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.
Claim 4 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.
The terms “preset high” and “preset low” in claim 4, lines 2, 4-5 render the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the claimed preset high air temperature and preset low relative humidity are. Claim 4 also recites “operation curve” and “shutoff level” in step a). It is unclear what the claimed “operating curve” is and what level is considered as the shutoff level.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritt et al. (WO 2017/194914A1) in view of Deming et al. (US 4,226,026) and Isbell et al.(US 4,558,523).
Ritt et al. disclose a process for drying grain when the moisture content of the grain is above a preselected target moisture content (page 12, line 34 to page 13, line 1), the process comprising the steps of: a) providing a fan 320 that operably propels air upward through the grain at a constant flow rate (page 13, lines 3-4); b) providing a heater element 160 that is variable in heat output (page 13, lines 6-7); c) providing a controller and sensor system 340 that operably senses temperature in the barn (page 12, lines 5-9). However, Ritt et al. do not disclose the heating element having a lower heating range of between 10,000 and 25,000 BTUs; the controller and sensor system cooperatively linked to the fan and the heater element that operably senses temperature and relative humidity of ambient air and the moisture content of the grain and utilizing the control and sensor system to compare the moisture content in the grain to the target on either side of normal window for using the process and, if the air is operably able to absorb moisture and the grain is above the target moisture content, thereafter operating the fan and the heating element so that the fan operates at a full output thereof and the heater element is continuously varied in output under direction of the control and sensor system to heat the air in accordance with how high the level of moisture is within the grain and in view of ambient air conditions so as to significantly enlarge the window for using EMC to dry the grain and take advantage of favorable ambient air conditions to remove moisture from the grain and to reduce or stop heating when air conditions do not remove moisture, so as not to waste heating. Deming et al. teach a heating element having a lower heating range of between 10,000 and 25,000 BTUs (col. 5, lines 21-31). Isbell et al. teach a method and apparatus for drying grain comprising providing a fan24 that operably and continuously propels air upward through the grain at a flow rate (Fig. 1, col. 10, lines 57-58), a controller 50 and sensor system 140, 128 cooperatively linked to the fan and the heater element that operably senses temperature and relative humidity of ambient air (Figs. 1, 4, col. 9, line 49 to col. 10, line 11) and the moisture content of the grain (it is known in the art that moisture content is determined indirectly by temperature measured by temperature sensor 140) and the control and sensor system comparing the moisture content in the grain to the target moisture content (col. 6, lines 24-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Ritt et al. to substitute the heating element having a lower heating range of between 10,000 and 25,000 BTUs of Deming et al. for the heating element 160 of Ritts in order to use low heat during drying cycle to save energy and to further modify the process of Ritt et al. to substitute the controller and sensor system cooperatively linked to the fan and the heater element that operates fan continuously and operably senses temperature and relative humidity of ambient air and the moisture content of the grain and the control and sensor system comparing the moisture content in the grain to the target of Isbell et al. for the controller and sensor system of Ritts in order to efficiently control the drying and improve the quality of the dried grain. As for the limitation “if the air is operably able to absorb moisture and the grain is above the target moisture content, thereafter operating the fan and the heating element so that the fan operates at a full output thereof and the heater element is continuously varied in output under direction of the control and sensor system to heat the air in accordance with how high the level of moisture is within the grain and in view of ambient air conditions so as to significantly enlarge the window for using EMC to dry the grain and take advantage of favorable ambient air conditions to remove moisture from the grain and to reduce or stop heating when air conditions do not remove moisture, so as not to waste heating”, it is conditioned on the air is operably able to absorb moisture and the grain is above the target moisture content, if the air is not operably able to absorb moisture and the grain is not above the target moisture content, then the step of operating the fan and the heating element so that the fan operates at a full output thereof and the heater element is varied to heat the air in accordance with how high the level of moisture is within the grain and in view of ambient air conditions is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II). With regard to the months of year and windows of operation in claim 1, it is considered merely a timetable or schedule that depend on the locations of the planet which does not produce any patentable merits.
For claim 4, the step of “a) an operator utilizing a selecting …. completely” is conditioned on “wherein an operator selects a high air temperature and a low relative humidity for an equilibrium moisture content operation and further wherein the grain is at or below the target and the ambient air temperature is above the selected high air temperature or relative humidity is below the low selected low relative humidity as compared to normal equilibrium moisture content operation”. When an operator does not select a high air temperature and a low relative humidity, the additional steps of: “a) an operator preselecting an operating curve and a shut off level and operating the fan at less than full speed along the operator preselected operating curve that provides circulation of air through the grain, but decreases as the ambient air conditions change relative to equilibrium moisture content between the air and grain such that the grain does not over dry except to a preselected level and, thereafter the fan is operated at a constant minimum level of air output until a shutoff level is reached where the operator selects to not have any more moisture removed from the grain whereat the fan is stopped completely” is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritt et al. (WO 2017/194914A1) in view of Deming et al. (US 4,226,026) and Isbell et al.(US 4,558,523) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Bloemendall et al. (US 2015/0354895 A1).
The process of Ritt et al. as modified by Deming et al. and Isbell et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 2-3 except for the heater element is operated to raise the temperature of the air input into the grain in the range of 0° to 2°F and the window for using equilibrium moisture content is increased approximately 50 percent on either side of the normal equilibrium moisture content window; the heater element is operated to raise the temperature of the air approximately one degree F. Bloemendall et al. disclose a grain drying method including a step of heating air up to +/- 3 degrees F (paragraph [0043]). Bloemendall et al. discloses a range overlap the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process of Ritts et al. to operate the heat element to raise the temperature of the air input into the grain in the range of 0° to 2°F ( claim 2) or approximately one degree F as applicant appears to have place no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph [0006] indicating to raise the temperature of the air in the range of just above 0° to 2°F, just above just above 0°F to 20°F or, preferably, from 00 to 7°F; Normally, 10,000 BTU heating of air form the fan produces about 1°F raise in temperature whereas 25,000 BTUs will raise the air temperature about 2.5°; paragraph [0024] indicating the air may be heated as little as 1 to 2 degrees), since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranged disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 16 USPQ2D 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). With regard to claim 2, the claimed window of operation is considered as a schedule or timetable that depends on the locations of the planet which does not produce any patentable merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to 112 2nd paragraph rejection applied to claim 4, the examiner disagrees that the applicant’s amendment to claim 4 overcomes 112 112 rejection for the reasons shown in the rejection above. With regard to 103 rejection, the applicant argued that the claimed combined process heavily utilizes naturaly occurring ambient air conditions to reduce the energy load while still preventing the likelihood of mod formation and it is not simply a combination of process A and process B situation, the processed have to be combined and used in accordance with the steps as claimed or it will not works. The examiner disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references and why the process of Ritt et al. as modified by Deming et al. and Isbell et al will not work.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY