DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/16/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 9, 15, 19 and 23 has been amended. Claim 23 is new. Claims 10-13, 16, 18, 20, 22 has been cancelled. Claims 1-9, 14-15 and 17, 19, 21 and 23-24 are pending with claims 1-8 withdrawn from further consideration.
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 and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections and § 112(b) rejections set forth in the office action of 9/26/2025. Therefore the claim objections and § 112(b) rejections from that office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-5, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under §102 and §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that DOTZEL does not teach the newly amended limitations in claim 9, specifically the thermal shield, insulating portion, plenum and outlets connecting to the plenum. The Examiner agrees that the newly amended limitations are not taught by DOTZEL. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 18” should read “The system of claim 9”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 14-15, 17, 16, 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new matter not properly described in claim 9 is “thermal shield”. In the specification in paragraph [0041], there is a description of a “safety shield 146”; however, there is a description of a “thermal insulation” in paragraph [0041] and a “thermal break 154” in paragraph [0053]. It is unclear what is being claimed as the “thermal shield”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the thermal shield to be the safety shield.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9, 19 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0258348), hereinafter FELDMAN, in view of Secor et al. (U.S. 6,427,594), hereinafter SECOR, and Meyers et al. (U.S. 6,463,674), hereinafter MEYERS.
Regarding claim 9, FELDMAN teaches: A system for manufacturing an extrudate (FELDMAN teaches a system [Abstract; 0001; Figs. 9-10), comprising: an extruder configured to form an extrudate from a ceramic forming wet mixture (FELDMAN teaches extruding a wet ceramic mixture through an extrusion die [0036; Fig. 4].); a radiative heat assembly disposed downstream of the extruder and configured to heat the extrudate (FELDMAN teaches a radiative heat assembly (200) disposed downstream of the extruder and configured to heat the extrudate [0053-0055; Fig. 9]. FELDMAN teaches heating is done by radiation [0040].), . . . , a housing disposed within an interior spaced . . . spaced therefrom (FELDMAN teaches a housing (250) disposed within an interior space and spaced therefrom [Figs. 9-10; 0057].), and a plurality of infrared radiation emitting elements disposed within the housing (FELDMAN teaches a plurality of radiation emitting elements (260A, 260B, 260C, 260D) disposed within the housing [0057; Figs. 9-10]. FELDMAN teaches the plurality of radiation emitters can be infra-red [0046].), the plurality of infrared radiation emitting elements arranged to extend around the extrudate (FELDMAN teaches the plurality of infrared emitting elements (260A-260D) extend around the extrudate [Figs. 9, 12; 0057].) and a reflective inner surface of the housing forming a chamber around the infrared radiation emitting elements (FELDMAN teaches the walls of system are reflective and forms a chamber (212) [0066; Figs. 9-10].); and wherein the housing further comprises a differential pressure assembly configured to remove at least a portion of water vapor from around the extrudate (FELDMAN teaches a differential pressure assembly (210) is configured to remove at least a portion of water vapor from around the extrudate [0045; 0049; 0074].), . . . an inlet comprising a first width in fluid communication with the plenum, an outlet comprising a second width greater than the first width and further in fluid communication with the plenum (FELDMAN teaches an inlet comprising a first width (D3) with a spacing and an outlet comprising a second width (D1) greater than the first width and in fluid communication with the same spacing [Fig. 9; 0059].).
FELDMAN is silent as to: the radiative heat assembly comprising a thermal shield comprising a plurality of perforations extending through a thickness thereof, an interior spacing inside the shield, and the differential pressure assembly comprising an insulating portion disposed outwardly from the radiation emitting elements, a plenum disposed outwardly from the insulating portion and in fluid communication with the chamber, a plenum disposed outwardly from the insulating portion and in fluid communication with the chamber, an inlet comprising a first width in fluid communication with the plenum, an outlet comprising a second width greater than the first width and further in fluid communication with the plenum.
FELDMAN is silent as to: the radiative heat assembly comprising a thermal shield comprising a plurality of perforations extending through a thickness thereof, and an interior spacing inside the shield. In the same field of endeavor, heaters, SECOR teaches a radiative heat assembly comprising a thermal shield (76) comprising a plurality of perforations (86) extending through a thickness thereof [Fig. 6; Col. 5, lines 22-26]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, by having a thermal shield with channels, as suggested by SECOR, in order to serve as a heat sink for conducting thermal energy out of the exposure zone [Col. 5, lines 22-26].
FELDMAN and SECOR are silent as to: the differential pressure assembly comprising an insulating portion disposed outwardly from the radiation emitting elements, a plenum disposed outwardly from the insulating portion and in fluid communication with the chamber, a plenum disposed outwardly from the insulating portion and in fluid communication with the chamber, an inlet comprising a first width in fluid communication with the plenum, an outlet comprising a second . . . width and further in fluid communication with the plenum. In the same field of endeavor, heaters, MEYERS teaches a differential pressure assembly (100) comprising an insulating portion (119) disposed outward from the radiation emitting elements (110) [Fig. 2; Col. 8, lines 32-37]. MEYERS teaches a plenum disposed outwardly from the insulating portion (119) and in fluid combination with the chamber (122/40) [Fig. 2]. MEYERS teaches an inlet comprising a first width in fluid communication with the plenum (The Examiner is interpreting this point in Figure 2, the farthest point in section 40 from section 42) [Fig. 2]. MEYERS teaches an outlet comprising a second width in communication with the plenum [Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, and SECOR, by having an insulating portion and a plenum, as suggested by MEYERS, in order to reduce loss of heat and save power [Col. 7, lines 48-52].
Regarding claim 19, MEYERS further teaches: wherein the differential pressure assembly is configured to direct an air flow out of the chamber via a gap between the housing and the extrudate (MEYERS teaches directing air flow out of the chamber via a gap between the housing and the product [Fig. 2].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, and SECOR, by directing air flow out of an chamber with an insulating portion via a gap between the housing and product, as suggested by MEYERS, in order to reduce loss of heat and save power [Col. 7, lines 48-52].
Regarding claim 23, MEYERS further teaches: wherein the differential pressure assembly is configured to direct an air flow away from the extrudate (MEYERS teaches the dryer (100) is configured to direct air flow away from the product [Fig. 2].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, and SECOR, by directing air flow away from the product, as suggested by MEYERS, in order to reduce loss of heat and save power [Col. 7, lines 48-52].
Regarding claim 24, SECOR further teaches: further comprising a negative pressure source in fluid communication with the outlet (SECOR teaches a negative pressure source (90) in fluid communication with the outlet Figs. 4-5; Col. ]. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN and MEYERS, by having an exhaust fan, as suggested by SECOR, in order to prevent the escape of heat [Col. 5, lines 32-37].
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0258348), hereinafter FELDMAN, in view of Secor et al. (U.S. 6,427,594), hereinafter SECOR, and Meyers et al. (U.S. 6,463,674), hereinafter MEYERS, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of AKARAPU et al. (WO 2021/030177 A1), hereinafter AKARAPU.
Regarding claim 14, FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: further comprising an air bearing configured to support at least a portion of the extrudate after the extrudate is formed by the extruder. In the same field of endeavor, ceramics, AKARAPU teaches an air bearing surface (122) which is configured to support at least a portion of the extrudate (116) [0042; Fig. 3A]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS, by having an air bearing surface to support the extrudate, as suggested by AKARAPU, in order to promote low-friction movement [0042].
Regarding claim 15, FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to detect a skin temperature of the extrudate; and a controller configured to adjust the radiative heat assembly based on the skin temperature of the extrudate and a desired drying temperature. In the same field of endeavor, ceramics, AKARAPU teaches: a temperature sensor configured to detect a skin temperature of the extrudate (AKARAPU teaches a temperature sensor (105) [0040]. AKARAPU teaches the temperature sensor can measure the temperature of the extrudate material [0040].); and a controller configured to adjust the radiative heat assembly based on the skin temperature of the extrudate and a desired drying temperature (AKARAPU teaches a controller to adjust operating parameters of the infrared emitting device and/or an optional humidified apparatus [0039].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS, by having a temperature sensor, controller and housing, as suggested by AKARAPU, in order to determine the irradiation duration [0048].
Regarding claim 17, FELDMAN teaches: wherein the housing is configured to reflect at least a portion of radiation generated by the radiative heat assembly towards the extrudate (FELDMAN teaches the walls of system are reflective and forms a chamber (212) [0066; Figs. 9-10].).
Regarding claim 17, AKARAPU further teaches: wherein the housing is configured to reflect at least a portion of radiation generated by the radiative heat assembly towards the extrudate (AKARAPU teaches the housing (804) is configured to reflect at least a portion of radiation towards the extrudate [0061].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS, by having the housing to reflect at least a portion of radiation towards the extrudate, as suggested by AKARAPU, in order to scatter the laser light uniformly [0061].
Claim(s) 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0258348), hereinafter FELDMAN, in view of Secor et al. (U.S. 6,427,594), hereinafter SECOR, and Meyers et al. (U.S. 6,463,674), hereinafter MEYERS, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ishida et al. (DE 102007000573 A1), hereinafter ISHIDA.
Regarding claim 19, FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, ceramics, ISHIDA teaches: wherein the differential pressure assembly directs an air flow out of the chamber via a gap between the housing and the extrudate (ISHIDA teaches the differential pressure assembly directs an air flow out of the chamber via a gap (540/540e) between the housing and the extrudate [Figs. 1, 10]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS, by having an air flow gap between the housing and extrudate, as suggested by ISHIDA, in order to dry the honeycomb bodies [0079-0080].
Regarding claim 23, FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, ceramics, ISHIDA further teaches: wherein the differential pressure assembly is configured to direct an air flow away from the extrudate (ISHIDA teaches the pressure assembly is configured to direct an air flow away from the extrudate [0133].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, SECOR, and MEYERS, by having an air flow gap between the housing and extrudate, as suggested by ISHIDA, in order to control the supply of flow [0125].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0258348), hereinafter FELDMAN, in view of Secor et al. (U.S. 6,427,594), hereinafter SECOR, Meyers et al. (U.S. 6,463,674), hereinafter MEYERS, and AKARAPU et al. (WO 2021/030177 A1), hereinafter AKARAPU, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Schaeffler et al. (U.S. 4,600,202), hereinafter SCHAEFFLER.
Regarding claim 21, FELDMAN, SECOR, MEYERS and AKARAPU teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a brush-seal arranged between an annulus of the housing and the extrudate. In the same field of endeavor, ceramics, SCHAEFFLER teaches: further comprising a brush-seal arranged between an annulus of the housing and the extrudate (SCHAEFFLER teaches a brush seal (1) between components such as a station component, such as a housing, and a moving component [Col. 2, lines 15-20]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify FELDMAN, SECOR, MEYERS and AKARAPU, by having a brush-seal arranged in a housing, as suggested by SCHAEFFLER, in order to adapt variations in radial clearance between parts [Col. 1, lines 17-20].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748