DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, 14-15 and 18 have been amended. Claims 2 and 7-8 have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-6 and 9-20 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the drawing objections previously set forth in the Office action mailed 03/16/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office action mailed 03/16/2026.
The non-final action mailed on 03/16/2026 will be vacated with the instant non-final office action replacing the previously mailed non-final action in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments against previously applied reference(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks regarding amended claim 1 have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 102 as being unpatentable over Frost et al. (US 3,776,440) previously set forth in the Office action mailed 03/16/2026. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC § 102 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remarks regarding amended claim 18 have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Matze et al. (US 2021/0031411) in view of Frost et al. (US 3,776,440) previously set forth in the Office action mailed 03/16/2026. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frost et al. (US 3,776,440; of record in the 07/09/2024 IDS) in view of Berg et al. (US 6,557,268).
As to claim 1: Frost discloses the claimed nozzle box device for an oven of a stretching unit (i.e., apparatus for handling a running web including oppositely disposed air bars for drying and/or positioning the web as it passes between the air bars) (Frost at Abstract; column 2, lines 53-56; FIGs. 1-2), comprising:
a nozzle box (i.e., lower air bar assembly LA) and a supporting device for the nozzle box (i.e., support frame F) (Frost at column 2, lines 53-63; FIGs. 1-2), and
wherein a first end of the nozzle box is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position (i.e., the lower air bar assembly LA can be pivoted about point 1 so that its remote or operator end can be lowered from the upper assembly so as to gain access to the air bars 3 and 4; FIG. 1 representing the operating position and FIG. 2 representing the assembly position) (Frost at column 2, lines 53-63; FIGs. 1-2) (Frost at FIG. 2).
Though, Frost fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the supporting device comprises a first support and a second support, wherein the nozzle box is connected to the first support and to the second support, wherein the first support is designed to be height adjustable in such a way, that the nozzle box is adjustable between an operating position and an assembly position, wherein the supporting device comprises a rail, on which the nozzle box is mounted, wherein the rail is connected on one first side to a second support, and wherein a first end of the rail is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position.
However, Berg teaches a dryer for drying a continuously conveyed product, which comprises a first and second drier arrangement in which a continuously conveyed product is led through between the first and second drier arrangements; and the first and second drier arrangements being warm air driers in which a warm gas flow is produced parallel along the product (Berg at column 2, lines 45-67; Fig. 2, Fig. 4). Specifically, Berg teaches an upper dryer arrangement 3 and a lower dryer arrangement 2 with passage 4 formed between them; and the upper dryer arrangement 3 being suspended on a frame 11, and the frame 11 being supported on lateral supports 13, which can be lifted by an electric motor and threaded spindles to move from an operational position B to a stoppage state S (Berger at column 3, line 64-67; Fig. 2, Fig. 4 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, given the discussion and annotated Fig. 4 from Berger above, it can be concluded that Frost, modified by Berger, would arrive at the claimed wherein the supporting device comprises a first support and a second support, wherein the nozzle box is connected to the first support and to the second support, wherein the first support is designed to be height adjustable in such a way, that the nozzle box is adjustable between an operating position and an assembly position, wherein the supporting device comprises a rail, on which the nozzle box is mounted, wherein the rail is connected on one first side to a second support, and wherein a first end of the rail is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the structure comprising a rail suspending a dryer arrangement and including a first and second lateral support for moving the upper dryer arrangement from an operational position to a stoppage position as such is known in the art of applying heated air to sheet materials given the discussion of Berger above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 3: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein at least one of the rail or the nozzle box are at least one of arranged horizontally in the operating position, or tilted in relation to a horizontal plane when being adjusted from the operating position into to the assembly position (Frost at FIGs. 1-2).
As to claim 5: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein the second support is at least one of a static support, or having attached pivotably at least one of the rail or the nozzle box (Frost at column 2, lines 52-63; column 3, lines 10-25; column 4, lines 22-29; FIGs. 1-2).
As to claim 6: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost, modified by Berger, further disclose the claimed wherein the nozzle box is at least one of arranged to be slidable on the rail, or removable from the supporting device via the first end of the rail (Frost at column 2, lines 53-63; Berger at Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
As to claim 11: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost, modified by Berger, further disclose the claimed wherein the supporting device comprises an actuation device, wherein the actuation device is configured to adjust the height of the first support (Frost at column 2, lines 53-63; FIGs. 1-2; Berger at column 3, line 64-67; Fig. 2, Fig. 4 – see the annotated version provided above).
As to claim 12: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 11. Frost, modified by Berger, further disclose the claimed wherein the actuation device is a screw jack comprising a threaded spindle and a spindle nut (Frost at FIGs. 1-2; Berger at column 3, line 64-67).
As to claim 13: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein the nozzle box device comprises multiple nozzle boxes (i.e., FIG. 3 depicts three air bars, air nozzles 30, being aligned parallel to each other in the lower nozzle box) (Frost at FIG. 3).
As to claim 14: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 13. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein the nozzle boxes are at least one of aligned parallel to each other, arranged adjacent to each other in the drawing direction, or arranged transversely to the drawing direction (i.e., FIG. 3 depicts three air bars, air nozzles 30, being aligned parallel to each other in the lower nozzle box) (Frost at FIG. 3).
As to claim 15: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 13. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein a cover separate from the nozzle boxes is arranged between two adjacent nozzle boxes; and/or wherein a perforated wing protrudes on the outlet side of the nozzle box in the drawing direction towards an adjacent nozzle box (i.e., flat plate surface 32 having perforations 31) (Frost at FIG. 6).
As to claim 16: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein the nozzle box comprises a plurality of outflow openings which are provided on the outlet side of the nozzle box and/or that the nozzle box has an inlet side comprising an air inlet opening, wherein the inlet side is located on the second side of the nozzle box (i.e., perforations 31) (Frost at column 3, lines 38-43).
As to claim 17: Frost and Berger disclose the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein the nozzle box comprises a base body and an attachment which is attached to the base body, wherein the attachment comprises the outflow openings (i.e., the air bar AB constitutes the base body and air nozzle 30 with flat plate surface 32 having perforations 31 constitutes the attachment) (Frost at column FIGs. 3-5).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matze et al. (US 2021/0031411; of record) in view of Frost et al. (US 3,776,440; made of record in the 07/09/2024 IDS) and further in view of Berg et al. (US 6,557,268).
As to claim 18: Matze discloses the claimed stretching unit (i.e., stretching system) comprising
a film transport system (i.e., two parallel transport system channels 35) and an oven comprising a nozzle box device (i.e., ventilation module for an oven with a continuous material web in the form of a plastics film to be stretched) (Matze at [0018], [0041], [0044], [0046], [0075]).
Matze discloses a ventilation module comprising nozzle boxes (Matze at [0080]-[0089]); though, Matze fails to explicitly disclose the claimed nozzle box device comprising a nozzle box and a supporting device for the nozzle box, wherein the supporting device comprises a first support and a second support, wherein the nozzle box is connected to the first support and to the second support, wherein the first support is designed to be height adjustable in such a way, that the nozzle box is adjustable between an operating position and an assembly position, wherein a first end of the nozzle box is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position, and wherein the supporting device comprises a rail, on which the nozzle box is mounted, wherein the rail is connected on one first side to the first support and on one second side to the second support, and wherein a first end of the rail is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position.
However, Frost teaches a web handling apparatus having air bars for drying a moving web (Frost at column 1, lines 45-47; FIGs. 1-2), the apparatus including an upper air bar assembly UA and a lower air bar assembly LA, between which a web W is dried (Frost at column 2, lines 53-56; FIGs. 1-2). Frost further teaches lower air bar assembly LA including a support frame F having two longitudinally extending side/frame members 10 and 11, and lower air bar assembly LA, is connected to frame members 10 and 11 via brackets 52 and 42, respectively (i.e., nozzle box device comprising a nozzle box and a supporting device for the nozzle box) (Frost at column 3, lines 10-25; column 4, lines 22-31; FIGs. 1-2).
Additionally, Frost teaches the lower air bar assembly LA can be pivoted about point 1 so that its remote or operator end can be lowered from the upper assembly so as to gain access to the air bars 3 and 4; with FIG. 1 representing the operating position and FIG. 2 representing the assembly position in which nozzle box is situated lower than in the operating position (i.e., wherein the support device is designed to be height adjustable in such a way, that the nozzle box is adjustable between an operating position and an assembly position, wherein a first end of the nozzle box is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position) (Frost at column 2, lines 53-63; FIGs. 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a nozzle box and supporting device for the nozzle box such that the nozzle box is adjustable between an operating position and an assembly position, wherein a first end of the nozzle box is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position as such is known in the art of air bars for drying material webs given the discussion of Frost above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of being able to quickly and easily insert and remove air bars for replacement or maintenance (as recognized by Frost at Abstract).
Matze, modified by Frost, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the supporting device comprises a first support and a second support, wherein the nozzle box is connected to the first support and to the second support, wherein the first support is designed to be height adjustable in such a way, that the nozzle box is adjustable between an operating position and an assembly position, wherein the supporting device comprises a rail, on which the nozzle box is mounted, wherein the rail is connected on one first side to a second support, and wherein a first end of the rail is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position.
However, Berg teaches a dryer for drying a continuously conveyed product, which comprises a first and second drier arrangement in which a continuously conveyed product is led through between the first and second drier arrangements; and the first and second drier arrangements being warm air driers in which a warm gas flow is produced parallel along the product (Berg at column 2, lines 45-67; Fig. 2, Fig. 4). Specifically, Berg teaches an upper dryer arrangement 3 and a lower dryer arrangement 2 with passage 4 formed between them; and the upper dryer arrangement 3 being suspended on a frame 11, and the frame 11 being supported on lateral supports 13, which can be lifted by an electric motor and threaded spindles to move from an operational position B to a stoppage state S (Berger at column 3, line 64-67; Fig. 2, Fig. 4 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, given the discussion and annotated Fig. 4 from Berger above, it can be concluded that Matze, modified by Frost and Berger, would arrive at the claimed wherein the supporting device comprises a first support and a second support, wherein the nozzle box is connected to the first support and to the second support, wherein the first support is designed to be height adjustable in such a way, that the nozzle box is adjustable between an operating position and an assembly position, wherein the supporting device comprises a rail, on which the nozzle box is mounted, wherein the rail is connected on one first side to a second support, and wherein a first end of the rail is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the structure comprising a rail suspending a dryer arrangement and including a first and second lateral support for moving the upper dryer arrangement from an operational position to a stoppage position as such is known in the art of applying heated air to sheet materials given the discussion of Berger above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 19: Matze, Frost and Berger disclose the stretching unit of claim 18. Matze, modified by Frost and Berger, further discloses the claimed wherein the film transport system comprises two transport rails which are arranged in the transverse direction at a spacing from each other (i.e., two parallel transport system channels 35) (Matze at [0064]), wherein at least one of: - the nozzle box is removable from the oven in the assembly position of the supporting device via a removal path below one of the transport rails, or - the nozzle box is arranged in the operating position of the supporting device at least in part within the spacing (Frost at Abstract; column 2, lines 53-63; FIGs. 1-2).
As to claim 20: Matze, Frost and Berger disclose the stretching unit of claim 18. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein the stretching unit comprises an air supply (i.e., air supply ducts 13 and 14 receive air from cross-headers 15 from an air supply source such as a fan), wherein the inlet side of the nozzle box (i.e., flange member 37) connects to the air supply in the operating position of the supporting device (i.e., holes 17 defined by upwardly turned flange 20) (Frost at column 3, lines 20-37; FIGs. 1-2; FIGs. 3-5), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed first support comprising two members which are attached pivotably to each other and at least one of the members is pivotable in relation to at least one of the rail of the nozzle box as required by claim 4.
Frost, as discussed above, discloses a pivot point 1; though, first support 11 of Frost is a monolithic member and while Frost discloses two elements pivoting in relation to one another, Frost fails to reasonably suggest the claimed wherein the first support comprises two members which are attached pivotably to each other and at least one of the members is pivotable in relation to at least one of the rail or the nozzle box as recited in claim 4.
Moreover, Frost discloses a support frame F; though, neither Frost, nor the prior art of record, teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed wherein the supporting device comprises two first supports and a first longitudinal brace, wherein the first longitudinal brace connects the two first supports to each other, and wherein the supporting device comprises two second supports and a second longitudinal brace, wherein the second longitudinal brace connects the two second supports to each other as recited in claim 4. Claims 9-10 are indicated as allowable due to their dependency, directly or indirectly, on claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
