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 with traverse of group restriction in the reply filed on 08 May 2026 is acknowledged. This is found persuasive therefore the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “paddles” and “nozzle that is directed into the oven” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“turbo blower” was not in the original specification.
Nozzle directed into the oven was not in the original specification
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “fiber” and “thread” refer to the same structure based on the specification. It is recommended that applicant use the same term for the same structure in the claims.
In claim 13 line 3, it looks like there’s a typo -- “inter gas” should be “inert gas”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “which oven module” in line 2. It’s not clear as to if it refers to one of “at least one oven module”. Also the limitation “the oven module” in line 3 of claim 1 has the same problem. Examiner recommend applicant to amend claim 1 lines 2-3 to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “…at least one oven module having two openings in such a way that at least one precursor fiber may pass through the at least one oven module…”
Claim 1 recites “the blower, the radiative heater, the second heater, the optical detection means and the control unit” in line 9-10. It’s not clear as to if it refers to one of “at least one oven module”. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one blower, the at least one radiative heater, the at least one second heater, the at least one optical detection means and the at least one control unit”.
Claim 2 recites “the oven comprises several oven modules”. It’s not clear as to if the seven oven modules are in addition to “at least one oven module” from claim 1, or if the limitation means “the at least one oven module comprising several oven modules”.
Claim 3 recites “at least two modules”. It’s not clear as to if the at least two modules are part of the oven.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the radiative heater". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one tunable radiative heater”.
Claim 9 recites “nozzle which is directed”. It’s not clear as to if the limitation means nozzle directing air into the oven, or if it means nozzle is oriented or protrudes into the oven. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “nozzle which directs air”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the oven". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one oven”
Claim 12 recites “the heater” in line 10. It’s not clear which heater this limitation refers to because claim 1 recites plural heaters.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the blower". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one blower”. Note: claim 13 has the same problem.
Claim 13 recites “inter gas”. It’s not clear what “inter gas” is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20040149730) in view of Silidker (US 20190160529).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a continuous oven (110 fig 5) comprising
a processing direction (from left to right) and at least one oven module (131, 141 & 151, fig 5) having two openings (an inlet and an outlet for material) positioned in such a way “that at least one precursor fiber may pass through the at least one oven module in the processing direction” (see fig 5), the at least one oven module further comprising at least one air delivery device (pump 167) suitable for producing a gas flow perpendicular to the processing direction (see fig 5-6, air is directed into the paper in fig 5), at least one tunable radiative heater (146, fig 5) radiating perpendicular to the processing direction for heating the at least one precursor fiber to a first temperature, at least one second heater (145, fig 5) “for heating the gas within the oven to a second temperature” (heater roller is capable of heating air in the oven), at least one optical detection means (113, fig 5. See [0135] “splice sensor 113 as a photo sensor”), as well as at least one control unit (114, fig 5), wherein “the at least one blower, the at least one radiative heater, the at least one second heater, the at least one optical detection means and the at least one control unit serve as regulatory means for the heat emitted by the at least one precursor fiber in order to keep the temperature difference between the first temperature and the second temperature less than 10C with the first temperature being higher than the second temperature” (This is intended function. The system is capable of performing this function. See fig 7B, the temperature of 1st medium and a temperature point of 2nd medium can be controlled within 10C of temperature difference).
Hayashi fails to teach the at least one air delivery device is a blower.
Silidker teaches that an air delivery can be a blower or a pump ([0084] “air may be supplied by a fan or air injection pump”. [0141] “vacuum pump/blower”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hayashi as taught by Silidker by substituting the pump with a blower fan since it’s been known that simple substitution a known device for another to perform the same function requires only routine skill in the art. Also Silidker shows that blower and pump are arts recognized equivalence for the same purpose (for delivering air flow).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches the oven comprising several oven modules (131, 141 & 151).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches the oven at a boundary between at least two modules comprises a guiding means for thread (figure shows that a roller in oven 141 is at a location/boundary between oven modules 131 and 151. A roller is the guiding means).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches a drawing force of the guiding means for threads “can be measured and may additionally be used as regulatory means for the heat emitted by the at least one precursor fiber” (This is intended function. A drawing force can be measured with proper equipment).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches “the at least one precursor fiber is at least one thread of polyacrylonitrile precursor thread” (This is intended use or function. Fiber is object to be worked upon and not part of the oven).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches the at least one blower comprises a nozzle (outlet opening if blower housing) which directs air into the oven.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20040149730) in view of Silidker (US 20190160529), further in view of Shah (US 20180274048).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the at least one tunable radiative heater is an infrared laser.
Shah teaches a radiative heater using an infrared laser ([0021] “The heating oven (106) consists of an infrared emitter source such as an array of special quartz heating lamps, Infra Red Light Emitting Diode (IR LED), Infra Red Laser (IR Laser)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hayashi in view of Silidker as taught by Shah by using an infrared laser to provide radiative heating in order to achieve desired heating effect or provide desire heating temperature.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20040149730) in view of Silidker (US 20190160529), further in view of Meinecke (US 20140026437).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach paddles suitable for guiding the gas flow within the oven.
Meinecke teaches paddles (40, fig 1) for guiding the gas flow within an oven (housing of 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hayashi in view of Silidker as taught by Meinecke by adding paddles/flaps in the oven in order to control amount of gas fed to the oven and controlling drying speed in the system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20040149730) in view of Silidker (US 20190160529), further in view of Sugihara (US 20120240424).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the at least one blower is a turbo blower.
Sugihara teaches a turbo blower ([0105] “Each of the fans 74 is composed of, for example, a turbo fan”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hayashi in view of Silidker as taught by Sugihara by adding turbo fan/blower in the oven in order to provide air circulation in the oven to help even temperature distribution in the oven.
Claims 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20040149730) in view of Silidker (US 20190160529), further in view of Hiyama (US 20230313355).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi in view of Silidker teaches the processing of using at least one oven according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection. The method of using is inherently performed by users). However Hayashi in view of Silidker fails to teach the method is done by using at least one self-learning artificial neural network.
Hiyama teaches a self-learning artificial neural network is used for a heating system ([0097] “machine learning methods using neural networks”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hayashi in view of Silidker as taught by Hiyama by using a machine learning neural networks to control the heating process in order to allow automatic controlling and adjusting of heating in the oven).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi in view of Silidker and Hiyama teaches a recurrent neural network (see claim 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571)272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights