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
Claim 32 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 10, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “engagement mechanism” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected for reciting the precuring room.
A suggested revision is “a precuring room”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-15, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 20210283649 A1 to Daniel Ayotte (hereinafter Ayotte) in view of EP 0558151 to Poul Lygum (hereinafter Lygum).
Regarding claim 1, Ayotte teaches a system for curing a wet coating of a coated substrate, the system comprising: a curing room having a curing room inlet (22) and a curing room outlet (24), the curing room (14) being configured to receive the coated substrate, and the coated substrate being introduced at the curing room inlet along a first displacement axis (26), a conveyor assembly (30) for conveying the coated substrate (12) through the curing room, and a gas catalytic infrared (IR) system( 38a-d, 40 a-d, 42a-d) provided in the curing room (14) for producing an IR radiation to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate (12) is displaced through the curing room (14). (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 90, 96, 101-103, 108, 117, 123-124, 139, and 149.)
Ayotte teaches other geometrical and non-longitudinal displacement axes can be used. (See Ayotte, paragraphs 102 and 170.)
Ayotte does not explicitly teach a conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room along at least a second displacement axis transverse to the first displacement axis and the coated substrate (12) is displaced through the curing room (14) along the second displacement axis.
Lygum is directed to conveyor articles inside an oven.
Lygum teaches a conveyor assembly for conveying the substrate ( product) through the curing room (oven) along at least a second displacement axis (vertical axis) transverse to the first displacement axis (horizontal axis) and the coated substrate (product) is displaced through the curing room (oven ) along the second displacement axis (vertical axis). (See Lygum, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and page 2, paragraphs 5-9 of Machine Translation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room along at least a second displacement axis transverse to the first displacement axis and the coated substrate is displaced through the curing room along the second displacement axis, because Lygum teaches this structure would provide versatility enabling the heating conditions to be controlled in a more flexible way. (See Lygum, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and page 1, paragraph 5; page 2, paragraphs 5-9 of Machine Translation.)
Regarding claim 2, Ayotte teaches the curing room (14) is dividable along the second displacement axis (26) into at least: an upstream curing section comprising an upstream catalytic IR heating system (32) of the gas catalytic IR system for producing an upstream IR radiation at an upstream radiation intensity to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is in the upstream curing section; and a downstream curing section (36) comprising a downstream catalytic IR heating system of the gas catalytic IR system for producing a downstream IR radiation at a downstream radiation intensity lower than the upstream radiation intensity to further cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is in the downstream curing section. (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 104-108.)
Regarding claim 3, Ayotte teaches an intermediate curing section (34) positioned between the upstream (32) and downstream curing sections (36), the intermediate curing section having an intermediate catalytic IR heating system for producing an intermediate IR radiation at an intermediate radiation intensity to partially cure the wet coating. (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 104-108.)
Regarding claim 4, Ayotte teaches the intermediate radiation intensity is lower than the upstream radiation intensity and higher than the downstream radiation intensity. (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraph 32, 107, 110.)
Ayotte teaches a system for curing a wet coating of a coated substrate, the system comprising: a curing room having a curing room inlet (22) and a curing room outlet (24), the curing room (14) being configured to receive the coated substrate, and the coated substrate being introduced at the curing room inlet along a first displacement axis (26), a conveyor assembly (30) for conveying the coated substrate (12) through the curing room, and a gas catalytic infrared (IR) system( 38a-d, 40 a-d, 42a-d) provided in the curing room (14) for producing an IR radiation to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate (12) is displaced through the curing room (14). (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 90, 96, 101-103, 108, 117, 123-124, 139, and 149.)
Regarding claim 10, Ayotte teaches a ventilation system (71) having a recirculation duct (recirculation duct) for transferring a heated air stream produced in at least one of the upstream (32) , intermediate (34) and downstream (36) curing sections towards at least another one of the upstream, intermediate and downstream curing sections, and/or recirculating the heated air stream within at least one of the upstream, intermediate and downstream curing sections and/or recirculating the heated air stream within at least one of the upstream, intermediate and downstream curing sections. (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 8-9, 24-26, 28, 30-31, 40, 42, 45, 50-58, 70-71, 92, 94-95, and 129-148.)
Regarding claim 11, Ayotte teaches the recirculation duct comprises two recirculation sub-ducts (68, 74) for recirculating the heated air stream produced in the downstream curing section towards the upstream curing section via the intermediate curing section. (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 8-9, 24-26, 28, 30-31, 40, 42, 45, 50-58, 70-71, 92, 94-95, and 129-148.)
Regarding claim 12, Ayotte teaches uniformizing (paragraphs 8 and 129-130 and 137) the heated air stream in at least one of the upstream, intermediate and downstream curing sections (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 8-9, 24-26, 28, 30-31, 40, 42, 45, 50-58, 70-71, 92, 94-95, and 129-148.)
Regarding claim 13, Ayotte teaches wherein the ventilation system (71) is shaped and dimensioned for cooling the coated substrate exiting at the curing room outlet (24). (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 30, 71, 112, 130-132, 138, and 167.)
Regarding claim 14, Ayotte teaches the ventilation system (71) comprises a duct (300) shaped and dimensioned to direct an air flow from the precuring room at least partially towards the curing room outlet (24) for cooling the coated substrate exiting at the curing room outlet (24). (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 30, 71, 112, 130-132, 138, and 167.)
Regarding claim 15, Ayotte teaches the ventilation system (71) further comprises at least one exhaust at each one of the upstream (1075a) , intermediate (1075b) and downstream curing sections (1075c) for expelling air out of the corresponding curing section. (See Ayotte, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 30, 71, 112, 130-132, 138, and 167.)
Regarding claim 27, Ayotte teaches system for curing a wet coating of a coated substrate, the system comprising: a curing room (14) configured to receive the coated substrate (12) and dividable along a curing displacement axis into at least: an upstream curing section (32) comprising an upstream catalytic infrared (IR) heating system for producing an upstream IR radiation at an upstream radiation intensity to partially cure the wet coating; and a downstream curing section (36) comprising a downstream catalytic IR heating system for producing a downstream IR radiation at a downstream radiation intensity, to further cure the wet coating; a conveyor assembly (30) for: conveying the coated substrate (12) from the upstream curing section (32) towards the downstream curing section (36) along the curing displacement axis.
Ayotte does not explicitly teaches displacing the coated substrate in a substantially vertical direction in at least one of the upstream and downstream curing sections.
Lygum teaches displacing the coated substrate in a substantially vertical direction in at least one of the upstream and downstream curing sections (See Lygum, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and page 2, paragraphs 5-9 of Machine Translation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displacing the coated substrate in a substantially vertical direction in at least one of the upstream and downstream curing sections, because Lygum teaches this structure would provide versatility enabling the heating conditions to be controlled in a more flexible way. (See Lygum, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and page 1, paragraph 5; page 2, paragraphs 5-9 of Machine Translation.)
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 20210283649 A1 to Daniel Ayotte (hereinafter Ayotte) in view of EP 0558151 to Poul Lygum (hereinafter Lygum) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20180257874 A1 to Ueda et al (hereinafter Ueda) .
Regarding claim 5, Ayotte does not explicitly teach the conveyor assembly comprises an upstream vertical conveyor in the upstream curing section, a downstream vertical conveyor in the downstream curing section, and an intermediate horizontal conveyor in the intermediate curing section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors.
Ueda is directed to a lifting facility and conveyance facility.
Ueda teaches the conveyor assembly comprises an upstream vertical conveyor (20, 21) in the upstream section, a downstream vertical conveyor (71-74) in the downstream section, and an intermediate horizontal conveyor (92) in the intermediate section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors. (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the conveyor assembly comprises an upstream vertical conveyor in the upstream curing section, a downstream vertical conveyor in the downstream curing section, and an intermediate horizontal conveyor in the intermediate curing section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors, because Ueda teaches this structure would reduce the amount of heat loss from the drying furnace. (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, 101and Figs. 1-3.)
the upstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from a first vertical position to a second vertical position, and the downstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from the second vertical position to the first vertical position.
Regarding claim 21, Ayotte does not explicitly teach the upstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from a first vertical position to a second vertical position, and the downstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from the second vertical position to the first vertical position.
Ueda teaches the upstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from a first vertical position ( horizontal position of 91) to a second vertical position (vertical position of 92) , and the downstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from the second vertical position(vertical position of 92) to the first vertical position( horizontal position of 91 or 94). (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the upstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from a first vertical position to a second vertical position, and the downstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from the second vertical position to the first vertical position, because Ueda teaches this structure would reduce the amount of heat loss from the drying furnace. (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, 101and Figs. 1-3.)
Claims 6-8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 20210283649 A1 to Daniel Ayotte (hereinafter Ayotte) in view of EP 0558151 to Poul Lygum (hereinafter Lygum) and US Pat. Num. 20180257874 A1 to Ueda et al (hereinafter Ueda) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20050217975 A1 to Chan (hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 6, Ayotte does not teach the coated substrate is received on a substrate-conveying tray conveyed by the conveyor assembly, the conveyor assembly having an engagement mechanism for selective engagement of the substrate-conveying tray
Chan is directed to a multi-level chain conveyor.
Chan teaches the conveyed substrate is received on a substrate-conveying tray ( 6, 8, 10, 12) conveyed by the conveyor assembly (conveying belts), the conveyor assembly having an engagement mechanism (18, 20, 22, 24) for selective engagement of the substrate-conveying tray. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the coated substrate is received on a substrate-conveying tray conveyed by the conveyor assembly, the conveyor assembly having an engagement mechanism for selective engagement of the substrate-conveying tray, because Chan teaches this structure allows items to be transported in a multidirectional manner while the trays remain in a horizontal orientation. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Regarding claim 7, Ayotte does not teach the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises tray-supporting members on the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors configured to support a lower surface of the substrate-conveying tray.
Chan teaches the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises tray-supporting members (blocks 18, 24) on the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors configured to support a lower surface of the substrate-conveying tray ( 6, 8, 10, 12) . (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises tray-supporting members on the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors configured to support a lower surface of the substrate-conveying tray, because Chan teaches this structure allows items to be transported in a multidirectional manner while the trays remain in a horizontal orientation. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Regarding claim 8, Ayotte does not teach the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises at least one tray-engaging member on the intermediate horizontal conveyor, and a corresponding recess on the substrate- conveying tray configured to engage the at least one tray engaging member to convey the substrate-conveying tray along the intermediate horizontal conveyor.
Chan teaches the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises at least one tray-engaging member (52) on the intermediate horizontal conveyor, and a corresponding recess on the substrate- conveying tray (holes receiving 46, 48) configured to engage the at least one tray engaging member (52) to convey the substrate-conveying tray along the intermediate horizontal conveyor. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises at least one tray-engaging member on the intermediate horizontal conveyor, and a corresponding recess on the substrate- conveying tray configured to engage the at least one tray engaging member to convey the substrate-conveying tray along the intermediate horizontal conveyor, because Chan teaches this structure allows items to be transported in a multidirectional manner while the trays remain in a horizontal orientation. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Regarding claim 24, Ayotte does not teach a plurality of substrate-conveying trays, wherein successive ones of the substrate-conveying trays are vertically spaced apart from one another in the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors by a distance smaller than about 15% of a height of the curing room.
Chan is directed to a multi-level chain conveyor.
Chan teaches sprockets include a twin set of drive pins 56 which interact with apertures 52 located in the belts driving the belts and the trays in a linear direction. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Examiner is considering the distance between the apertures 52 in the vertical direction to be less than 15% of the height of the curing room.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of substrate-conveying trays, wherein successive ones of the substrate-conveying trays are vertically spaced apart from one another in the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors by a distance smaller than about 15% of a height of the curing room, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this would more trays to be accommodated and improve production efficiency. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 20210283649 A1 to Daniel Ayotte (hereinafter Ayotte) in view of EP 0558151 to Poul Lygum (hereinafter Lygum) and US Pat. Num. 20180257874 A1 to Ueda et al (hereinafter Ueda) and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20050217975 A1 to Chan (hereinafter Chan) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180372408 A1 to Dovadola et al (hereinafter Dovadola).
Regarding claim 9, Ayotte does not explicitly teach the intermediate horizontal conveyor comprises a curing conveyor and a return conveyor conveying in a direction opposed to the curing conveyor for conveying the substrate- conveying tray between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors.
Dovadola is directed to conveyor articles inside an oven.
Dovadola teaches the intermediate horizontal conveyor (22) comprises a curing conveyor (conveyor traveling path 32 to 31) and a return conveyor (conveyor traveling path 21 to 23) conveying in a direction opposed to the curing conveyor for conveying the substrate- conveying tray between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors. (See Dovadola, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 5, 32-35, 39 to 44.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the intermediate horizontal conveyor comprises a curing conveyor and a return conveyor conveying in a direction opposed to the curing conveyor for conveying the substrate- conveying tray between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors, because Dovadola teaches this structure allows each tray to be transported along a complete path. (See Dovadola, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 5, 32-35, 39 to 44.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 20210283649 A1 to Daniel Ayotte (hereinafter Ayotte) in view of EP 0558151 to Poul Lygum (hereinafter Lygum) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,775,045 to Kuehl (hereinafter Kuehl).
Regarding claim 16, Ayotte does not teach a third displacement axis is parallel to and spaced apart from the first displacement axis, the conveyor assembly conveying the coated substrate into the curing room through the curing room inlet along the first displacement axis, conveying the coated substrate along the second displacement axis, and then conveying the coated substrate out of the curing room through the curing room outlet along the third displacement axis.
Kuehl is directed to a multi-level chain conveyor.
Kuehl teaches a third displacement axis (horizontal axis along 127 or 143) is parallel to and spaced apart from the first displacement axis, the conveyor assembly conveying the coated substrate into the room through the room inlet along the first displacement axis (horizontal axis of 101) , conveying the coated substrate along the second displacement axis (vertical axis of 105), and then conveying the coated substrate out of the room through the room outlet along the third displacement axis (horizontal axis along 127 or 143) . (See Kuehl, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 15-25, 39-61; col. 4, lines 34-40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a third displacement axis is parallel to and spaced apart from the first displacement axis, the conveyor assembly conveying the coated substrate into the curing room through the curing room inlet along the first displacement axis, conveying the coated substrate along the second displacement axis, and then conveying the coated substrate out of the curing room through the curing room outlet along the third displacement axis, because Kuehl teaches this would enable the conveyor to be used continuously and bypass any level as necessary. (See Kuehl, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 15-25, 39-61; col. 4, lines 34-40.)
Claims 1, 10, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses a system for curing a wet coating of a coated substrate, the system comprising: a curing room (3, 3a, 3b,) having a curing room inlet (hatch on the left of sub-chamber 3a) and a curing room outlet (hatch on the right of the housing) ,
the curing room (3, 3a, 3b,) being configured to receive the coated substrate (vehicle body) , and the coated substrate (vehicle body) being introduced at the curing room inlet along a first displacement axis (axis parallel to the horizontal and extending left to right direction). (See Schneider, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraph 38.)
Schneider teaches a gas catalytic infrared (IR) system (5) provided in the curing room for producing an IR radiation to partially cure the wet coating. (See Schneider, paragraphs 11, 13, 47, 51. )
Schneider does not explicitly teach a conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room along at least a second displacement axis transverse to the first displacement axis.
Swoboda teaches a device for hardening the coating of an object.
Swoboda teaches a conveyor assembly (52) for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room along at least a second displacement axis transverse (vertical direction) to the first displacement axis. (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraph 63, and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room along at least a second displacement axis transverse to the first displacement axis, because Swoboda teaches this would enable the substrate is evenly exposed at all surface regions to an amount of radiation and intensity of radiation as required for hardening the material. (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraphs 7, 10, 63, and Figs. 1-6.)
Schneider does not explicitly teach a gas catalytic infrared (IR) system provided in the curing room for producing an IR radiation to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is displaced through the curing room along the second displacement axis.
Swoboda teaches infrared (IR) system provided in the curing room for producing an IR radiation to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is displaced through the curing room along the second displacement axis. (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraph 7, 41, 45, 51, 57, 89, and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gas catalytic infrared (IR) system provided in the curing room for producing an IR radiation to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is displaced through the curing room along the second displacement axis, because Swoboda teaches this would enable the substrate is evenly exposed at all surface regions to an amount of radiation and intensity of radiation as required for hardening the material. (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraphs 7, 10, 63, and Figs. 1-6.)
Regarding claim 10, Schneider teaches a ventilation system (8, 9, 10, 16, 19, 21) having a recirculation duct (16, 18) for transferring a heated air stream produced in at least one of the upstream (3a) , intermediate (34) and downstream (36) curing sections towards at least another one of the upstream, intermediate and downstream curing sections (3b). (See Schneider, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 40-44, 46-53, 56.)
Regarding claim 27, Schneider teaches system for curing a wet coating of a coated substrate, the system comprising: a curing room ( 3, 3a, 3ab,) configured to receive the coated substrate (vehicle body) and dividable along a curing displacement axis into at least: an upstream curing section (area surrounding 3a) comprising an upstream catalytic infrared (IR) heating system ( 3a, 5, Fig. 1) for producing an upstream IR radiation at an upstream radiation intensity to partially cure the wet coating; and a downstream curing section ( area surrounding 3b) comprising a downstream catalytic IR heating system ( 3a, 5, Fig. 1) for producing a downstream IR radiation at a downstream radiation intensity, to further cure the wet coating; a conveyor assembly (conveyor system) for: conveying the coated substrate (vehicle body) from the upstream curing section (3a) towards the downstream curing section (3b) along the curing displacement axis. (See Schneider, paragraphs 11, 13, 38, 47, 51. )
Schneider does not explicitly teaches displacing the coated substrate in a substantially vertical direction in at least one of the upstream and downstream curing sections.
Swoboda teaches displacing the coated substrate in a substantially vertical direction in at least one of the upstream and downstream curing sections (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraph 7, 41, 45, 51, 57, 89, and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displacing the coated substrate in a substantially vertical direction in at least one of the upstream and downstream curing sections, because Swoboda teaches this would enable the substrate is evenly exposed at all surface regions to an amount of radiation and intensity of radiation as required for hardening the material. (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraphs 7, 10, 63, and Figs. 1-6.)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2012/0294595 to Veltrop et al (hereinafter Veltrop).
Regarding claim 2, Schneider teaches the curing room being dividable along the second displacement axis into at least: an upstream curing section (3a) comprising an upstream catalytic infrared heating system (3a, 5, fig. 1) for producing an upstream infrared radiation at an upstream radiation intensity to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is being displaced through the upstream curing section; and a downstream curing section (3b) comprising a downstream catalytic infrared heating system for producing a downstream infrared radiation at a downstream radiation intensity (5, 3b, fig. 1) to further cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is in the downstream curing section. (See Schneider, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 11, 13, 38, 47, and 51-52. )
Schneider does not teach explicitly a downstream curing section comprising a downstream catalytic IR heating system of the gas catalytic IR system for producing a downstream IR radiation at a downstream radiation intensity lower than the upstream radiation intensity.
Veltrop teaches a downstream catalytic infrared heating system for producing a downstream infrared radiation at a downstream radiation intensity, being lower than the upstream radiation intensity (6, [0080], independent zone control with 6 zones illustrated); independent zone control with 6 zones illustrated) in order to increase the degree of process control of the heating mechanisms. (See Veltrop, Abstract, Figs. 1-13 and paragraph 80.)
Schneider would benefit equally from increasing the degree of process control of the heating mechanisms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include with a downstream curing section comprising a downstream catalytic IR heating system of the gas catalytic IR system for producing a downstream IR radiation at a downstream radiation intensity lower than the upstream radiation intensity as taught by Veltrop in order to increase the degree of process control of the heating mechanisms. (See Veltrop, Abstract, Figs. 1-13 and paragraph 80.)
Regarding claim 3, Schneider does not explicitly teach an intermediate curing section positioned between the upstream and downstream curing sections, the intermediate curing section having an intermediate catalytic IR heating system for producing an intermediate IR radiation at an intermediate radiation intensity to partially cure the wet coating
Veltrop teaches the curing room is further dividable along the displacement axis into an intermediate curing section arranged between the upstream curing section and the downstream curing section (fig. 6, 6 zones illustrated), the intermediate curing section comprising an intermediate catalytic infrared heating system for producing an intermediate infrared radiation at an intermediate radiation intensity being lower than the upstream radiation intensity and higher than the downstream radiation intensity, to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is being displaced through the intermediate curing section. (See Veltrop, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraph 80.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include an intermediate curing section positioned between the upstream and downstream curing sections, the intermediate curing section having an intermediate catalytic IR heating system for producing an intermediate IR radiation at an intermediate radiation intensity to partially cure the wet coating as taught by Veltrop in order to increase the degree of process control of the heating mechanisms. (See Veltrop, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraph 80.)
Regarding claim 4, Schneider does not explicitly teach the intermediate radiation intensity is lower than the upstream radiation intensity and higher than the downstream radiation intensity.
Veltrop teaches the curing room is further dividable along the displacement axis into an intermediate curing section arranged between the upstream curing section and the downstream curing section (fig. 6, 6 zones illustrated), the intermediate curing section comprising an intermediate catalytic infrared heating system for producing an intermediate infrared radiation at an intermediate radiation intensity being lower than the upstream radiation intensity and higher than the downstream radiation intensity, to partially cure the wet coating while the coated substrate is being displaced through the intermediate curing section. (See Veltrop, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraph 80.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the intermediate radiation intensity is lower than the upstream radiation intensity and higher than the downstream radiation intensity as taught by Veltrop in order to increase the degree of process control of the heating mechanisms. (See Veltrop, Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraph 80.)
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) and further in view of US 2012/0294595 to Veltrop et al (hereinafter Veltrop) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20180257874 A1 to Ueda et al (hereinafter Ueda) .
Regarding claim 5, Schneider does not explicitly teach the conveyor assembly comprises an upstream vertical conveyor in the upstream curing section, a downstream vertical conveyor in the downstream curing section, and an intermediate horizontal conveyor in the intermediate curing section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors.
Schneider teaches the heat supplied by radiation and convection can be varied by adjusting the output of the catalytic radiators and the distance between the substrate and the catalytic radiators. (See Schneider, paragraph 52.)
Swoboda teaches infrared (IR) system provided in the curing room and the conveyor assembly including a vertical conveyor (52) in the curing section. (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraph 7, 41, 45, 51, 57, 63, 89, and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conveyor assembly including an upstream vertical conveyor in the upstream curing section, a downstream vertical conveyor in the downstream curing section, and an intermediate horizontal conveyor in the intermediate curing section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the adjust the proper distance for the radiation and curing of coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimum radiation and curing performance to enable the substrate receive radiation at all surface regions to an intensity of radiation as required for hardening the material.(In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Swoboda, Abstract, paragraph 7, 10, 41, 45, 51, 57, 63, 89, and Figs. 1-6.)
Regarding claim 5, Schneider does not explicitly teach an intermediate horizontal conveyor in the intermediate curing section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors.
Ueda teaches an intermediate horizontal conveyor (92) in the intermediate section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors. (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an intermediate horizontal conveyor in the intermediate curing section for moving the coated substrate between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors, because Ueda teaches this structure would allow the articles to be conveyed between the two vertical conveyors. (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, 101and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 21, Schneider does not explicitly teach the upstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from a first vertical position to a second vertical position, and the downstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from the second vertical position to the first vertical position.
Ueda teaches the upstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from a first vertical position ( horizontal position of 91) to a second vertical position (vertical position of 92), and the downstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from the second vertical position(vertical position of 92) to the first vertical position( horizontal position of 91 or 94). (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the upstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from a first vertical position to a second vertical position, and the downstream vertical conveyor conveys the coated substrate from the second vertical position to the first vertical position, because Ueda teaches this structure would reduce the amount of heat loss from the drying furnace. (See Ueda, Abstract, paragraphs 57-59, 68-70, 76-78, 101and Figs. 1-3.)
Claims 6-8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) and further in view of US 2012/0294595 to Veltrop et al (hereinafter Veltrop) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20180257874 A1 to Ueda et al (hereinafter Ueda) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20050217975 A1 to Chan (hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 6, Schneider does not teach the coated substrate is received on a substrate-conveying tray conveyed by the conveyor assembly, the conveyor assembly having an engagement mechanism for selective engagement of the substrate-conveying tray
Chan is directed to a multi-level chain conveyor.
Chan teaches the conveyed substrate is received on a substrate-conveying tray ( 6, 8, 10, 12) conveyed by the conveyor assembly (conveying belts), the conveyor assembly having an engagement mechanism (18, 20, 22, 24) for selective engagement of the substrate-conveying tray. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the coated substrate is received on a substrate-conveying tray conveyed by the conveyor assembly, the conveyor assembly having an engagement mechanism for selective engagement of the substrate-conveying tray, because Chan teaches this structure allows items to be transported in a multidirectional manner while the trays remain in a horizontal orientation. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Regarding claim 7, Schneider does not teach the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises tray-supporting members on the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors configured to support a lower surface of the substrate-conveying tray.
Chan teaches the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises tray-supporting members (blocks 18, 24) on the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors configured to support a lower surface of the substrate-conveying tray ( 6, 8, 10, 12) . (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises tray-supporting members on the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors configured to support a lower surface of the substrate-conveying tray, because Chan teaches this structure allows items to be transported in a multidirectional manner while the trays remain in a horizontal orientation. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Regarding claim 8, Schneider does not teach the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises at least one tray-engaging member on the intermediate horizontal conveyor, and a corresponding recess on the substrate- conveying tray configured to engage the at least one tray engaging member to convey the substrate-conveying tray along the intermediate horizontal conveyor.
Chan teaches the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises at least one tray-engaging member (52) on the intermediate horizontal conveyor, and a corresponding recess on the substrate- conveying tray (holes receiving 46, 48) configured to engage the at least one tray engaging member (52) to convey the substrate-conveying tray along the intermediate horizontal conveyor. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the engagement mechanism of the conveyor assembly comprises at least one tray-engaging member on the intermediate horizontal conveyor, and a corresponding recess on the substrate- conveying tray configured to engage the at least one tray engaging member to convey the substrate-conveying tray along the intermediate horizontal conveyor, because Chan teaches this structure allows items to be transported in a multidirectional manner while the trays remain in a horizontal orientation. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Regarding claim 24, Schneider does not teach a plurality of substrate-conveying trays, wherein successive ones of the substrate-conveying trays are vertically spaced apart from one another in the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors by a distance smaller than about 15% of a height of the curing room.
Chan is directed to a multi-level chain conveyor.
Chan teaches sprockets include a twin set of drive pins 56 which interact with apertures 52 located in the belts driving the belts and the trays in a linear direction. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Examiner is considering the distance between the apertures 52 in the vertical direction to be less than 15% of the height of the curing room.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of substrate-conveying trays, wherein successive ones of the substrate-conveying trays are vertically spaced apart from one another in the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors by a distance smaller than about 15% of a height of the curing room, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this would more trays to be accommodated and improve production efficiency. (See Chan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 6, 12, and 17.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) and further in view of US 2012/0294595 to Veltrop et al (hereinafter Veltrop) and US Pat. Num. 20180257874 A1 to Ueda et al (hereinafter Ueda) and US Pat. Num. 20050217975 A1 to Chan (hereinafter Chan) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180372408 A1 to Dovadola et al (hereinafter Dovadola).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider does not explicitly teach the intermediate horizontal conveyor comprises a curing conveyor and a return conveyor conveying in a direction opposed to the curing conveyor for conveying the substrate- conveying tray between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors.
Dovadola is directed to conveyor articles inside an oven.
Dovadola teaches the intermediate horizontal conveyor (22) comprises a curing conveyor (conveyor traveling path 32 to 31) and a return conveyor (conveyor traveling path 21 to 23) conveying in a direction opposed to the curing conveyor for conveying the substrate- conveying tray between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors. (See Dovadola, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 5, 32-35, 39 to 44.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the intermediate horizontal conveyor comprises a curing conveyor and a return conveyor conveying in a direction opposed to the curing conveyor for conveying the substrate- conveying tray between the upstream and downstream vertical conveyors, because Dovadola teaches this structure allows each tray to be transported along a complete path. (See Dovadola, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 5, 32-35, 39 to 44.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) and further in view of US 2012/0294595 to Veltrop et al ( hereinafter Veltrop ) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080184589 A1 to Steve D. Shivvers (hereinafter Shivvers).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider teaches does not explicitly teach the recirculation duct comprises two recirculation sub-ducts for recirculating the heated air stream produced in the downstream curing section towards the upstream curing section via the intermediate curing section .
Shivvers is directed to a drying installation.
Shivvers teaches the recirculation duct comprises two recirculation sub-ducts (41, 41; 39, 39) for recirculating the heated air stream produced in the downstream curing section (29 on far left) towards the upstream curing section (29 on far right adjacent 7) via the intermediate curing section (29 in middle adjacent 5). (See Shivvers, Abstract, Figs. 1a-c, paragraphs 10-16; 67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the recirculation duct comprises two recirculation sub-ducts for recirculating the heated air stream produced in the downstream curing section towards the upstream curing section via the intermediate curing section, because Shivvers teaches this structure allows the heating fluid to recirculated through the heating compartments. (See Shivvers, Abstract, Figs. 1a-c, paragraphs 10-16; 67.)
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) and further in view of US 2012/0294595 to Veltrop et al (hereinafter Veltrop) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190390905 A1 to Jonas Burkart (hereinafter Burkart).
Regarding claim 12, Schneider teaches does not explicitly teach uniformizing the heated air stream in at least one of the upstream, intermediate and downstream curing sections .
Burkart is directed to a continuous-flow drying installation.
Burkart teaches the collecting channel provides a uniform temperature of air. (See Burkart, paragraph 34.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include uniformizing the heated air stream in at least one of the upstream, intermediate and downstream curing sections, because Burkart teaches this structure avoids cold spots in the air being blown in the zone of the drying installation. (See Burkart, Abstract, paragraph 34.)
Regarding claim 13, Schneider does not explicitly teach wherein the ventilation system is shaped and dimensioned for cooling the coated substrate exiting at the curing room outlet .
Burkart teaches the ventilation system is shaped and dimensioned for cooling the coated substrate exiting at the curing room outlet (cooling zone next to the heating zone). (See Burkart, paragraphs 5, 56, 63 and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the ventilation system is shaped and dimensioned for cooling the coated substrate exiting at the curing room outlet, because Burkart teaches this structure allows the workpiece to be further processed after leaving the drying installation. (See Burkart, Abstract, paragraph 34.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) and further in view of US 2012/0294595 to Veltrop et al (hereinafter Veltrop) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20110162576 A1 to Wolf-Hasso Schaefer (hereinafter Schaefer).
Regarding claim 15, Schneider does not explicitly teach the ventilation system further comprises at least one exhaust at each one of the upstream , intermediate and downstream curing sections for expelling air out of the corresponding curing section.
Schaefer teaches the paint shop comprises an exhaust air unit.
Schaefer teaches an exhaust air unit adjacent to the air supply units. (See Schaefer Abstract, paragraphs 50 and 207.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the ventilation system further comprises at least one exhaust at each one of the upstream , intermediate and downstream curing sections for expelling air out of the corresponding curing section, because Schaefer teaches this would enable each section to have an exhaust adjacent a supply unit. (See Schaefer Abstract, paragraphs 50 and 207.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub No. 2004/0123491 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US Pat. Pub No. 2007/0271812 A1 to Swoboda et al (hereinafter Swoboda) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,775,045 to Kuehl (hereinafter Kuehl).
Regarding claim 16, Schneider does not teach a third displacement axis is parallel to and spaced apart from the first displacement axis, the conveyor assembly conveying the coated substrate into the curing room through the curing room inlet along the first displacement axis, conveying the coated substrate along the second displacement axis, and then conveying the coated substrate out of the curing room through the curing room outlet along the third displacement axis.
Kuehl is directed to a multi-level chain conveyor.
Kuehl teaches a third displacement axis (horizontal axis along 127 or 143) is parallel to and spaced apart from the first displacement axis, the conveyor assembly conveying the coated substrate into the room through the room inlet along the first displacement axis (horizontal axis of 101) , conveying the coated substrate along the second displacement axis (vertical axis of 105), and then conveying the coated substrate out of the room through the room outlet along the third displacement axis (horizontal axis along 127 or 143) . (See Kuehl, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 15-25, 39-61; col. 4, lines 34-40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a third displacement axis is parallel to and spaced apart from the first displacement axis, the conveyor assembly conveying the coated substrate into the curing room through the curing room inlet along the first displacement axis, conveying the coated substrate along the second displacement axis, and then conveying the coated substrate out of the curing room through the curing room outlet along the third displacement axis, because Kuehl teaches this would enable the conveyor to be used continuously and bypass any level as necessary. (See Kuehl, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 15-25, 39-61; col. 4, lines 34-40.)
Double Patenting
US Pat. Pub. No. 20230149975 A1 (Application No. 17/910,507) to Daniel Ayotte (hereinafter Ayotte) Assignee: Ayotte Techno-gaz Inc is not being considered for double patenting rejection due to this application no longer pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 18, or 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Pat. Num. 11,229,925 B2 (Application No. 17/199,842) to Daniel Ayotte (hereinafter Ayotte) in view of EP 0558151 to Poul Lygum (hereinafter Lygum).
Regarding claim 1, Ayotte teaches a system for curing a wet coating of a coated substrate (a system for curing a wet coating of a coated substrate in claim 1) , the system comprising: a curing room having a curing room inlet (a curing room having a curing room inlet in claim 2) and a curing room outlet (curing room outlet claim 2) , the curing room being configured to receive the coated substrate ( the curing room being configured to receive the coated substrate) , and the coated substrate being introduced at the curing room inlet along a first displacement axis ( through the curing room from the inlet along a first displacement axis in claim 2) , a conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room ( conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room) , and a gas catalytic infrared (IR) system( upstream catalytic infared heater and downstream catalytic heater in claim 1) provided in the curing room ( upstream and downstream curing sections in claim 1) for producing an IR radiation to partially cure the wet coating (the wet coating ) while the coated substrate (coated substrate) is displaced through the curing room ( upstream and downstream curing sections in claim 1). (See Ayotte, claims 1-2.)
Ayotte does not explicitly teach a conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room along at least a second displacement axis transverse to the first displacement axis and the coated substrate (12) is displaced through the curing room (14) along the second displacement axis.
Lygum teaches a conveyor assembly for conveying the substrate ( product) through the curing room (oven) along at least a second displacement axis (vertical axis) transverse to the first displacement axis (horizontal axis) and the coated substrate (product) is displaced through the curing room (oven ) along the second displacement axis (vertical axis). (See Lygum, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and page 2, paragraphs 5-9 of Machine Translation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a conveyor assembly for conveying the coated substrate through the curing room along at least a second displacement axis transverse to the first displacement axis and the coated substrate is displaced through the curing room along the second displacement axis, because Lygum teaches this structure would provide versatility enabling the heating conditions to be controlled in a more flexible way. (See Lygum, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and page 1, paragraph 5; page 2, paragraphs 5-9 of Machine Translation.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights