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 .
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niklaus et al. (US 7,296,995) in view of Chang et al. (CN 104960127). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Niklaus as teaching:
a drying apparatus, configured to dry a component to be dried (see title and abstract) and comprising:
an oven 1;
a conveyor belt 21, wherein the conveyor belt passes through the oven, the component to be dried is placed on a side of the conveyor belt, and the conveyor belt is configured to convey the component to be dried (column 2 line 60 through column 3 line 4); and
a blowing mechanism 15, provided on a side of the component to be dried away from the conveyor belt and configured to blow gas onto the component to be dried to make the component to be dried abut against the conveyor belt (column 3 lines 51-62). Niklaus also discloses the claim 2 feature of a drive mechanism, comprising at least two drive rollers, wherein the steel sheet is connected to surfaces of the drive rollers in an annular manner, and the drive rollers, when rotating, drive the steel sheet to perform conveying (figure 1), the claim 5 feature wherein the blowing mechanism is provided with a heater inside, and the heater is configured to heat the gas (column 3 liens 38-50), the claim 6 feature of a heating mechanism 9, disposed on a side of the conveyor belt away from the component to be dried and configured to transfer heat to the conveyor belt to heat the component to be dried (figure 1), the claim 8 feature wherein the oven is provided with a gas return port at a position opposite the blowing mechanism, and the gas return port is connected to the blowing mechanism via a gas return mechanism to allow the gas blown into the oven by the blowing mechanism to flow back into the blowing mechanism (column 3 lines 51-62), the claim 12 feature of a drying mechanism provided at a position downstream of the cleaning mechanism on the conveying path, and configured to dry the conveyor belt (figure 1). Niklaus discloses the claimed invention, except the feature wherein the conveyor belt is a steel sheet. Cheng, another drying apparatus, discloses that feature in the translated document for the purpose of using steel for structured support and leveled surface. Furthermore, Niklaus in view of Cheng discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed winding/unwinding shaft, steel sheet though holes, heat preservation cover. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recited those features since the teachings of Niklaus in view of Cheng regardless would perform the invention, regardless of those features.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niklaus in view of Chang in further view of Schmidt et al. (US 10,006,714). Niklaus in view of Cheng discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed condenser. Schmidt, another drying apparatus, discloses that feature at column 5 lines 9-19. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Niklaus in view of Cheng with the teachings of Schmidt for the purpose of condensing water vapor in a gas return mechanism.
Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niklaus in view of Chang in further view of Warren (US 5,619,806). Niklaus in view of Cheng discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed cleaning mechanism. Warren, another drying apparatus, discloses that feature at column 5 lines 61-65. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Niklaus in view of Cheng with the teachings of Warren for the purpose of cleaning on a conveying path.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niklaus in view of Chang in further view of Triglia, Jr. (US 11,384,980). Niklaus in view of Cheng discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed electrode plate. Triglia, another drying apparatus, discloses that feature at column 17 line 56 through column 18 line 15. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Niklaus in view of Cheng with the teachings of Triglia for the purpose of drying electrodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, N, O, P, cited with this application, are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, M, cited with this application, teach dying apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Monday, September 21, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights