Detailed Action
The communications received 12/03/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…rotation axis the Yankee” should read “…rotation axis of the Yankee” or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerelid (US 2002/0179269) hereinafter KLE.
As for claim 13, KLE teaches a papermaking machine [Fig. 1; 0040], comprising:
a Yankee having a body comprising a metal mantle with circular cross-section and two end heads on which are formed or mounted two respective coaxial pins arranged along a rotation axis of the Yankee (a counter roll with shafts) [Fig. 1 #4; 0042],
said body being configured to rotate with a predetermined angular speed around said rotation axis [0042],
wherein inside said body is arranged a fixed electromagnetic induction heating system comprising one or more inductors interacting electromagnetically with the mantle to produce induced electric currents in the same mantle [0063; 0065],
said one or more inductors being arranged near the radially innermost surface of the mantle [Fig. 8 #144; 0065],
and in which is arranged a structured web configured for transporting a sheet of fibrous material up to the contact of the latter with the mantle of the Yankee (a clothing/ impermeable belt) [Fig. 1 #6; 0047-48].
As for claim 15, KLE teaches claim 13 and wherein the electromagnetic induction heating system extends axially, parallel to the rotation axis of the Yankee, and along the inner surface of the mantle, but is shorter than the inner surface of the mantle, leaving a free space in front of each of the end heads [Fig. 8 #144 versus 140; 0063; 0065].
As for claim 17, KLE teaches claim 13 and wherein said electromagnetic induction system comprises a single inductor in the form of a solenoid developed around the rotation axis of the Yankee, the solenoid being formed by coil turns concentric to said rotation axis (as there can be a single inductor of the many, thereby meeting this claim, it is understood that a solenoid developed around a rotation axis of the Yankee is a coil arranged as depicted) [Fig. 8 #144; 0065].
As for claim 18, KLE teaches claim 13 and wherein said electromagnetic induction system comprises a single toroidal inductor developed parallel to the rotation axis of the Yankee (as there can be a single inductor of the many, thereby meeting this claim, it is understood that a toroidal inductor developed parallel to the rotation axis of the Yankee is a coil arranged as depicted) [Fig. 8 #144; 0065].
As for claim 19, KLE teaches claim 13, and wherein said electromagnetic induction system includes a plurality of inductors, each of which comprises a solenoid developed around the axis of the Yankee and formed by coils concentric to said axis [Fig. 8 #144; 0065].
As for claim 20, KLE teaches claim 13, and wherein said electromagnetic induction system comprises a plurality of inductors axially placed side by side [Fig. 8 #144; 0065].
As for claim 21, KLE teaches claim 13 and wherein said electromagnetic induction system comprises a plurality of inductors, each of which consists of a solenoid formed by coils wound around respective radial axes [Fig. 8 #144; 0065].
As for claim 22, KLE teaches claim 13 and wherein said electromagnetic induction system comprises a plurality of inductors arranged circumferentially around the axis of the Yankee [Fig. 8 #144; 0065].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerelid (US 2002/0179269) hereinafter KLE in view of Jonsson (WO 2020/114820) hereinafter JON.
As for claim 14, KLE teaches claim 13 and that the Yankee has an external diameter between 2-7.5 m (2.0-3.6m which falls within the claimed range) [0026] but is silent to a length of the mantle, however the Examiner understands the length of the mantle to substantially correspond to the length of the overall Yankee drying cylinder.
JON teaches that Yankee cylinders typically have lengths of up to 8 meters which overlaps the claimed range of 3-7 meters [Abstract; pg. 1 l. 5-13].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the typical Yankee cylinder length which is understood to correspond to the mantle length of JON to the one of KLE as this length is a typical length of a Yankee. As both JON and KLE pertain to Yankee drying they are analogous art but one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerelid (US 2002/0179269) hereinafter KLE in view of Kerttula (EP 0655528 A2) hereinafter KER.
As for claim 16, KLE teaches claim 13 but does not teach wherein the radially outermost side of the electromagnetic induction system is at a radial distance from the internal surface of the mantle is between 20 cm and 1 mm.
KER teaches that when using heated rollers in a paper machine which employ induction heaters on their interiors that the spacing is adjusted such that there is a vacuum with an air gap between the mantle and induction heater that is still small enough in view of the desired inductive heating effect [Fig. 4 #48 in 50; col. 16 l. 5-26]. Therefore the radial distance from the internal surface of the mantle to the electromagnetic induction system is a variable that is optimized to achieve a desired induction heating effect.
In accordance with the MPEP "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP: 2144.05(II)(A)]
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have achieved the claimed range as this is a routinely optimized variable of the spacing of the air gap against the desired inductive heating effect which workable ranges are determined via routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerelid (US 2002/0179269) hereinafter KLE in view of Kerttula (EP 0655528 A2) hereinafter KER and Koga et al (US 4,687,894) hereinafter KOG.
As for claim 23, KLE teaches claim 17, but does not teach wherein the inductor or the inductors are at a radial distance from the inner surface of the mantle and the inductors are formed by coils comprising conductors with a predefined diameter spaced apart by a pitch of predefined value, wherein the value of the said radial distance is less than or equal to the difference between said pitch and said diameter.
KER teaches that when using heated rollers in a paper machine which employ induction heaters on their interiors that the spacing is adjusted such that there is a vacuum with an air gap between the mantle and induction heater that is still small enough in view of the desired inductive heating effect [Fig. 4 #48 in 50; col. 16 l. 5-26]. Therefore the radial distance from the internal surface of the mantle to the electromagnetic induction system is a variable that is optimized to achieve a desired induction heating effect.
In accordance with the MPEP "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP: 2144.05(II)(A)]
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have achieved the claimed range as this is a routinely optimized variable of the spacing of the air gap against the desired inductive heating effect which workable ranges are determined via routine experimentation.
KLE/KER fail to teach wherein the value of the said radial distance is less than or equal to the difference between said pitch and said diameter.
KOG teaches that when using induction heating that the diameter and pitches are optimized in accordance with the induction heating demand and uniformity [col. 5 l. 59- col. 6 l. 17].
In accordance with the MPEP "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP: 2144.05(II)(A)]
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have achieved the claimed range of the radial distance being less than or equal to a difference between said pitch and said diameter as this is a routinely optimized variable of the pitch and diameter against the desired inductive heating demand and its uniformity which workable ranges are determined via routine experimentation.
As for claim 24, KLE teaches claim 17, but does not teach wherein the inductor or the inductors have a side radially closer to the mantle and a side radially more distant from the mantle, wherein said side radially closest to the mantle is at a radial distance from the inner surface of the mantle, the inductors are formed by coils comprising conductors of predefined diameter spaced from each other by a pitch of predefined value, wherein the value of said radial distance is less than or equal to the difference between said pitch and said diameter.
KER teaches that when using heated rollers in a paper machine which employ induction heaters on their interiors that the spacing is adjusted such that there is a vacuum with an air gap between the mantle and induction heater that is still small enough in view of the desired inductive heating effect [Fig. 4 #48 in 50; col. 16 l. 5-26]. Therefore the radial distance from the internal surface of the mantle to the electromagnetic induction system is a variable that is optimized to achieve a desired induction heating effect.
In accordance with the MPEP "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP: 2144.05(II)(A)]
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have achieved the claimed range as this is a routinely optimized variable of the spacing of the air gap against the desired inductive heating effect which workable ranges are determined via routine experimentation.
KLE/KER fail to teach wherein the value of the said radial distance is less than or equal to the difference between said pitch and said diameter.
KOG teaches that when using induction heating that the diameter and pitches are optimized in accordance with the induction heating demand and uniformity [col. 5 l. 59- col. 6 l. 17].
In accordance with the MPEP "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP: 2144.05(II)(A)]
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have achieved the claimed range of the radial distance being less than or equal to a difference between said pitch and said diameter as this is a routinely optimized variable of the pitch and diameter against the desired inductive heating demand and its uniformity which workable ranges are determined via routine experimentation.
As it pertains to there being one side more distant from the mantle than the other, the examiner notes that as described in KOG, the arrangement of the induction coils is changed in a trial-and-error manner [col. 5 l. 65-68] therefore it is understood that while being optimized that one arrangement in which one side is at least a little bit more distant from the mantle than the other could reasonably occur and in this respect would be considered obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights