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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
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, 5, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dias (PG-PUB 2007/0001333).
Regarding claim 1, Dias teaches a system comprising: a roller (Figure 9 and 10) comprising:
one or more electrical heating elements integrated inside of the roller,
one or more contacts electrically interfaced to the one or more electrical heating elements (Figure 9, item 38 and [0048]; Figure 10, item 57 and [0051]-[0052]), and
one or more air channels (Figure 9 and 10, item 52 and [0049], [0053]); and
a control circuit configured to control the one or more electrical heating elements [0035], [ 0049], [0065].
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Dias teaches the system as applied to claim 1, further comprising one or more temperature sensors, wherein the at least one of the temperature sensors is external to the roller (Figure 16, item 88 and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Dias teaches the system as applied to claim 1, wherein the one or more electrical heating elements are resistive (Figure 9, item 38 and [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Dias teaches the system as applied to claim 1, wherein the one or more electrical heating elements are inductive (Figure 10, item 57 and [0051]-[0052]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias (PG-PUB 2007/0001333), as applied to claim 1 and 5, in further view of Fu (CN207427502, citation based on machine translation).
Regarding claim 2-4, Dias teaches the system as applied to claim 1.
Dias does not teach:
the roller is divided lengthwise into a series of zones;
each zone comprises a respective electrical heating element of the one or more electrical heating elements with a unique electrical interface to the control circuit; and
the heating properties of the respective electrical heating element changes in each zone.
Fu teaches a segmented electromagnetic heating roller comprising a plurality of induction coils provided along the length of the roller and connected to a control device (Figure 2 and Page 2-3). Fu teaches a plurality of internal temperature sensors at the positions of the induction coils and electrically connected to the control device to monitor the temperature of each area of the individual heating elements (Page 3-4). Fu teaches segmented heating by individually controlling the heating elements provides the benefit of precise temperature control, uniform heating, and modifying the length of the heated area (Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the system of Dias with a series of zones along the roller as taught by Fu such that each zone comprises a respective electrical heating element of the one or more electrical heating elements with a unique electrical interface to the control circuit for the benefit of independently controlling the temperature along each zone of the roller and providing uniform and precise heating control.
Regarding claim 7, Dias teaches the system as applied to claim 5, further comprising one or more temperature sensors, wherein the at least one of the temperature sensors is external to the roller (Figure 16, item 88 and [0062]-[0063]).
Dias does not teach at least one of the one or more temperature sensors are integrated internally in the roller.
Fu teaches a segmented electromagnetic heating roller comprising a plurality of induction coils provided along the length of the roller and connected to a control device (Figure 2-3 and Page 2-3). Fu teaches a plurality of internal temperature sensors at the positions of the induction coils and electrically connected to the control device to monitor the temperature of each area of the individual heating elements (Figure 1-3 and Page 3-4). Fu teaches segmented heating by individually controlling the heating elements provides the benefit of precise temperature control, uniform heating, heating time cycle, and modifying the length of the heated area (Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the system of Dias with independently-controlled heating zones along the length of the roller as taught by Fu for the benefit of independently controlling the temperature along each zone of the roller and providing uniform and precise heating control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the plurality of internal temperature sensors at the location of each heating element as taught by Fu for the purpose of monitoring the temperature at each heating zone.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias (PG-PUB 2007/0001333), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hold (US 2,912,556).
Regarding claim 8, Dias teaches the system as applied to claim 1, wherein a cooling systems comprising the air channels are used to performing cooling (Figure 9, item 52, [0049], [0053]) and the cooling system is controlled by the control circuit [0065].
Dias does not explicitly teach one or more active components, wherein the one or more active components comprise at least one of a fan, blower, pump, or compressor, wherein the one or more active components are interfaced to the control circuit, and wherein the one or more active components are configured to move at least one of a gas or liquid through the one or more air channels.
Hold teaches an electrically heated rolls for calendars, wherein the rolls comprises air channels through which air is supplied for cooling (Claim 1 and Col 2, ln 18-45). Hold teaches an air blower to pass air over the heating coil sections in order to cool the rolls (Figure 2 and Col 2, ln 8-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dias with the air blower-based cooling technique of Hold, a known suitable mechanism for providing cooling means through cooling channels, to yield the predictable result of cooling the rolls using the cooling channel as desired by Dias.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-10 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 17/980,937 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-10 of the instant application appears to be identical to claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 17/980,937, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745