DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 6, 16 and 21 has been amended. Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 12-13, filed 5/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 16 under § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that WETTEMANN fails to teach the newly amended limitation of “a pressure measuring unit” or a “temperature measuring unit” is provided inside the chamber portioned into a plurality of zones. The Examiner agrees that WETTEMANN does not explicitly teach the newly amended limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new prior art.
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: conveying device in claims 1 and 16; heat treatment unit in claims 1 and 15-16; air supply unit in claims 1, 5-6, 16 and 20-21; pressure measuring unit in claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 15; control unit in claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12-19; and, temperature measuring unit in claims 15-19 and 21.
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.
Claims 1 and 16 have the limitation “conveying device”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “device” and (B) the terms “device” is modified by the functional language “conveying” and (C) the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of conveying. The Examiner interprets “conveying device” as anything that moves an object [Applicant’s Drawings: Fig. 2; numeral 11] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1 and 15-16 have the limitation “heat treatment unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “heat treatment” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of heating. The Examiner interprets “heat treatment unit” as any type of enclosure [Applicant’s Drawings: Fig. 2; numeral 12] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 5-6, 16 and 20-21 have the limitation “air supply unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “air supply” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of supplying air. The Examiner interprets “air supply unit” as anything supplying air [ Applicant’s Drawings: Fig. 5; numeral 53/44] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 15 have the limitation “pressure measuring unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “pressure measuring” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of pressure measuring. The Examiner interprets “pressure measuring unit” as a sensor [Applicant’s Drawings: Fig. 5; numeral 34] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12-19 have the limitation “control unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “control” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of heating. The Examiner interprets “control unit” as a processor, memory [Applicant’s Drawings: Fig. 5; numeral 35; specification: 0037] and equivalents thereof.
Claims 15-19 and 21 have the limitation “temperature measuring unit”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “unit” and (B) the terms “unit” is modified by the functional language “temperature measuring” and (C) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of temperature measuring. The Examiner interprets “temperature measuring unit” as a sensor [Applicant’s Drawings: Fig. 22 numeral 71] and equivalents thereof.
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) 1, 4-6, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettemann et al. (U.S. 11,465,331), hereinafter WETTEMANN, in view of Kamiya et al. (JP 2008170132 A, original and translation provided), hereinafter KAMIYA.
Regarding claim 1, WETTEMANN teaches: A stretching apparatus of a thermoplastic resin film (WETTEMANN teaches a stretching apparatus of a plastic film [Fig. 1; Abstract].) comprising: a conveying device configured to convey and stretch the thermoplastic resin film (WETTEMANN teaches a conveying device that conveys the film through the oven [Col. 6, lines 21-22; Fig. 1].); and a heat treatment unit configured to perform a heat treatment to the thermoplastic resin film (WETTEMANN teaches a heat treatment unit (oven: 1) to perform a heat treatment on the plastic film [Col. 6, lines 19-36; Fig. 1].), wherein the heat treatment unit includes: a chamber configured to cover the conveying device (WETTEMANN teaches the stretching oven is shown in a plurality of treatment zones (7) having associated treatment chambers (9) that are arranged consecutively in drawing-off direction A [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 25-31].); an air supply unit configured to supply air into the chamber (WETTEMANN teaches common air supply units (13) are provided in the chambers (9) [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 62-65; Col. 7, lines 40-62].); an exhaust unit configured to exhaust air from the chamber (WETTEMANN teaches all of the exhaust air is extracted via an exhaust fan through an exhaust line (41) [Col. 3,lines 1-3; Col. 12, lines 28-45].); a pressure measuring unit configured to measure a pressure inside the chamber (WETTEMANN teaches a pressure measuring unit (pressure sensors) [Col. 5, lines 9-15].); and a control unit (WETTEMANN teaches control units [Col. 14, lines 13-30].), wherein the exhaust unit has an exhaust port provided in the chamber and an exhaust blower capable of exhausting air through the exhaust port (WETTEMANN teaches the exhaust line (41) has an exhaust port provided in the chamber with an exhaust air fan [Col. 34-45].), wherein the chamber is partitioned into a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction of the thermoplastic resin film (WETTEMANN teaches the chamber (oven) has a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction and an air supply unit, exhaust unit and pressure measuring unit is provided in each zone [Col. 5, lines 5-15].), . . . , and wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber by adjusting an air volume of the exhaust blower based on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit (WETTEMANN teaches the pressure can be adjusted by an air volume of the exhaust fan based on the pressure measured by the pressure sensor [Col. 12, lines 55-61; Col. 7, lines 31-39].).
WETTEMANN does not explicitly teach: wherein the pressure measuring unit is provided inside the chamber partitioned into the plurality of zones. In the same field of endeavor, pressure, KAMIYA teaches differential pressure gauges (22A-22C) inside and outside each zones (12A-12C) [0026]. 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 WETTEMANN, by having pressure gauges inside each zone, as suggested by KAMIYA, in order to adjust the supply air volume in each zone and control to a predetermined pressure [0026].
Regarding claim 4, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the exhaust unit further has an exhaust pipe provided between the exhaust blower and the exhaust port and a damper provided in a middle of the exhaust pipe (WETTEMANN teaches the exhaust supply units have lines with inlets (21a, 21b) and a damper is provided on the exhaust pipes/lines [Fig. 5; Col. 11, lines 2-20].), and wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber by adjusting an opening/closing degree of the damper based on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit to adjust the air volume of the exhaust blower (WETTEMANN teaches the damper control can comprise, in addition to the dampers, a motor controlling the dampers having the associated control unit [Col. 11, lines 18-20]. WETTEMANN teaches the dampers can be adjusting in a passage ratio in a range of a 0% to 100% opening angle [Col. 11, lines 3-5]. WETTEMANN teaches the degree of the damper can be based on a volumetric flow measuring device (43; pressure sensor [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 7, lines 31-39; Col. 12, lines 58-61]) to adjust the air volume of the exhaust air supply [Col. 12, lines 55-67 – Col. 13, lines 1-28].).
Regarding claim 5, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the air supply unit has an air supply port provided in the chamber and an air supply blower capable of supplying air into the chamber through the air supply port (WETTEMANN teaches the air supply units (13) have air supply inlet lines and air supply fans for supplying air into the chamber through the inlet lines [Col. 11, lines 45-51].).
Regarding claim 6, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the air supply unit, the exhaust unit, and the pressure measuring unit are provided for each of the plurality of zones (WETTEMANN teaches the chamber (oven) has a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction and an air supply unit, exhaust unit and pressure measuring unit is provided in each zone [Col. 5, lines 5-15].).
Regarding claim 12, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the chamber has an inlet through which the thermoplastic resin film is conveyed thereinto and an outlet through which the thermoplastic resin film is conveyed therefrom (WETTEMAN teaches the chambers have a feed side (3) and outlet side (5) where the film is conveyed through the oven (1) [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 20-23].). In regards to the limitation “wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber such that the pressure inside the chamber is higher than a pressure outside the chamber and the pressure inside the chamber becomes higher as advancing from an inlet side to an outlet side”, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN teaches a control unit and pressure sensors for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 13, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the chamber has an inlet through which the thermoplastic resin film is conveyed thereinto and an outlet through which the thermoplastic resin film is conveyed therefrom (WETTEMAN teaches the chambers have a feed side (3) and outlet side (5) where the film is conveyed through the oven (1) [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 20-23].). In regards to the limitations “wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber such that the pressure inside the chamber is higher than a pressure outside the chamber and the pressure inside the chamber is higher at a center than those on inlet and outlet sides”, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN teaches a control unit and pressure sensors for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 14, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the chamber has an inlet through which the thermoplastic resin film is conveyed thereinto and an outlet through which the thermoplastic resin film is conveyed therefrom (WETTEMAN teaches the chambers have a feed side (3) and outlet side (5) where the film is conveyed through the oven (1) [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 20-23].). In regards to the limitation: “wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber such that the pressure inside the chamber is lower than a pressure outside the chamber and the pressure inside the chamber is lower at a center than those on inlet and outlet sides”, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN teaches a control unit and pressure sensors for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 15, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the heat treatment unit further has a temperature measuring unit configured to measure a temperature inside the chamber (WETTEMANN teaches temperature sensors can be used in the oven system [Col. 12, lines 55-61; Col. 5, lines 9-15].), and wherein the control unit controls the pressure and temperature inside the chamber by adjusting the air volume of the exhaust blower based on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit and the temperature measured by the temperature measuring unit (WETTEMANN teaches the control unit controls the pressure and temperature inside the oven system by adjusting the air volume from the exhaust air supply based on the temperature and pressure sensors [Col. 12, lines 55-61].).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettemann et al. (U.S. 11,465,331), hereinafter WETTEMANN, and Kamiya et al. (JP 2008170132 A, original and translation provided), hereinafter KAMIYA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters et al. (WO 2009/068200 A2, original and translation provided), hereinafter PETERS.
Regarding claim 2, WETTEMANN and KAMIYA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the exhaust unit further has an inverter connected to the exhaust blower, and wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber by adjusting an output from the inverter to the exhaust blower based on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit to adjust the air volume of the exhaust blower. In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, PETERS teaches in one or more driven elements is/are connected to a first energy source for power supply, characterized in that an uninterruptible power supply of these driven elements are ensured by means of a second energy source [pg. 2]. PETERS teaches that an energy source can be supplied exclusively by an inverter in normal operation [pg. 4] and the inverter is downstream of the output [pg. 4]. 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 WETTEMANN and KAMIYA, by having an inverter, as suggested by PETERS, in order to prevent fluctuations or power failure [pg. 4]. Furthermore, the combination of WETTEMANN and PETERS teaches the intended use of the control unit and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and PETERS teach pressure sensors, an inverter, and a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 3, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein, when the control unit determines that the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit is outside an allowable range (WETTEMANN teaches adjusting the flow based on predetermined temperature and predetermined volume [Col. 6, lines 58-61].), it adjusts the output from the inverter to the exhaust blower such that the pressure inside the chamber is within the allowable range.
The combination of WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and PETERS teach the intended use of the control unit and inverter. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN and KAMIYA teaches a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettemann et al. (U.S. 11,465,331), hereinafter WETTEMANN, and Kamiya et al. (JP 2008170132 A, original and translation provided), hereinafter KAMIYA, as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Washiya et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0237928), hereinafter WASHIYA.
Regarding claim 2, WETTEMANN and KAMIYA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the exhaust unit further has an inverter connected to the exhaust blower, and wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber by adjusting an output from the inverter to the exhaust blower based on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit to adjust the air volume of the exhaust blower. In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, WASHIYA teaches an inverter motor used on a feedback control and used to increase pressure [0154]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicants’ invention to substitute the motor in WETTEMANN with the inverter motor in WASHIYA, in order to adjust pressure [0154], and it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Furthermore, the combination of WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teaches the intended use of the control unit and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teach pressure sensors, inverter motor, and a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 3, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein, when the control unit determines that the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit is outside an allowable range (WETTEMANN teaches adjusting the flow based on predetermined temperature and predetermined volume [Col. 6, lines 58-61].), it adjusts the output from the inverter to the exhaust blower such that the pressure inside the chamber is within the allowable range.
The combination of WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teach the intended use of the control unit and inverter. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN teaches a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 7, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the exhaust unit further has an inverter connected to the exhaust blower (WETTEMAN teaches a motor is connected to the exhaust blower [Col. 12, lines 43-45].), and wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber by adjusting an output from the inverter to the exhaust blower based on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit to adjust the air volume of the exhaust blower in one or more selected zones among the plurality of zones (WETTEMANN teaches the pressure can be adjusted by an air volume of the exhaust fan based on the pressure measured by the pressure sensor [Col. 12, lines 55-61; Col. 7, lines 31-39]. WETTEMANN teaches the damper control can comprise, in addition to the dampers, a motor controlling the dampers having the associated control unit [Col. 11, lines 18-20]. WETTEMANN teaches the dampers can be adjusting in a passage ratio in a range of a 0% to 100% opening angle [Col. 11, lines 3-5]. WETTEMANN teaches the degree of the damper can be based on a volumetric flow measuring device (43; pressure sensor [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 7, lines 31-39; Col. 12, lines 58-61]) to adjust the air volume of the exhaust air supply [Col. 12, lines 55-67 – Col. 13, lines 1-28].).
WETTEMANN is silent as to an inverter.
In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, WASHIYA teaches an inverter motor used on a feedback control and used to increase pressure [0154]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicants’ invention to substitute the motor in WETTEMANN with the inverter motor in WASHIYA, in order to adjust pressure [0154], and it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Furthermore, the combination of WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teaches the intended use of the control unit and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teach pressure sensors, inverter motor, and a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 8, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein, when the control unit determines that the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit is outside an allowable range in one or more selected zones among the plurality of zones (WETTEMANN teaches the chamber (oven) has a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction and an air supply unit, exhaust unit and pressure measuring unit is provided in each zone [Col. 5, lines 5-15].), it adjusts the output from the inverter to the exhaust blower such that the pressure inside the chamber is within the allowable range (WETTEMANN teaches the pressure can be adjusted by an air volume of the exhaust fan based on the pressure measured by the pressure sensor [Col. 12, lines 55-61; Col. 7, lines 31-39]. WETTEMANN teaches the damper control can comprise, in addition to the dampers, a motor controlling the dampers having the associated control unit [Col. 11, lines 18-20]. WETTEMANN teaches the dampers can be adjusting in a passage ratio in a range of a 0% to 100% opening angle [Col. 11, lines 3-5]. WETTEMANN teaches the degree of the damper can be based on a volumetric flow measuring device (43; pressure sensor [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 7, lines 31-39; Col. 12, lines 58-61]) to adjust the air volume of the exhaust air supply [Col. 12, lines 55-67 – Col. 13, lines 1-28].).
WETTEMANN is silent as to an inverter.
In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, WASHIYA teaches an inverter motor used on a feedback control and used to increase pressure [0154]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicants’ invention to substitute the motor in WETTEMANN with the inverter motor in WASHIYA, in order to adjust pressure [0154], and it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Furthermore, the combination of WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teaches the intended use of the control unit and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teach pressure sensors, inverter motor, and a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 9, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the exhaust unit further has an inverter connected to the exhaust blower (WETTEMAN teaches a motor is connected to the exhaust blower [Col. 12, lines 43-45].), and wherein the control unit controls the pressure inside the chamber by adjusting an output from the inverter to the exhaust blower based on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit to adjust the air volume of the exhaust blower in each of the plurality of zones (WETTEMANN teaches the pressure can be adjusted by an air volume of the exhaust fan based on the pressure measured by the pressure sensor [Col. 12, lines 55-61; Col. 7, lines 31-39]. WETTEMANN teaches the damper control can comprise, in addition to the dampers, a motor controlling the dampers having the associated control unit [Col. 11, lines 18-20]. WETTEMANN teaches the dampers can be adjusting in a passage ratio in a range of a 0% to 100% opening angle [Col. 11, lines 3-5]. WETTEMANN teaches the degree of the damper can be based on a volumetric flow measuring device (43; pressure sensor [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 7, lines 31-39; Col. 12, lines 58-61]) to adjust the air volume of the exhaust air supply [Col. 12, lines 55-67 – Col. 13, lines 1-28].).
WETTEMANN is silent as to an inverter.
In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, WASHIYA teaches an inverter motor used on a feedback control and used to increase pressure [0154]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicants’ invention to substitute the motor in WETTEMANN with the inverter motor in WASHIYA, in order to adjust pressure [0154], and it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Furthermore, the combination of WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teaches the intended use of the control unit and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teach pressure sensors, inverter motor, and a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 10, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein, when the control unit determines that the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit is outside an allowable range in each of the plurality of zones, it adjusts the output from the inverter to the exhaust blower such that the pressure inside the chamber is within the allowable range (WETTEMANN teaches the pressure can be adjusted by an air volume of the exhaust fan based on the pressure measured by the pressure sensor [Col. 12, lines 55-61; Col. 7, lines 31-39]. WETTEMANN teaches the damper control can comprise, in addition to the dampers, a motor controlling the dampers having the associated control unit [Col. 11, lines 18-20]. WETTEMANN teaches the dampers can be adjusting in a passage ratio in a range of a 0% to 100% opening angle [Col. 11, lines 3-5]. WETTEMANN teaches the degree of the damper can be based on a volumetric flow measuring device (43; pressure sensor [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 7, lines 31-39; Col. 12, lines 58-61]) to adjust the air volume of the exhaust air supply [Col. 12, lines 55-67 – Col. 13, lines 1-28].).
WETTEMANN is silent as to an inverter.
In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, WASHIYA teaches an inverter motor used on a feedback control and used to increase pressure [0154]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicants’ invention to substitute the motor in WETTEMANN with the inverter motor in WASHIYA, in order to adjust pressure [0154], and it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Furthermore, the combination of WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teaches the intended use of the control unit and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN, KAMIYA and WASHIYA teach pressure sensors, inverter motor, and a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 11, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the exhaust unit further has an inverter connected to the exhaust blower (WETTEMAN teaches a motor is connected to the exhaust blower [Col. 12, lines 43-45].), and wherein at least one or more zones of the plurality of zones share the exhaust blower and the inverter with other zones (WETTEMANN teaches the chamber (oven) has a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction and an air supply unit, exhaust unit and pressure measuring unit is provided in each zone [Col. 5, lines 5-15].).
WETTEMANN is silent as to an inverter.
In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, WASHIYA teaches an inverter motor used on a feedback control and used to increase pressure [0154]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicants’ invention to substitute the motor in WETTEMANN with the inverter motor in WASHIYA, in order to adjust pressure [0154], and it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettemann et al. (U.S. 11,465,331), hereinafter WETTEMANN, in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0169772), hereinafter YAMADA.
Regarding claim 16, WETTEMANN teaches: A stretching apparatus of a thermoplastic resin film (WETTEMANN teaches a stretching apparatus of a plastic film [Fig. 1; Abstract]) comprising: a conveying device configured to convey and stretch the thermoplastic resin film (WETTEMANN teaches a conveying device that conveys the film through the oven [Col. 6, lines 21-22; Fig. 1].); and a heat treatment unit configured to perform a heat treatment to the thermoplastic resin film (WETTEMANN teaches a heat treatment unit (oven: 1) to perform a heat treatment on the plastic film [Col. 6, lines 19-36; Fig. 1].), wherein the heat treatment unit includes: a chamber configured to cover the conveying device (WETTEMANN teaches the stretching oven is shown in a plurality of treatment zones (7) having associated treatment chambers (9) that are arranged consecutively in drawing-off direction A [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 25-31].); an air supply unit configured to supply air into the chamber (WETTEMANN teaches common air supply units (13) are provided in the chambers (9) [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 62-65; Col. 7, lines 40-62].); an exhaust unit configured to exhaust air from the chamber (WETTEMANN teaches all of the exhaust air is extracted via an exhaust fan through an exhaust line (41) [Col. 3,lines 1-3; Col. 12, lines 28-45].); a temperature measuring unit configured to measure a temperature inside the chamber (WETTEMANN teaches a temperature measuring unit (temperature sensors) [Col. 5, lines 9-15].); and a control unit (WETTEMANN teaches control units [Col. 14, lines 13-30].), wherein the exhaust unit has an exhaust port provided in the chamber and an exhaust blower capable of exhausting air through the exhaust port (WETTEMANN teaches the exhaust line (41) has an exhaust port provided in the chamber with an exhaust air fan [Col. 34-45].), wherein the chamber is partitioned into a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction of the thermoplastic film (WETTEMANN teaches the chamber (oven) has a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction and an air supply unit, exhaust unit and temperature measuring unit is provided in each zone [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 6, lines 53-63; Col. 7, lines 5-10].), wherein the temperature measuring unit is provided inside the chamber partitioned into the plurality of zones, and wherein the control unit controls the temperature inside the chamber by adjusting an air volume of the exhaust blower based on the temperature measured by the temperature measuring unit (WETTEMANN teaches the pressure can be adjusted by an air volume of the exhaust fan based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor [Col. 12, lines 55-61; Col. 7, lines 31-39].).
WETTEMANN does not explicitly teach: wherein the temperature measuring unit is provided inside the chamber partitioned into the plurality of zones. In the same field of endeavor, stretching, YAMADA teaches three non-contact type surface thermometers arranged in a frying apparatus [0295]. YAMADA teaches at least one , preferably two or more, non-contacting type thermometers in the width direction and averaging the measured temperature data [0082; 0086; Figs. 2(a)-2(d)]. 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 WETTEMANN, by having a temperature measuring unit into a plurality of zones, as suggested by YAMADA, in order to obtain temperature data for controlling the temperature raising [0082].
Regarding claim 19, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the exhaust unit further has an exhaust pipe provided between the exhaust blower and the exhaust port and a damper provided in a middle of the exhaust pipe (WETTEMANN teaches the exhaust supply units have lines with inlets (21a, 21b) and a damper is provided on the exhaust pipes/lines [Fig. 5; Col. 11, lines 2-20].), and wherein the control unit controls the temperature inside the chamber by adjusting an opening/closing degree of the damper based on the temperature measured by the temperature measuring unit to adjust the air volume of the exhaust blower (WETTEMANN teaches the damper control can comprise, in addition to the dampers, a motor controlling the dampers having the associated control unit [Col. 11, lines 18-20]. WETTEMANN teaches the dampers can be adjusting in a passage ratio in a range of a 0% to 100% opening angle [Col. 11, lines 3-5]. WETTEMANN teaches the degree of the damper can be based on a volumetric flow measuring device (43; temperature sensor [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 7, lines 31-39; Col. 12, lines 58-61]) to adjust the air volume of the exhaust air supply [Col. 12, lines 55-67 – Col. 13, lines 1-28; Col. 14, lines 27-39].).
Regarding claim 20, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the air supply unit has an air supply port provided in the chamber and an air supply blower capable of supplying air into the chamber through the air supply port (WETTEMANN teaches the air supply units (13) have air supply inlet lines and air supply fans for supplying air into the chamber through the inlet lines [Col. 11, lines 45-51].).
Regarding claim 21, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein the air supply unit, the exhaust unit, and the temperature measuring unit are provided for each of the plurality of zones (WETTEMANN teaches the chamber (oven) has a plurality of zones arranged in a conveying direction and an air supply unit, exhaust unit and temperature measuring unit is provided in each zone [Col. 5, lines 9-15; Col. 6, lines 53-63; Col. 7, lines 5-10].).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettemann et al. (U.S. 11,465,331), hereinafter WETTEMANN, and Yamada et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0169772), hereinafter YAMADA, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Peters et al. (WO 2009/068200 A2, original and translation provided), hereinafter PETERS.
Regarding claim 17, WETTEMANN teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the exhaust unit further has an inverter connected to the exhaust blower, and wherein the control unit controls the temperature inside the chamber by adjusting an output from the inverter to the exhaust blower based on the temperature measured by the temperature measuring unit to adjust the air volume of the exhaust blower. In the same field of endeavor, stretching devices, PETERS teaches in one or more driven elements is/are connected to a first energy source for power supply, characterized in that an uninterruptible power supply of these driven elements are ensured by means of a second energy source [pg. 2]. PETERS teaches that an energy source can be supplied exclusively by an inverter in normal operation [pg. 4] and the inverter is downstream of the output [pg. 4]. 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 WETTEMANN, by having an inverter, as suggested by PETERS, in order to prevent fluctuations or power failure [pg. 4].
Furthermore, the combination of WETTEMANN and PETERS teaches the intended use of the control unit and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN and PETERS teach temperature sensors, inverter and a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 18, WETTEMANN teaches: wherein, when the control unit determines that the temperature measured by the temperature measuring unit is outside an allowable range (WETTEMANN teaches adjusting the flow based on predetermined temperature and predetermined volume [Col. 6, lines 58-61].), it adjusts the output from the inverter to the exhaust blower such that the temperature inside the chamber is within the allowable range.
The combination of WETTEMANN and PETERS teach the intended use of the control unit and inverter. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. WETTEMANN teaches a control unit for adjusting the air flow inside the chamber and would therefore be capable of the claimed use.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights