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 .
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.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are 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 3 recites the limitation "the number of radiant heating plates" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the number of radiant heating plates" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 13 are included in the rejection since they depend from claims 3 and 12.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faulkner (US 20230051688).
As to claims 8 and 9, Faulkner discloses a can making system comprising a gas (natural gas, see 32 of Fig. 2 and 0025) fired oven (see 0026, 50 of Fig. 2) to burn gas to dry a coating on a can body (see 0036) conveyed through the gas fired oven (see 0025-0026); and a water recycling system includes a condenser (28 of Fig. 2) that receives vapors from the drying step (see 0031) into water and volatile organic compounds (0036) where the recycler includes a separator to separate out volatile organic compounds and wherein the recycling system provide liquid water to another system (see 0031 – pure water can be reused in the washing process to reduce water consumption).
PNG
media_image1.png
841
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1, 5-7, 10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner (US 20230051688) in view of Bijkerk et al. (US 20210404655).
As to claim 1, Faulkner discloses a can making system comprising a gas (natural gas, see 32 of Fig. 2 and 0025) fired oven (see 0026, 50 of Fig. 2) to burn gas to dry a coating on a can body (see 0036) conveyed through the gas fired oven (see 0025-0026); and a water recycling system includes a condenser (28 of Fig. 2) that receives vapors from the drying step (see 0031) into water 6) where the recycling system provides the condensed water to another system (see 0031 – pure water can be reused in the washing process to reduce water consumption).
As to claim 10, Faulkner teaches a method of recycling water in a can making system, the method comprising drying coatings on can bodies (see 0036) conveyed through a fire oven; receiving water vapor from the fired oven; condensing the water vapor into condensed water (see 0031); and providing the condensed water to another component of the can making system (see 0036).
Faulkner fails to teach the oven is structured to burn hydrogen as required by claim 1 or receiving water vapor from a hydrogen fired oven resulting from burning hydrogen as required by claim 10.
Bijkerk et al. discloses a hydrogen gas burner that ignites hydrogen to produce heat. Bijkerk et al. teaches the hydrogen gas burner is an alternate to using natural gas and provides reduced emissions (see 0004). Bijkerk et al. further teaches the hydrogen gas combustion byproducts exceeds those of natural gas combustion, the increased moisture in the oven improves the baking process (see 055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Faulkner to include the hydrogen burner as taught by Bijkerk et al. One would have been motivated to do since both are directed to gas fired ovens where Bijkerk et al. further teaches advantage of minimizing carbon emissions and production of water vapor when using hydrogen oven over a natural gas.
As to claims 5-7 and 14, Faulkner teaches the recycling system includes a condenser (28 of Fig. 2) that receives vapors from the drying step (see 0031) into water and volatile organic compounds (0036) where the recycler includes a separator to separate out volatile organic compounds and wherein the recycling system provide liquid water to another system (see 0031 – pure water can be reused in the washing process to reduce water consumption).
As to claims 15 and 16, Faulkner teaches water recycling system includes a condenser (28 of Fig. 2) that receives vapors from the drying step (see 0031) into water and volatile organic compounds (0036) where the recycler includes a separator to separate out volatile organic compounds and wherein the recycling system provide liquid water to another system (see 0031 – pure water can be reused in the washing process to reduce water consumption).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner (US 20230051688) in view of Bijkerk et al. (US 20210404655) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, further in view of Kreis et al. (EP4194755).
The teachings of Faulkner and Bijkerk et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 are as stated above.
Faulkner and Bijkerk et al. fail to teach the use of a hydrogen fired infrared oven where the oven includes radiant heating units, hydrogen is burned to heat the radiant heating units to cause the units to emit radiation to dry or cure the coatings on the can bodies conveyed through the hydrogen fired infrared oven as required by claims 2 and 11.
Kreis et al. discloses a hydrogen fired radiant heater which comprises a radiant plate that serves as a radiant surface, combustion of hydrogen within or adjacent to the radiant plate, the hydrogen combustion heats the radiant member and the radiating member emits infrared radiation toward the work region (see 0013-0015, 0030, and claims).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and process of Faulkner and Bijkerk et al. to include the oven step up of Kreis et al. One would have been motived to do so since both are directed to ovens using hydrogen burners where Kreis et al. further teaches the use of hydrogen combustion to heat radiant plates that emit infrared radiation with minimal loss of heat.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner (US 20230051688) in view of Bijkerk et al. (US 20210404655) and Kreis et al. (EP4194755), as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, further in view of Scholey (US 2020/0080778).
The teachings of Faulker, Bijkerk et al. and Kreis et al. as applied to claims 2 and 11 are as stated above.
Faulker, Bijkerk et al. and Kreis et al. fail to teach the oven includes a conveyor system to move the can bodies where the radiant heating plates are disposed laterally on the sides of the conveyor system as required by claims 3 and 12.
Scholey teaches an infrared can curing oven with radiating heating plates positioned on opposite sides of the conveyor (see abstract, 120 of Fig. 6) providing the heating elements at an effective distance from the can bodies to provide uniform exposure and efficient curing of the coatings (see 0050, 0056-58, and 0080).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system and method of Faulkner, Bijkerk and Kreis to include the radiating plates along the side of the conveyor as taught by Scholey. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to infrared ovens used to heating can bodies where Scholey further teaches the placement of the radiating plates improves the efficiency of the heating process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Scholey (US 2020/0080778) teaches the conveyor needs to be of sufficient length to allow full drying/curing of the cans while minimizing the amount of space within the processing facility (see 0002). Scholey further states the oven housing has a lent between 1 and 6 meters (see0054). The prior art fails to teach the system and method of claim 13 where the oven includes about a 9 meter length where the bodies are exposed to radiant heating plates.
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