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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1, 6-8, and added new claims 16-19 on 06/08/2026.
The double patenting rejection previously presented is withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amendments.
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) 1, 5-6, 8-10, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias (PG-PUB 2007/0001333) in view of Grinberg (PG-PUB 2017/0136753).
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]);
one or more channels internal to the roller (Figure 9 and 10, item 52 and [0049], [0053]);
a control circuit configured to control the one or more electrical heating elements [0035], [0049], [0065]; and
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 teach one or more active components interfaced to a particular channel and configured to cool the roller by moving a gas or liquid through the particular channel.
Grinberg teaches a cooling mechanism may include:
a hollow reflector comprising a reflective surface facing the at least one second energy source, the reflective surface configured to selectively reflect radiation of one or more predetermined wavelengths, and to pass radiation of one or more other predetermined wavelengths; and
a cooling medium mounted inside an interior of the hollow reflector and configured to perform at least one of absorbing and removing heat of the one or more
other predetermined wavelengths that passed through the reflective surface [0028]-[0029].
Grinberg teaches the coolant medium may be fluid (liquid or gas) such as water or air, which may be flowing (using, for example, a pump, to cause the fluid to flow) though the interior 434 of the reflector 430, and the medium 450 thus absorbs and/or removes energy of the radiation components, such as the IR component that passed
through the reflective surface 432 [0068].
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 pump of Grinberg, a known suitable control mechanism for causing fluid flow through cooling channels, to yield the predictable result of pumping liquid through the cooling channel as desired by Dias.
Regarding claim 5, Dias in view of Grinberg 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 (Dias, Figure 16, item 88 and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 5, wherein the at least one of the temperature sensors is external to the roller (Dias, Figure 16, item 88 and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 1, wherein the one or more active components comprises at least one of a fan, pump, or compressor (Grinberg, [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 1, wherein the one or more electrical heating elements are resistive (Dias, Figure 9, item 38 and [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 1, wherein the one or more electrical heating elements are inductive (Dias, Figure 10, item 57 and [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 1, wherein the one or more active components are configured to move a liquid through the particular channel (Grinberg, [0068]).
Regarding claim 17, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 5, wherein each of the one or more temperature sensors is capable of detecting a first temperature and transmitting the first temperature to the control circuit (Dias, [0063] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 17, wherein the controller adjusts the operation of the heating component and cooling system based on the input from the temperature sensor (Dias, [0007] and [0065]). Accordingly, based on the teachings of Dias, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the control circuit would be capable of determining whether the first temperature is at desired temperature, below desired temperature, or above desired temperature and adjust the heating or cooling system accordingly. Therefore, the control circuit of Dias is configured to determine whether the first temperature is greater than a desired temperature.
Regarding claim 19, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 18, wherein the cooling system is used to control the temperature of the roller to obtain desired temperature profile of the roller surfaces (Dias, [0049], [0065]).
Accordingly, based on the teachings of Dias, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the control circuit would be capable of determining whether the first temperature is at desired temperature, below desired temperature, or above desired temperature and adjust the heating or cooling system accordingly. Therefore, the control circuit of Dias is configured to activating cooling when a temperature reading is greater than the desired temperature, thereby activating the at least one or more active components in order to activate the cooling system as taught by Dias.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias (PG-PUB 2007/0001333) in view of Grinberg (PG-PUB 2017/0136753), as applied to claim 1 and 5, in further view of Fu (CN207427502, citation based on machine translation).
Regarding claim 2-4, Dias in view of Grinberg teaches the system as applied to claim 1.
Dias in view of Grinberg 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 in view of Grinberg 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 (Dias, Figure 16, item 88 and [0062]-[0063]).
Dias in view of Grinberg 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.
Alternatively, claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias (PG-PUB 2007/0001333) in view of Grinberg (PG-PUB 2017/0136753) and Fu (CN207427502, citation based on machine translation), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Imaizumi (EP2559538).
Alternatively, assuming arguendo it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to activate the at least one or more active components in response to the temperature reading based on the teachings of Dias alone, the following alternative rejection to claims 18-19 is presented below.
Regarding claim 18-19, Dias in view of Grinberg and Fu teaches the system as applied to claim 5.
Dias in view of Grinberg and Fu does not explicitly teach the control circuit is configured to determine whether the first temperature is greater than a desired temperature,
wherein the control circuit is configured, in response to the first temperature being greater than the desired temperature, to activate at least one of the one or more active components.
Imaizumi teaches a temperature sensor 29 detects the temperature of the rolling roll 5a. Imaizumi teaches the control device 31 controls the cooling medium which is supplied to the cooling medium flow channel 37 by the cooling medium supply device 27 based on the temperature detected by the temperature sensor 29 so that the temperature of the rolling roll 5a is less than or equal to a set upper limit temperature (for example, 250°C) [0034]-[0040].
Imaizumi teaches if the temperature detected by the temperature sensor 29 reaches the set upper limit temperature, the control device 31 controls the cooling medium supply device 27 so that the cooling medium, supply device 27 supplies the
cooling medium to the cooling medium flow channel 37. In this case, if the temperature detected by the temperature sensor 29 reaches the set upper limit temperature, the control device 31 opens the flow controlling valves 57 and 59, and the cooling medium supply device 27 may supply the mist-like cooling medium, to the cooling medium flow channel 37; thereby, the temperature of the rolling roll 5a is suppressed so as to be less than or equal to the set upper limit temperature (for example, 250°C) [0042]-[0046].
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 improve the system of Dias in view of Grinberg and Fu with the temperature control configurations of Imaizumi, a known suitable controller configuration for providing temperature control in rollers using cooling means, for the benefit of preventing the roller from reaching undesirable temperatures.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights