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 Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:α. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation β/y = 1 to 6, and the claim also recites β/y = 1 to 3 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the angle β" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation 10 to 90 degrees, and the claim also recites 20 to 60 degrees and 10 to 40 degrees which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation 10 to 45 degrees, and the claim also recites 15 to 35 degrees which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the angle α" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. NOTE: for prior art purposes, the examiner will interpret angle α represents the angle a, the nozzle position relative to the center of rotation of the applicator roll (see 0037 of the specification).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation 0 to 90 degrees, and the claim also recites 15 to 45 degrees which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation 10 mm and 300 mm, and the claim also recites 10 mm and 100mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation 1 to 100 mm, and the claim also recites 10 to 30 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 states “the ratio of the distances H and D at the outlet gap to the impingement line of the impingement position is H/D< 3, however distances H and D are not defined. It is unclear which heights/ measurements are represented by H and D.
Claims 2, 8, 12-14 are included in the rejection since they depend form claim 1.
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) 1-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendez-Gallon et al. (DE10012344) in view of Davydenko et al. (EP 3006115).
Mendez-Gallon et al. discloses a process for applying an application medium (liquid or pasty) to a moving material web (22 of Fig. 1) using an applicator (12 of Fig. 1) with at least one free—jet nozzle (12 of Fig.) having an outlet gap for applying the medium (18 of Fig. 1) in the form of a machine-width (see page 3 of the translation, paragraph 6), film like jet (20 of Fig. 1), where at least one applicator roll transfers the medium to the web in a treatment gap formed by the roller (see Fig. 6, page 1, paragraph 1), the nozzle is positioned obliquely to the running surface of the web such at an angle (a) to the perpendicular of the impact line of the coating is 0 to 45 degrees (see page 6 of the translation paragraph 1), and the intensity of the jet impulse at the impact line is increased by a gravitational acceleration of the jet through an adjustable height from the outlet gap of the nozzle (see page 2, paragraph 6- page 3, paragraph 1); and a titling angle of the nozzle is between 5 to 20 degrees (see page 6, paragraph 4, to control the trajectory of the curtain and the location of impact.
Mendez-Gallon et al. fails to explicitly teach the angle perpendicular of an impingement line is between 5 to 85 degrees or that the dispensing nozzle is a free-jet nozzle as required by claim 1.
Mendez-Gallon et al. does state the range is 0 to 45 degrees which overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Davydenko et al. discloses a method for applying a coating to moving paper or board web (see 0002 of translation). Davydenko et al. teaches the coating is applied by using a free jet generated by a nozzle and traveling toward a target, the jet is oriented at angles relative to the receiving surface and the jet trajectory is controlled through selection of nozzle angle and spacing between the nozzle and target. Davydenko et al. further teaches the process provides uniform distribution of the coating along the edge region of the surface (see 0012, 0014).
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 process of Mendez-Gallon et al. to include the free jet of Davydenko et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to the application of a coating material onto a moving web using a nozzle where Davydenko et al. further teaches the free-jet nozzle provides uniform coverage of the web surface.
As to claim 2, Davydenko et al. teaches a free jet exciting a nozzle and traveling through space toward a target the jet path is characterize by a jet exit angle relative to the receiving surface and a jet impingement angle at the point of impact. Davydenko et al. further teaches that the trajectory of the jet is determined by the selected angular orientation of the nozzle and the resulting impact geometry thereby meeting determining curvature along a path length y a jet exit angle and impingement angle.
As to claim 3, Mendez-Gallon and Davydenko et al. fail to teach a ratio between 1 to 6, however, both references teach that jet trajectory, impact location, and impact characteristics are controlled by adjustment of nozzle angle, impingement angle, spacing, and flow conditions. The ration is therefore a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio within the claimed range through routine experimentation in order to optimize the impact characteristics of the treatment material especially absent evidence of criticality in using the claimed range.
As to claim 4, Mendez-Gallon teaches operating conditions such as temperature, viscosity, flow rate and substate speed (see abstract, page 5 last paragraph – page 6). Davydenko et al. teaches adjusting jet orientation and impact geometry. It would have been obvious to adjust the jet impingement angle as a function of speed, viscosity, or volume flow in order to maintain desired coating transfer characteristics and impact conditions.
As to claim 5, Davydenko et al. states the jet impingement angle is about 10 to 70 which overlaps the claimed range. 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 6, Davydenko et al. teaches a jet path angle between 5 to 60 degrees and further teaches nozzle orientation that overlaps the claimed jet exit angle. 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 7, Mendez-Gallon teaches angular positions 0 to 45 degrees which overlaps the claimed range. 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 8, the treatment medium can be starch of pigments (see page 5, paragraph 5 of Mendez-Gallon).
As to claim 9, the height between the outlet gap of the nozzle to the applicator is 40-200 mm, which overlaps the claimed range (see abstract of Mendez- Gallon) . 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 12, the coating weight is up to 20 g/m2 which overlaps the claimed range. 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 13, the web is coated in a downward direction (see Fig. 6 of Mendez-Gallon et al.).
As to claim 14, the effective height is the difference between a horizontal line at the outlet gap of the nozzle and the impingement line (see H of Fig. 1 of Mendez-Gallon et al.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendez-Gallon et al. (DE10012344) in view of Davydenko et al. (EP 3006115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henninger et al. (US 2021/0189657).
The teachings of Mendez-Gallon et al. and Davydenko et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Mendez-Gallon et al. and Davydenko et al. fails to teach the use of an apparatus for boundary layer air removal is arranged upstream of the line of impingement of the jet on the applicator roll with a distance of 1 to 100 mm as required by claim 10.
Henninger et al. discloses a method for applying start on a moving fiber web (See abstract) sung an applicator (see 3 of Fig.1). Henninger et al. states the applicator is a slot die that applies the coating in the form of a jet (see 0017, 0027). Henninger et al. further teaches removal of boundary- layer air in the region of coating transfer in order to improve coating application and reduce air entrainment (see 0048-0049, 0076). 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 process of Mendez-Gallon et al. and Davydenko et al. to include the boundary-layer-air removal device upstream of the jet impingement location to improve coating transfer and reduce entrained air, thereby yielding improved coating quality.
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