Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 12/3/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 13-24 are pending.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 and 24 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.
Nota bene if the applicant moves up claims into the independent claim the applicant should take care that remaining dependent claims do not conflict.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0284012 GUSTAVSSON, hereinafter GUSTAVSSON, in view of Adoption of Induction Heated Rolls to Reduce Energy Consumption and Improve Quality by RICE and, if necessary, Papermaking Part 2: chapter 5 by KLERID et al., hereinafter KLERID.
As for claim 13, GUSTAVSSON discloses a cylindrical Yankee (14) dryer roll [abstract], 0008] with circular cross section along an axis of rotation with a cylindrical shell (mantle) [Figure 1] which rotates about an axis. GUSTAVSSON discloses that the Yankee dyer can be heated by internally by steam, hot oil, or by induction [0024] to heat the smooth outer surface (mantle).
GUSTAVSSON does not disclose inductors being arranged near the inner most surface of the mantle.
RICE discloses that thermal transfer rolls can use hot oil, steam, or induction. RICE discloses an induction coil within the roll arranged radially to the innermost surface of the roller shell [pg. 271 Figure 2].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the induction heater of RICE for the heating of GUSTAVSSON. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do by RICE as induction heating is more efficient, lower maintenance, has rapid heating and improved surface temperature control [abstract]. As steam is not used the condensate collection of the Yankee cylinder could also be removed. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as GUSTAVSSON already suggests induction heating of the Yankee roll and RICE states induction heating has been used for papers [pg. 269 Introduction].
It is the Examiner’s position that the term “Yankee” is understood to suggest to coaxial pins arranged on the rotation axis of a hollow roll by the person of ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, KLERID discloses a Yankee dryer has two heads with a center shaft [pg. 174 last par., pg. 175 Figure 5 and pg. 180 Figure 11].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the known method of rotating a Yankee roll to rotate the Yankee roll of GUSTAVSSON. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as the Yankee roll is a common design in the paper mill.
As for claim 14, GUSTAVSSON discloses that the Yankee dryer has an axial length of 3.5 to 7 meters which falls within the claimed range [0068]. Gustavsson does not disclose the Yankee dryer diameter. KLERID discloses a Yankee dryer diameter determines its speed and discloses a modern dryer to have a diameter of 5.5 meters [pg. 166 par. 1-2].
As for claim 15 and 17, RICE discloses that the electromagnetic heating system is parallel to the rotation axis but shorter than the mantle [Figure 2]. The coil is in the form of a solenoid formed by coil concentric to the rotational axis [Figure 2].
As for claim 16, distance of the coil to the internal surface is a result effective variable. The closer the coil the closer the field and therefore the more interaction with the metal to generate heat (this is the same reason why an induction coil cannot charge a phone when it is pulled to far from the wireless charger). At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to optime coil distance from the shell through routine experimentation. Inductive heating distance is related to an inverse cube law.
As for claim 23, inductance is controlled by the formula L = u *N2*A/l wherein u is magnetic permeability, N is number of loops, A is cross sectional area of the inductor, and l is length of the coil. The diameter and pitch all effect the inductance of the coil. It would be obvious to optimize the inductance of the coil and the distance to the inner surface to achieve the desired heating.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0284012 GUSTAVSSON, RICE, and if necessary, KLERID, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of CN1455304A TAKAYUKI et al., hereinafter TAKAYUKI.
As for claims 19 and 20, the prior art above suggests a single internal solenoid type inductor around parallel to the rotational axis. The combination does not disclose a plurality of inductors side by side.
TAKAYUKI disclose heating a roller with multiple axially side by side internal induction coils [abstract, Figure 3]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to use multiple side-by-side solenoid inductors in the combination of GUSTAVSSON, RICE, and if necessary, KLERID as suggested by TAKAYUKI. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by TAKAYUKI as multiple inductors allow for better temperature control along the roll.
When the plurality of induction coils are dispersedly arranged on the axial direction of the heating roller, which can be set a plurality of temperature sensors, for sensing position of each induction coil temperature. and, through temperature control corresponding to the axial area into electric power by induction coil, the uniformity of temperature of the heating roller is improved.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0284012 GUSTAVSSON, RICE, and if necessary, KLERID, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of U.S. 2009/0255922 CHIRICO et al., hereinafter CHIRICO
As for claims 21 and 22, GUSTAVSSON, RICE, and if necessary, KLERID teach the combination as per above. In the combination RICE teaches that the solenoid inductor is around the rotational axis. CHIRCO discloses induction heating of rolls from the outside as the roll is solid. CHIRICO discloses placing multiple separate inductors (502) in multiple locations [Figure 5, 0052]. CHIRICO discloses that the solenoids are in an axial direction and should be paired with opposing currents [0043, Figure 2]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to apply the known multiple axial inductor technique of CHIRICO to the combination of GUSTAVSSON, RICE, and, if necessary KLERID and therefore substitute out the single rotational axis inductor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to prevent currents through the bearings of the roll [0050]. This prevents bearing currents which can lead to premature wearing [0034].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights