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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out to the Applicant that claims 1-9 and 13-20 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 I and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 of claim 1 it says “of a heating box”. For proper antecedent basis this should be “of said heating box”. This does not rise to the level of indefiniteness; however appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Battigelli et al; (FR 2394041; herein Battigelli, already of record, with machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Battigelli teaches:
A crosslinking system for a continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers (Figure 1), comprising a crosslinking oven for said mat comprising at least one heating box (paragraph 0041 as shown in Figures 1 and cross-sectionally in Figures 2-3b), each heating box being connected to a combustion chamber (Figure 2, combustion chamber 33 and Figures 3a/b, furnace 45) and an injection system (Figure 2, fan 35 and Figures 3a/b, fan 44) arranged outside the crosslinking oven (As seen in Figures 2-3b) and configured to inject hot air into at least one combustion chamber of a heating box (via the fans 35/44), the hot air thus injected replacing a given fraction of hot air produced by a burner attached to said at least one combustion chamber (Battigelli cycles the air in the over which is already hot and newly heated air from burner 34/46 via the fan 35/44, thus there is a replacement of air), said fraction being between 20% and 100% (At some point during the process of heating the oven all of these fractions are achievable (from starting the oven up to steady state), and since Battigelli anticipates the claimed structure, then Battigelli is capable of such use)
Regarding claim 2, Battigelli teaches:
Wherein the injection system comprises a heater configured to heat ambient air to a given temperature (Both the structures in Figure 2 and 3a or 3b are attached to the oven, paragraph 38. The structure shown in Figure 3b uses a heater, paragraph 54, which thus heats the ambient air of the apparatus)
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 is directed to the intended use of the apparatus, and since Battigelli anticipates the claimed structure, then Battigelli is capable of such use.
Regarding claim 5, Battigelli teaches:
Wherein the injection system is supplied with preheated air (since the air in the oven is hot and recirculated to the injection system of Battigelli, this makes said air preheated)
Regarding claim 6, Battigelli teaches:
Wherein at least part of the preheated air comes from a glass melting furnace and/or corresponds to hot recovery air (since the hot air comes from the oven (see remarks regarding claim 5) then it is hot recovered air)
Regarding claim 7, Battigelli teaches:
Wherein the injection system is connected to a hot air emergency exhaust positioned between said injection system and said crosslinking oven (Figure 3b, pipe 46’ and paragraph 54)
Regarding claim 8, Battigelli teaches:
Wherein the injection system is configured to inject hot air from outside the crosslinking oven (As seen in Figures 2-3b the injection system of Battigelli is outside the oven)
Regarding claim 9, Battigelli teaches:
Wherein the injection system comprises a hot air supply line between a hot air source outside the crosslinking oven and the at least one combustion chamber (See annotated figures below, the solid square is the hot air source outside the oven, and the dashed box is the hot air supply line)
PNG
media_image1.png
899
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 16-18:
Claims 13, 14, and 16-18are directed to the intended use of the apparatus, and since Battigelli anticipates the claimed structure, then Battigelli is capable of such use.
Regarding claim 15, Battigelli teaches:
Wherein the heater is an electric heater (paragraph 54)
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.
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 4, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battigelli. Regarding claims 4, 19, and 20:
Battigelli does not explicitly teach the use of an electric battery or its power. However, Battigelli does teach the use of an electric heater (paragraph 54). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a battery to power the electric heater of Battigelli, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only some many ways to power an electric heater, and the selection of a battery would be well within the abilities of a skilled artisan.
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 1-9, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 14, and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/876954 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same subject matter, where the only different in instant claim 1 and copending claims 1 and 2 is an overlap of ranges.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art cited on the PTO-892 are directed to continuous ovens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights