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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2009063268 A to Ito.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Ito.
Regarding claim 1. Ito teaches a heat treatment furnace (figs. 3-4) comprising:
a furnace body (drying furnace 31) including an entrance (inlet 32), an exit (outlet 33) and a processing chamber disposed between the entrance and the exit (inside of the drying furnace where film like substrate FS1 passes);
a conveyor (rollers R) configured to convey a sheet-shaped object from the entrance through the processing chamber to the exit (p. 4 last paragraph, “The substrate guide mechanism 30 includes a plurality of guide rollers R for guiding the film-like substrate FS1 until the film-like substrate FS1 carried into the drying furnace 31 from the inlet 32 is carried out from the outlet 33.”), the object extending from the entrance to the exit (see fig. 3); and
a heating device (irradiation devices 34 and 35) disposed in a space in the processing chamber in which the object is conveyed and configured to heat the object being conveyed by the conveyor (p. 4 last paragraph, “In the drying furnace 31, three surface-side infrared irradiation devices 34 are arranged along the path in the upper region of the path through which the film-like substrate [FS1] guided by the substrate guide mechanism 30 passes. In the lower region of this route, three back side infrared irradiation devices 35 are arranged along this route.”),
wherein
the heating device comprises one or more heaters (as noted in the last paragraph of p. 4 and shown in fig. 3, heating devices comprise three heaters on the top and three on the bottom sides of the film like substrate FS1) each including a heating part (infrared heaters H) configured to radiate infrared electromagnetic waves to the object (p. 5 para. 2, “Each of the front-side infrared irradiation device 34 and the back-side infrared irradiation device 35 includes five infrared heaters H that are arranged at a predetermined interval in the transport direction D1 and extend in the width direction D2. These infrared heaters H have a width direction dimension W2 in which both ends in the width direction of the infrared radiation surface HS extend outward beyond both edges in the width direction of the film substrate FS1.”),
the one or more heaters are disposed along a conveying path of the object (fig. 3 and p. 5 para. 2, “… infrared heaters H that are arranged at a predetermined interval in the transport direction D1 …”),
PNG
media_image1.png
546
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the heating part is disposed parallel to a front or back surface of the object (fig. 3 and p. 4 last paragraph, cited above), and extends in a width direction of the object orthogonal to the conveying path (p. 5 para. 2, “infrared heaters H that … extend in the width direction D2”, see fig. 4), and
when a widthwise dimension of the object is Wd (fig. 4, the film like substrate FS1 can be seen to have some width in the D2 direction) and a widthwise dimension of the heating part is Hd (fig. 4, W2), Wd/Hd is in a range of 0.20 to 0.80 (as shown in the annotated version of fig. 4 below, the distance W2 is approximately 290 pixels, while the width of FS1 is approximately 219. This results in a ratio of Wd/Hd of 219/290, or 0.76).
PNG
media_image2.png
563
485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Measurements via https://imageonline.io/measure-image/
Regarding claim 6. Ito teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of guide rollers disposed in the processing chamber and configured to guide the object conveyed by the conveyor, wherein the conveying path is defined by the plurality of guide rollers (p. 4 last paragraph, “The substrate guide mechanism 30 includes a plurality of guide rollers R for guiding the film-like substrate FS1 until the film-like substrate FS1 carried into the drying furnace 31 from the inlet 32 is carried out from the outlet 33.”).
Regarding claim 7. Ito teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 6, wherein the object comprises a sheet-shaped film (film like substrate FS1, fig. 4) and a paste applied to at least one of a front surface and a back surface of the film, and the heating device is configured to remove moisture contained in the paste (p. 1, Technical Field, “The present invention relates to a coating film drying apparatus for drying a coating film applied to the surface of a film-like substrate.” Where the coating film is substantially a paste, per se).
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.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190024972 A1 to Komaki.
Regarding claim 2. Ito teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein Wd/Hd is in a range of 0.25 to 0.65.
Komaki teaches processing sheets with various dimensions (para. 19, “For example, the sheet 20 has a thickness of 10 to 100 μm and a width (length in the left-right direction) of 200 to 1000 mm, and the length of the sheet 20 in the furnace in the front-back direction is 1000 to 1500 mm.”).
With regards to the limitation of “wherein Wd/Hd is in a range of 0.25 to 0.65”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a width of the object and or width of the heating part has predictable and expected results. For example, these widths, and therefore the resulting ratio of Wd/Hd, could be optimized by selecting a desired object having some width, see for example widths listed in Komaki para. 19, and/or selecting a heating part width for processing objects with a desired width, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a width is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the width is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the ratio of Wd/Hd to within the claimed range; for example, optimizing a heating part having a fixed width to be able to process various object widths, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Regarding claim 3. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4. Ito, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Ito teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, wherein the furnace body comprises a pair of sidewalls spaced apart in the width direction (it is understood that Ito does have sidewalls, interpreted to substantially correspond to the length W1 in fig. 4),
the heating part comprises a first end disposed near one of the pair of sidewalls and a second end disposed near another of the pair of sidewalls (Ito fig. 4, top and bottom ends of the heaters H), when a distance between the first end and the one of the pair of sidewalls is Ld1 (see annotated figure below, difference between W1 and W2, indicated as LD1), and
when a distance between the second end and the other of the pair of sidewalls is Ld2 (see annotated figure below, difference between W1 and W2, indicated as LD2).
PNG
media_image3.png
693
623
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The prior art fails to teach, “Wd/Ld1 is in a range of 0.32 to 0.74, and Wd/Ld2 is in a range of 0.20 to 0.33”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Ito teaches a Wd that is much larger than either Ld1 or Ld2; in other words, the spacing between the end of the heater and the sidewall is relatively much smaller than the width of the film Wd, see figure above. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the heat treatment furnace as claimed, since either the film would have to be sized below what is reasonable and/or the space beyond the edges of the heater within the furnace would have to be excessive.
Attention is drawn to WO 2021166048 A1 to Komaki, which teaches a generally similar arrangement as the Applicant’s figures, see fig. 2 of Komaki copied below. However, Komaki fails to teach a specific workpiece width, Wd and a heating part having a spacing between both sidewalls, Ld1, Ld2. In fact, Komaki fails to teach a heating part distinct from the heating devices 26, 28. In other words, Komaki at best teaches a spacing between the heater from only the left sidewall in the figure, but does not teach the particular ratio of Wd/Ld1 and Wd/Ld2, as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
524
690
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights