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 .
Drawings
(i) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20" and "18b" have both been used to designate “attachments”. 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. 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.
(ii) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “18b” on page 15, line 18 of the specification as filed. 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. 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.
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 3, 6, 9-10 and 14-15 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.
Regarding claim 3: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the rail" in line 2. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, which does not include a rail; therefore, it is not clear what structure is being referred to in the claim. Claim 2 first introduces "a rail" in line 2, but claim 3 does not depend from claim 2. For the purposes of art rejections, "the rail" recited in claim 3 is being interpreted to be equivalent to the rail introduced in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the rail" in line 3 and the recitation “the first end of the rail” in line 4. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which does not include a rail; therefore, it is not clear what structure is being referred to in the claim. Claim 2 first introduces "a rail" in line 2, but claim 6 does not depend from claim 2. For the purposes of art rejections, "the rail" and “the first end of the rail” recited in claim 6 is being interpreted to be equivalent to the rail introduced in claim 2.
Regarding claims 9-10: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the rail" in line 2. Claim 9 depends from claim 7, which does not include a rail; therefore, it is not clear what structure is being referred to in the claim. Claim 2 first introduces "a rail" in line 2, but claim 9 does not depend from claim 2. For the purposes of art rejections, "the rail" recited in claim 9 is being interpreted to be equivalent to the rail introduced in claim 2.
Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the second longitudinal braces" in lines 3-5. Claim 9 depends from 7, which does not include a second longitudinal brace; therefore, it is not clear what structure is being referred to in the claim. Claim 8 first introduces "a second longitudinal brace" in line 3, but claim 9 does not depend from claim 8. For the purposes of art rejections, "the second longitudinal braces" recited in claim 9 is being interpreted to be equivalent to the second longitudinal brace introduced in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 9. Claim 10 also recites “the second longitudinal braces” in lines 5-6, which is indefinite for the reasons discussed above in regards to the recitation in claim 9.
Regarding claims 14-15: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the drawing direction" in lines 3-5 of claim 14 and line 5 of claim 15. Claims 14-15 depend from claim 13, which does not include a drawing direction; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a drawing direction making it unclear as to what element/direction the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frost et al. (US 3,776,440; of record in the 07/09/2024 IDS, herein referred to as Frost).
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),
wherein the supporting device comprises a first support (i.e., frame member 11) and a second support (i.e., frame member 10) (Frost at column 3, lines 10-13; FIG. 2),
wherein the nozzle box is connected to the first support and to the second support (i.e., lower air bar assembly LA, is connected to frame members 10 and 11 via brackets 52 and 42, respectively) (Frost at FIGs. 1-2),
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 (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),
and wherein a first end of the nozzle box is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position (Frost at FIG. 2).
As to claim 2: Frost discloses the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses the claimed 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 (Frost at FIGs. 1-2 – see the annotated version of FIG. 1 provided below), wherein a first end of the rail is situated lower in the assembly position than in the operating position (Frost at FIG. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3: Frost discloses 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 – see the annotated version of FIG. 1 provided above).
As to claim 5: Frost discloses 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 discloses the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses 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).
As to claim 11: Frost discloses the claimed nozzle box device of claim 1. Frost further discloses 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 – see annotated version of FIG. 2 provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
489
936
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12: Frost discloses the claimed nozzle box device of claim 11. Frost further discloses the claimed wherein the actuation device is a screw jack comprising a threaded spindle and a spindle nut (Frost at FIGs. 1-2 – see the annotated version of FIG. 2 provided above).
As to claim 13: Frost discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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).
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matze et al. (US 2021/0031411; herein referred to as Matze) in view of Frost et al. (US 3,776,440; of record in the 07/09/2024 IDS, herein referred to as Frost).
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.
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, 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) (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 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) (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 comprising a first support and second support connected to 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).
As to claim 19: Matze and Frost disclose the stretching unit of claim 18. Matze, modified by Frost, 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 and Frost 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 7-9 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: 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 claims 7-8. Claims 9-10 are indicated as allowable due to their dependency, directly or indirectly, on claim 7.
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