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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012176688A1, hereinafter ‘Hiranaka”, in view of US4188186A, hereinafter ‘Ladwig’, and further in view of US4974334A, hereinafter ‘Roddewig’, and US20230285920A1, hereinafter ‘Gorlitz’.
Regarding Claim 9, Hiranaka discloses a method for processing wasted gypsum boards by calcining gypsum granular solid, obtained by crushing wasted gypsum boards, to convert the gypsum granular solid to hemihydrate and/or anhydrous type III gypsum ([0001]: “The present invention relates to a method for recycling gypsum from waste gypsum board…”; [0016]: “Gypsum dihydrate recovered from waste gypsum board is calcined to convert it into hemihydrate…”), the method comprising
feeding the gypsum granular solids from a feed port into a fluidized-bed of a calcining apparatus into the fluidized-bed ([0068]: “The crushed gypsum board waste material C…[is] fed into the fluidized bed calciner, where it is calcined to produce gypsum hemihydrate”; said gypsum board waste material is considered to be fed to the fluidized bed calciner via an inlet to said calciner, said inlet being considered to meet “a feed port of a fluidized-bed of a calcining apparatus” as claimed);
wherein the gypsum granular solid after calcination is discharged from a discharge port of the fluidized-bed ([0068]: “The resulting gypsum hemihydrate is then finely crushed in the fine grinder”; the resulting gypsum hemihydrate is considered to be delivered from the calciner to the fine grinder via an outlet of said calciner, which is considered to meet “a discharge port of the fluidized bed” as claimed).
Further regarding Claim 1, Hiranaka discloses that, while the process may be performed by either batchwise or continuous operation, there exist particular advantages in crystallization and foreign matter removal when the disclosed process is performed continuously ([0061]-[0063]) – Hiranaka further discloses an embodiment of the disclosed process in which the process is operated continuously (see Fig. 1).
However, Hiranaka does not disclose that the gypsum granular solid is fed by a feeding device, that the gypsum granular solid after calcination is discharged by a discharging device, or that an amount of the gypsum granular solid in the fluidized-bed is maintained within a predetermined range by controlling said feeding device and said discharging device, as claimed.
Ladwig discloses a 3-element control system for the continuous operation of a gypsum calcining kettle (Col 1, lines 50-53). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Ladwig as analogous to Hiranaka, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the continuous calcination of gypsum – a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Ladwig discloses that, for the continuous operation of calcination, the startup procedure mirrors that of a batch process, but that the kettle is to be fed, and products discharged, at compatible rates in order to maintain a desired inventory in the kettle (Col 2, lines 60-63). Ladwig discloses the addition of crushed gypsum feed via a conduit, through which raw, fresh, crushed gypsum is introduced into the kettle at a rate set by the operation of an auger, considered a type of rotary valve, which is rotated by a motor – further, a temperature sensing element is mounted in the lower portion of the kettle, where it is sensitive to the temperature to which calcining gypsum has been elevated by the products of combustion. Said temperature sensing element is connected to regulate the speed of motor, to establish the rate of feed of gypsum to the kettle (Col 3, lines 24-34). Such a configuration of an auger and motor to feed gypsum to the calcination apparatus is considered a feeding device, which is controlled in order to maintain a predetermined amount of gypsum in the calcination apparatus.
Further, Ladwig discloses that the calcined gypsum in the lower portion of the kettle is withdrawn through a separate conduit, and that the rate of discharge of calcined gypsum is established by the setting of a valve – particularly, a level sensing device is mounted within a kettle at a position where it will sense the height of calcined gypsum in the kettle. The signal from the level sensing device is converted into a control signal for the valve, such that, for any predetermined value of level sensed by the sensor, the valve will be adjusted to maintain the rate of discharge for calcined gypsum from the inventory of the kettle, which will maintain the level thereof (Col 3, lines 40-50). Such a configuration of a valve is considered a discharging device, which is controlled in order to maintain a predetermined amount of gypsum in the calcination apparatus.
Further, Ladwig discloses that, by the implementation of such controls, including the control of feeding and discharging using respective devices for the same, regardless of the specific form of structure to control heat input, temperature sensing, control of feed and discharge, and level sensing, automatic operation of the disclosed process is expected, which provides a continuous process for the manufacture of products such as wallboard or plaster with significant savings or significant increase in production over that obtained by a batch process (Col 4, lines 19-33).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to integrate feeding and discharging devices as disclosed by Ladwig within the process disclosed by Hiranaka, and configure them such that the amount of the gypsum granular solid in the fluidized-bed is maintained within a predetermined range by controlling said feeding device and said discharging device. As shown by Ladwig, such devices may be predictably coupled to process parameters such as reactor temperature and level in order to automate the process of calcining gypsum, thereby providing significant savings or significant increase in production over that obtained by a batch, unautomated process.
Further, Ladwig does not disclose that the valve controlling the discharge of the kettle is a rotary valve as claimed; however, Ladwig does disclose that “[i]n controlling the discharge of calcined gypsum from the lower portion of kettle 7…[t]here may be several types of valves suitable for this service…[w]hatever type of valve is employed at 16, its setting is controlled by primary element 17, which is sensing the level of calcining gypsum in kettle 7.” From this, it is clear that the discharge valve is not particularly limited. Further, as noted above, the feeding device of Ladwig includes an auger configured to a motor – in light of this, given a motorized auger is already used within the process of Ladwig, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize an auger as the valve for control of the discharge from the kettle, as this would simplify the process by reducing the number of unique units required to carry out the suggested process.
Further regarding Claim 1, Hiranaka discloses that, while the process may be performed by either batchwise or continuous operation, there exist particular advantages in crystallization and foreign matter removal when the disclosed process is performed continuously ([0061]-[0063]) – Hiranaka further discloses an embodiment of the disclosed process in which the process is operated continuously (see Fig. 1).
However, Hiranaka does not disclose that gypsum granular solid is moved from an outlet end of a dispersion plate at a bottom of the fluidized-bed toward the discharge port without passing over a barrier.
Roddewig discloses a device for drying and/or calcining powdery materials, such as gypsum (Col 5, line 65-Col 6, line 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Roddewig as analogous to Hiranaka and Ladwig, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, apparatuses for the calcination of gypsum - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Roddewig discloses that it is possible to influence the direction and speed of transport in calcination by an appropriate configuration of the hot gas discharge openings of the base of a calcination apparatus: “If the intermediate base is made of sheet metal, preferably sheet steel, a precise stream direction can be easily achieved by forming the openings as sections that are stamped in the direction toward the upper portion of the treatment area and that are opened only in the direction of transport, with the upwardly stamped or pressed portions of the sheet metal serving to guide or deflect the hot air/hot gas…[t]he openings are preferably very small and are disposed very close to one another in order to enhance the fluidization effect of the material that is guided over the openings” (Col 3, lines 35-51). Such an improvement in the fluidization effect is advantageous in calcination, as also disclosed by Roddewig: “Also effected as a result of the fluidization of the fine powdery material that can be achieved with the inventive device is an optimum heat transfer to the goods that are to be treated, and hence an optimization of the drying or calcining process with regard to an energy supply that is as slight as possible, with the heat quantity necessary per kilogram of drying/calcining material being able to be further optimized by the described return of the exhaust gases and their guidance into heat exchangers in order to preheat the combustion air for the burners” (Col 7, lines 23-33). Accordingly, the use of a permeable steel plate, or a dispersion plate that is adjacent to both the feed and discharge ports, is known within fluidized bed reactors to optimize fluidization, thereby reducing the required energy to calcinate the calcined article.
Roddewig further discloses the path and flow of materials through a reactor utilizing such a base: “The material stream 110 leaves the device 10 at the outlet end, and passes via the tube 88 and the feed mechanism 18 into the treatment area 24. Here the material passes through above the base 42 in the same manner as described above, and is guided by the withdrawal mechanism 30, the tube 88, and the feed mechanism 20 into the treatment area 26, where the procedure is again repeated until the material is finally withdrawn in the direction of the arrow B via the withdrawal mechanism 32 and the discharge tube 102/the discharge funnel 104” (Col 11, lines 40-49). This passage describes the movement of solids from an outlet end of a dispersion plate at a bottom of the fluidized-bed toward the discharge port without passing over a barrier.
Further, Roddewig discloses a means for the recovery of solids lost in exhaust – particularly, Roddewig discloses the use of a dust collection unit capable of selective return of the solid material recovered therefrom, thereby guiding said solids back to the feed of the process in order to be calcined and captured as product (Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 13-30).
Further, the calcination apparatus of Roddewig is disclosed as a calcination device that enables, at a lower expense for apparatus and energy, an easier production especially of finely grained and powdery materials, and preferably is provided for being able to work continuously and in an energy saving manner (Col 2, lines 39-47).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the calcination apparatus as disclosed by Hiranaka with the calcination apparatus disclosed by Roddewig. As shown above, the calcination apparatus of Roddewig provides advantages over conventional fluidized bed calcination apparatuses, such as enabling better fluidization via a permeable base, lower expense for apparatus and energy, recovery of fines captured by exhaust gases, and easier production of finely grained materials. Such a substitution would therefore improve the energy efficiency of the calcination process, thereby resulting in a more cost-effective process. Further, the use of such an apparatus would provide a calcination process in which gypsum granular solid is moved from an outlet end of a dispersion plate at a bottom of the fluidized-bed toward the discharge port without passing over a barrier – see Fig. 1, Col 11, lines 40-49 of Roddewig.
Further regarding Claim 9, while Roddewig suggests the use of a permeable base, considered a distribution plate as claimed, it does not disclose that said dispersion plate is inclined downward at an inclination angle between 1 degree and 3 degrees from the one end towards the another end to cause the gypsum granular solid to move toward the discharge port, as claimed.
However, Roddewig does disclose that the rake or angle of inclination of the base can be changed, and that the angle of inclination is preferably infinitely variable, so that especially in combination with the stream speed of the hot gases, it is also possible to have a regulation/control of the transport speed of the material that is guided over the base (Col 3, lines 58-66). Furthermore, Roddewig discloses that the inventive device can be adapted individually, or in combination with several units, to the respective product that is to be dried/calcined, and in particular, among other things, by the rake or inclination angle of the intermediate base (Col 6, line 67 – Col 7, line 13). Accordingly, it is clear from the disclosure of Roddewig that the angle of the base may be adjusted in order to adapt to a particular product to be produced, and further to regulate and control the transport speed of the material guided over the base.
Therefore, as the transport speed of the material guided over the base is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the angle of the dispersion plate, the precise inclination angle of said base would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the angle of the permeable base/dispersion plate in Hiranaka et al. in order to obtain the desired transport speed of the material guided over the base, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Further, the gypsum solids of the prior art have already been shown to be moved from the inlet to the outlet, as claimed.
Further regarding Claim 1, while Hiranaka as modified above makes obvious a process in which the level of gypsum granular solids in the fluidized bed is maintained by controlling the feeding device and the discharge device, Hiranaka as modified above does not disclose a method of measuring the level that includes blowing hot air into the fluidized-bed through a plurality of openings in the dispersion plate from a bottom of the fluidized-bed, one end of the dispersion plate being adjacent to the feed port, another end of the dispersion plate being adjacent to the discharge port, and no barrier at the another end of the dispersion plate, and measuring a first pressure of the hot air between the gypsum granular solids and the top plate, measuring a second pressure of the hot air between the bottom plate and the dispersion plate, and determining the amount of the gypsum granular solids in the fluidized-bed according to a pressure difference between the first pressure and the second pressure.
Gorlitz discloses methods and devices for recycling waste materials in a fluidized bed furnace (Abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Gorlitz as analogous to Hiranaka et al., as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, reclaiming waste materials in a fluidized bed calcination apparatus - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Gorlitz discloses that the rate of introduction of the waste materials containing valuable metals and the rate of discharge of material, i.e. overall the flow rate of material through the furnace, are controlled by means of a fill level measuring device in the fluidized-bed furnace of the invention. In a particularly preferred embodiment, the fill level measuring device is based on a differential pressure measurement between two measurement points of which one measurement point, i.e. a first pressure sensor, is arranged above the bed of material and one measurement point, i.e. a second pressure sensor, is arranged below the bed of material. The fill level measuring device is configured so that the fill level of the fluidized-bed furnace is calculated with the aid of the differential pressure measurement, but preferably taking into account the temperature prevailing in the fluidized-bed furnace and the pressure prevailing in the fluidized-bed furnace ([0054]).
In light of this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the level sensor of Hiranaka above, i.e., a capacitance level sensor, with the differential pressure sensor as describe by Gorlitz. Both types of level sensors have been shown capable of sensing the level of a fluidized bed in order to maintain a predetermined fill level in the reactor, such that substitution of one element for another would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012176688A1, hereinafter ‘Hiranaka”, in view of US4188186A, hereinafter ‘Ladwig’, and further in view of US4974334A, hereinafter ‘Roddewig’, US20230285920A1, hereinafter ‘Gorlitz, and US20040132931A1, hereinafter ‘Muhle’.
Regarding Claim 10, Hiranaka as modified above makes obvious hot air is blown into the fluidized-bed through a dispersion plate at a bottom of the fluidized-bed and the hot air is exhausted from an exhaust port at a top of the fluidized-bed (Claim 1 of Roddewig: at least one essentially horizontal base means (this base means refers to the permeable steel plate as discussed above) disposed in said treatment area means for receiving said powdery calcium sulfate material thereon…being adapted to have hot air or hot gas flow therethrough from below; Fig. 1: each treatment area is configured with a hot gas exhaust at the top of the treatment area, which is at the top of the fluidized bed of the calcination apparatus).
Further regarding Claim 10, Hiranaka discloses a process for the calcination of material in a fluidized bed, and further that an object of the invention is to produce gypsum having a uniform particle size ([0014]).
However, Hiranaka does not disclose that the fluidized-bed is made larger in width at an upper portion of the fluidized-bed than that at a lower portion of the fluidized-bed, such that a velocity of the hot air at the upper portion of the fluidized-bed is thereby reduced, and gypsum granular solid floating in the hot air is precipitated.
Muhle discloses methods for the evaluation and design of fluidized bed reactors ([0002]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Muhle as analogous to Hiranaka et al., as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the use and design of fluidized bed reactors - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Muhle discloses the control of fines within the operation of the fluidized bed reactor by designing said reactor with an “expanded section”, which consists of a region of expanded cross-section above the reaction zone. Notably, Muhle discloses that the use of such an expanded section within a fluidized bed reactor is intended to reduce the velocity of the fluidizing gas in order to minimize the entrainment of fine particles in the gas leaving the reactor, which concentrate in regions of low gas velocity ([0009]). As shown by Roddewig, this problem is common to gypsum calcination processes, and it is undesirable for such fines to leave the reactor through the exhaust – for this particular reason, the apparatus of Roddewig utilizes a dust collector, as discussed above, in order to trap and return fines that have left the reactor through exhaust to the feed, such that they may be calcined. Roddewig further discloses that, when the retention time of the particles in the inventive device increases, the tendency for agglomeration of the fine particles to form larger structures increases (Col. 5, lines 46-62), and such pellet-sized particles would not be desired by Hiranaka, which discloses an objective of obtaining uniform particle size of treated gypsum ([0014]) – pellet-sized particles of this nature would contrast other particles that did not form agglomerates, leading to an uneven particle distribution.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the calcination apparatus of Roddewig to exhibit an expanded section, as disclosed by Muhle. The use of such a design feature would reduce the velocity of the hot air at the upper portion of the fluidized-bed, thereby resulting in the precipitation of said fines, leading to less agglomeration of said fines and an improved, more uniform particle distribution of treated gypsum particles. Such a modification would result in the claimed structure, i.e., wherein the fluidized-bed is made larger in width at an upper portion of the fluidized-bed than that at a lower portion of the fluidized-bed, in a vertical plane perpendicular to said one direction.
Regarding Claim 11, Hiranaka as modified above makes obvious an exhaust line provided with a cyclone connected to the fluidized-bed, and a part of gypsum granular solid scattered into the exhaust line being collected by the cyclone and being returned to the fluidized-bed (as discussed above, the reaction configuration of Roddewig entails a dust collection unit which returns fines trapped by exhaust gas to the feed of the calcination process – this dust collection unit is considered to meet the claimed cyclone configuration).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/03/2025, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under section 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gorlitz.
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 LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights