a device for generating energy” in claim 8, which has been interpreted to mean “photovoltaic system, wind power system, or a heat pump”.
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.
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
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 1–4, 7, & 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,659,975 to Bahner et al.
With regard to claims 1 & 9, Bahner discloses a dryer and its associated method of use for drying boards to be conveyed through the dryer in a plurality of sections (2, 3, 4, 5) extending one behind the other in the longitudinal direction and each having a plurality of levels (Fig. 1A; Col. 4, lines 61–65; Col. 7, lines 25–37), using a heating medium (11) at a temperature below 130° C. (Col. 9, lines 41–44; Col. 10, lines 39–47), wherein the boards are dried during the drying process in a first zone (3) in the longitudinal direction and in the conveying direction (1) of the boards with warm air flowing between the levels (Col. 9, line 61 – Col. 10, line 4), the boards can be heated to a temperature below 130° C. in a first zone (3) in the longitudinal direction and in the conveying direction (1) of the boards with warm air generated by a first heater in a section or in a first plurality of sections (2, 3, 4, 5) (Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 9; Col. 9, line 61 – Col. 10, line 4; ), and in that the air can be led out of the dryer through at least one first heat exchanger (18, 27) counter to the conveying direction (1) after the moisture has been absorbed from the boards (Col. 6, lines 18–20, 53–58).
With regard to claim 2, Bahner further discloses the at least first heat exchanger is formed by a first tube bundle in which moisture from the warm air, which has absorbed moisture from the boards as it flows through, can be condensed (Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 11; Col. 8, lines 29–47).
With regard to claims 3 & 10, Bahner further discloses the boards can be heated by a second heater in a second zone (4) which extends longitudinally after the first zone (3) and also comprises a single section or a second plurality of sections (Col. 3, lines 23–25; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 9).
With regard to claim 4, Bahner further discloses the warm dryer air, after it has absorbed moisture from the boards in the first zone (3), can be deflected in the second zone (4) and can be led out of the dryer through the first heat exchanger (18, 27) (Col. 2, lines 59–61; Col. 6, lines 33–35).
With regard to claim 7, Bahner further discloses the dryer can be used as a low-temperature dryer at temperatures below 100° C (Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 9; Col. 9, line 61 – Col. 10, line 4; “approximately 100° C” includes temperatures below 100° C).
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 5–6, 8, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahner.
With regard to claims 5 & 11, Bahner further discloses during the drying process in a third zone (5) adjoining the second zone (4), and comprising a single section or a plurality of sections can be heated in the longitudinal direction by a third heater (11) with warm air flowing between the shelves against the conveying direction of the boards in one section or a plurality of sections (Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 7, line 9).
Bahner fails to disclose that the warm air can be led out of the dryer in the transport direction through at least one second heat exchanger after the absorption of moisture from the boards. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a second heat exchanger to recover additional heat, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claim 6, Bahner, as modified in claim 5 above, further discloses the at least second heat exchanger is formed by a second tube bundle, in which moisture from the warm air, which has absorbed moisture from the boards when flowing through the third zone (5), can be condensed (Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 11; Col. 8, lines 29–47).
With regard to claim 8, Bahner fails to disclose a device for generating energy, the energy of which can be used to drive the boards to be dried through the dryer and/or to operate the fans and/or to heat the boards by heating means. Alternative energy generation sources, such as solar panels, wind farms, geothermal, etc. are old and well-known in the art for supplying power to apparatuses. As such, 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 dryer of Bahner with clean energy sources known in the art because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing clean, reliable energy to power the apparatus.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahner in view of US 2003/0172547 to Shepard, II.
Bahner fails to explicitly disclose the warm air is passed through the dryer in a vortex shape by fans. Shepard, II teaches the use of a vortex blower, which would cause the warm air of the dryer of Bahner to take the shape of a vortex (¶ 0029). 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 dryer of Bahner with the vortex blower of Shepard, II because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increasing turbulence in the drying air, which would speed up the drying process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office 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
June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights