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 with traverse of Group I, claims 13-19 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Coolen requires the rollers to form an airtight seal, therefore there is no reason to eliminate the desired seal to provide the claimed gap. This is not found persuasive because Funabashi recognizes the tradeoff between roller nipping for vacuum sealing and avoiding contact induced damage to a continuously moving substrate. Funabashi teaches that although nipping the substrate facilitates obtaining desired vacuum, such contact can cause scratching and therefore teaches spacing the rollers by a distance greater than the substrate thickness to prevent such scratching. Funabashi provides an express reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contact arrangement of Coolen/Verlinden et al. when surface damage is undesirable. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide clearance between opposed rolls, as taught by Funabashi, to reduce contact-induced damage to the moving strip while maintaining the required reduced pressure environment through successive evacuated sealing stages. This modification does not remove the sealing function but used Funabashi’s known controlled clearance sealing approach for continuous nip contact.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the exit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coolen et al. (US 2006/0236942) in view of Verlinden et al. (US 6250222), and Funabashi et al. (US 5865932).
As to claim 13, Coolen teaches a sealing lock for a vacuum deposition facility for coating a metal endless strip (see abstract), comprising at least 3 pairs of rolls (see Fig. 1, 0035) inside the walls, wherein each pair of rolls comprise: a roll with a metal surface (see 0038) and a roll with an elastomer surface layer (see 0023 and 0038) where the roll with the elastomer surface layer for two successive pairs are on opposite sides of the running path (see Fig. 2).
Coolen et al. fails to teach the thickness of the surface layer is 3 to 30 mm and forms a gap of 1 to 11 mm.
Verlinden et al. teaches an apparatus for treatment of a sheet material under pressure where rollers of the system have an elastomeric covering with a thickness of 1 and 30mm (see col. 3, lines 19-28). Verlinden et al. further teaches the gap between the roller, and the strip material cannot be eliminated, but the size of the potential leak zone should be minimized and the force between the roller and the surface is sufficient to prevent leakage when no strip is being passed through (see col. 3, lines 7-18).
Funabashi et al. teaches a sealing lock for a vacuum chamber (see col. 2, abstract) comprising pairs of rollers where a substrate is passed through the rollers. Funabashi et al. states the distance between the rollers should be 50 microns greater than the thickness of the support (see col. 4, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sealing lock of Coolen to include the elastomer layer having the claimed thickness, since it is taught to use such surface layer thicknesses in seal locking apparatus as taught by Verlinden et al. It would have been further obvious to use the claimed gap spacing through routine experimentation in order to optimize the spacing to achieve minimized spacing while allowing the strip to pass through the rollers without damage as taught by Funabashi et al.
As to claim 14, Coolen teaches four successive pairs of rolls (see 0035) but fails to teach the claimed at least five pairs. Coolen teaches using successive roll pairs to define successive sub-chambers maintained at progressively different pressures (0008-0010). Coolen establishes that the roll pairs provide repeated pressure reduction stages. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional roll pair, where additional pressure reduction was desired to further distribute the pressure differential.
As to claim 15, Verlinden teaches a range of 1-30mm which overlaps the claimed range of 5-15 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
As to claim 16, Verlinden teaches a treatment cell having an entrance and exit close by roller pairs and further teaches that additional roller pairs or staggered rollers may be provided for transporting sheet material through the apparatus. Verlinden further teaches elastomer-covered drive rollers (see col. 7 and 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an additional roller pair at the exit of the sealing lock to provide an additional pressure control and sheet transport stage especially if additional isolation between vacuum stages and atmosphere are desired. Funabashi teaches maintaining a roller clearance in a vacuum sealing apparatus rather than requiring zero-clearance nipping. The amount of such exit clearance would have been selected according to sheet thickness, contact avoidance, and pumping requirements.
As to claim 17, Coolen teaches that two consecutive pairs of rollers define a sub-chamber maintained at a pressure below atmospheric pressure by a pumping unit. The larger diameter rollers have metal surfaces contacting the strip and defining the strip passage line, and the roller arrangement is contained by the upper and lower walls of the sealing lock (see Figures).
As to claim 18, Coolen teaches an installation comprising a vacuum deposition line for depositing a thin metal or organic layer on a moving flat iron and steel product and an inlet/ outlet sealing lock (see Fig. 1, abstract, 0001, 0032).
As to claim 19, Coolen teaches the sealing lock can be an outlet lock (see 0001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights