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 of Species A, which is drawn to “An apparatus according to FIG. 1-3, wherein the apparatus comprises a movable piston associated with a treatment vessel to cause pressurization/depressurization”, in the reply filed on October 7, 2025 is acknowledged.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (see MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant further states that Species A is readable on claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10-13, 18-20, 28 and 37. However, it is noted that claim 18 reads on Species B, which is drawn to “An apparatus according to FIG. 4-6, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more repurposed internal combustion engines to cause pressurization/depressurization”. Therefore, claims 18 and 30-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10-13, 19-20, 28, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 28, and 37, the recitation of “An apparatus” in the preamble should be changed to --The apparatus--.
In each of claims 10 and 11, the phrase “is provided” (at line 3) should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6, 7, 10-13, 19-20, 28 and 37 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 limitation “wherein the at least one pressurization arrangement is operable to cause repeated pressurization and rapid depressurization on the material or product item…” (at lines 10-13) is unclear because the claim sets forth that the at least one pressurization arrangement functions “… to increase pressure on the material or product item…” (at lines 7-9). Therefore, it is unclear as to how “rapid depressurization” would be achieved by said at least one pressurization arrangement.
Also, the recitation “the treatment vessel within the at least one treatment vessel” (twice, at lines 8-9 and 12-13) is unclear. The recitation suggests that one treatment vessel is located inside of another treatment vessel. It is unclear as to whether Applicant may have intended to recite, for instance, --each treatment vessel of the at least one treatment vessel--.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “the treatment vessel”, which refers to one treatment vessel, is unclear because claim 1 sets forth “at least one treatment vessel”.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “the treatment vessel” (at line 3), which refers to one treatment vessel, is unclear because claim 1 sets forth “at least one treatment vessel”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “further comprising at least one inlet for each of the material or product item or combination of material or product items and the at least one working fluid” is unclear because claim 1 already sets forth that the apparatus comprises “at least one entry into the at least one treatment vessel for introduction of at least one working fluid” (at lines 5-6). Additionally, the relationship between the “at least one entry” of claim 1 and the “at least one inlet” of claim 10 is unclear.
Regarding claim 12, the relationship between “a single arrangement or mechanism… to cause pressurization and depressurization” and the “at least one pressurization arrangement” that was previously set forth in claim 1 is unclear.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation of “the treatment vessel” (twice, at lines 2-3), which refers to one treatment vessel, is unclear because claim 1 sets forth “at least one treatment vessel”.
Also, the relationship between “a movable piston” and the “at least one pressurization arrangement” that was previously set forth in claim 1 is unclear.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation of “the at least one pressurization arrangement or mechanism and at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism” lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 1 merely sets forth “at least one pressurization arrangement” (at line 7).
Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “the at least one depressurization mechanism” lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 28, the recitation of “the treatment vessel” (twice, at lines 2-3), which refers to one treatment vessel, is unclear because claim 1 sets forth “at least one treatment vessel”.
Also, the relationship between “a movable mechanism” (at lines 1-2) and the “at least one pressurization arrangement” previously set forth in claim 1 (at line 7) is unclear.
Regarding claim 37, the relationship between the “at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism to rapidly reduce the pressure in the at least one treatment vessel” (at lines 1-2) and “the at least one pressurization arrangement… operable to cause… rapid depressurization” that was previously set forth in claim 1 (at lines 10-13) is unclear.
Also, the recitation of “the at least one pressurization arrangement or mechanism” (at line 3-4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 1 merely recites “at least one pressurization arrangement” (at line 7).
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
Claim Interpretation
The instant claims are apparatus claims. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Also, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2115.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 13, 19, 20, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redding (WO 92/09368 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Redding discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 1-2) comprising:
at least one treatment vessel (i.e., a vessel defining a compression chamber 17) in which a material to be treated (i.e., particulate matter 16) is located;
at least one entry into the at least one treatment vessel for introduction of at least one working fluid (i.e., an inlet to the compression chamber 17, via an inlet valve 9, for introducing a liquid medium 15); and
at least one pressurization arrangement (i.e., an arrangement including a piston 2) for increasing the pressure on the material 16 in the treatment vessel 17 of the at least one treatment vessel;
wherein the at least one pressurization arrangement is operable to cause repeated pressurization (i.e., during downward strokes of the piston 2, which generate a pressure pulse 19 within the compression chamber 17 of such intensity so as to cause the particulate matter 16 to become broken, fractured, or crushed into smaller-sized bit particles; see page 5, lines 20-29) and rapid depressurization (i.e., during upward strokes of the piston 2, which reduce the pressure on the particulate matter 16; also, a rapid depressurization can be provided when the outlet valve 10 is opened, such that the pressure built up within the compression chamber 17 forces the treated material to exit from the compression chamber 17; see page 5, lines 30-32) on the material in the treatment vessel of the at least one treatment vessel.
The recitation with respect to the intended use of the apparatus “to effect at least partial breakdown of a material or product item or a combination of material or product items” does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the claim. In any event, Redding discloses that the apparatus is used to effect at least a partial breakdown a material in the treatment vessel (i.e., a breakdown or reduction in size of the particulate matter 16 into broken, fractured, or crushed into smaller-sized bit particles).
Regarding claim 3, Redding discloses that the treatment vessel has a working volume which is variable in size (i.e., the volume of the compression chamber 17 is reduced during downward strokes of the piston 2, and the volume of the compression chamber 17 is increased during upward strokes of the piston 2).
Regarding claim 12, Redding discloses that a single arrangement or mechanism (i.e., a single piston 2, shown; see FIG. 1) is provided to cause pressurization and depressurization.
Regarding claim 13, Redding discloses that a movable piston (i.e., the piston 2; FIG. 1-2) is associated with the treatment vessel 17 to cause pressure increases within the working volume of the treatment vessel (i.e., during downward strokes of the piston 2).
Regarding claim 19, Redding discloses a controller (i.e., a pressure control regulator 4; see FIG. 1) provided to control the at least one pressurization arrangement or mechanism and at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism to define one or more operational parameters of the increase in pressure and depressurization (see page 5, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 20, Redding discloses at least one depressurization mechanism (i.e., the outlet valve 10 of the compression chamber 17) comprising a flash decompression or explosive decompression arrangement or mechanism (i.e., the outlet valve 10, when opened after a pressurization treatment, allows for a flash or explosive decompression of the chamber 17, wherein the pressure built up within the chamber forces the pressure-treated material to exit from the chamber; see page 5, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 28, Redding discloses that a movable mechanism (i.e., the movable piston 2; see FIG. 1-2) is associated with the treatment vessel 17 to cause pressure increases within the working volume of the treatment vessel.
Regarding claim 37, Redding discloses that the apparatus further comprises at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism (i.e., the piston 2 during an upward stroke, which reduces the pressure within the compression chamber 17; or, the outlet valve 10 when moved to an open position, which reduces the pressure within the compression chamber 17; see FIG. 1-2) to rapidly reduce the pressure in the at least one treatment vessel 17, and wherein the at least one pressurization arrangement or mechanism and the at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism are operable to cause repeated pressurization and rapid depressurization within the at least one treatment vessel (i.e., via multiple strokes of the piston 2, see page 5, lines 27-29; or, by repeated recycling of the material, through the outlet of the compression chamber 17 and back to the inlet of the compression chamber 17, see page 8, line 30, to page 9, line 8).
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 13, 20, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ge et al. (CN 102059075 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ge et al. discloses an apparatus (i.e., an apparatus for carrying out material steam explosion; see FIG. 1-2; translation) comprising:
at least one treatment vessel (i.e., a tank 2) in which a material to be treated (i.e., a material to be subjected to material steam explosion) is located;
at least one entry (i.e., a steam inlet 7 through which steam can be supplied, see FIG. 1; or a feed inlet 3 through which fluid can be supplied along with a feed material, see FIG. 1-2) into the at least one treatment vessel for introduction of at least one working fluid; and
at least one pressurization arrangement (i.e., an arrangement including a pressurizing piston 1) to increase pressure on the material in the treatment vessel or the at least one treatment vessel (i.e., the pressure on the material inside the tank 2 can be increased by driving the piston 1 forward to compress the material inside the tank 2);
wherein the at least one pressurization arrangement is operable to cause repeated
pressurization and rapid depressurization on the material in the treatment vessel of the at least one treatment vessel (i.e., the arrangement is able to cause repeated pressurization and quick depressurization on the material in the tank 2 through repeated movement of the piston 1 forwards and backwards, to compress or decompress the material in the tank 2; also, a quick depressurization can be performed by opening a quick-opening valve 5 at a discharge 4).
The recitation with respect to the intended use of the apparatus “to effect at least partial breakdown of a material or product item or a combination of material or product items” does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the claim. In any event, Ge et al. discloses that the apparatus is used for “breaking” or “shattering” the material via a steam explosion process (see translation at paragraphs [0015], [0022], [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Ge et al. (see FIG. 1-2) further discloses that the treatment vessel has a working volume which is variable in size (i.e., the working volume of the tank 2 can be decreased by driving the piston 1 forward, and the working volume of the tank 2 can be increased by retracting the piston 1).
Regarding claim 10, Ge et al. (see FIG. 1) discloses at least one inlet for each of the material (i.e., via the feed inlet 3) and at least one working fluid (i.e., via the steam inlet 7).
Regarding claim 12, Ge et al. (see FIG. 1-2) discloses a single arrangement or mechanism (i.e., the piston 1) to cause pressurization and depressurization
Regarding claim 13, Ge et al. (see FIG. 1-2) discloses a movable piston (i.e., the piston 1) is associated with the treatment vessel 2 to cause pressure increases within the working volume of the treatment vessel.
Regarding claim 20, Ge et al. discloses that the apparatus comprises at least one depressurization mechanism (i.e., the quick-opening valve 5), which is a flash decompression or explosive decompression arrangement or mechanism (i.e., after a step of pressurizing the material in the tank 2, the quick-opening valve 5 is opened to cause fast pressure relief, and the material is quickly expanded, exploded, and discharged through the treated material outlet 4; see paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 28, Ge et al. discloses a movable mechanism (i.e., the piston 1, which is movable; see FIG. 1-2) associated with the treatment vessel 2 to cause pressure increases within the working volume of the treatment vessel (i.e., the pressure in the tank 2 is increased when the piston 1 is driven forward to compress the material in the tank 2).
Regarding claim 37, Ge et al. (see FIG. 1-2) discloses that the apparatus further comprises at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism (i.e., the quick-opening valve 5) to rapidly reduce the pressure in the at least one treatment vessel 2; wherein the at least one pressurization arrangement or mechanism (i.e., the piston 1) and the at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism (i.e., the piston 1 or the quick-opening valve 5) are operable to cause repeated pressurization (i.e., by repeatedly driving the piston 1 forward to compress the material in the tank 2) and rapid depressurization (i.e., by repeatedly retracting the piston 1, or by repeatedly opening and closing the quick-opening valve 5) within the at least one treatment vessel.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 13, 19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlienger et al. (US 6,739,380).
Regarding claim 1, Schlienger discloses an apparatus (i.e., a leaching system 40 or 60, see FIG. 5-6; column 5, line 52, to column 7, line 21) comprising:
at least one treatment vessel (i.e., a vessel 35 including a vessel container 42 and a removable lid 41) in which a material or product item to be treated (i.e., a cast component 30 containing ceramic casting cores 32 and 33) is located;
at least one entry into the at least one treatment vessel (i.e., via an opening at the top of the vessel container 42, when the lid 41 is removed) for introduction of at least one working fluid (i.e., a leaching material 36 in a fluid phase); and
at least one pressurization arrangement to increase pressure on the material or the product item in the treatment vessel of the at least one treatment vessel (i.e., a volume variation mechanism 47 in fluid communication with the vessel 35, wherein the volume variation mechanism 47 includes a piston 48 that is moveable to increase the pressure on the cast component 30,32,33 in the vessel 35, see FIG. 5 and column 6, lines 21-24; alternatively, a volume variation mechanism 61 including a bladder 62 disposed within the vessel 35 and extendable into a headspace 45 of the vessel 35 to increase the pressure on the cast component 30,32,33 in the vessel 35, see FIG. 6);
wherein the at least one pressurization arrangement is operable to cause repeated pressurization and rapid depressurization on the material or product item in the treatment vessel of the at least one treatment vessel (i.e., by repeated movement of the piston 48 in directions A or B, to cause pressurization or depressurization on the cast component 30,32,33, see FIG. 5; or by repeated expansion and contraction of the bladder 62, to cause pressurization or depressurization on the cast component 30,32,33, see FIG. 6).
The recitation with respect to the intended use of the apparatus “to effect at least partial breakdown of a material or product item or a combination of material or product items” does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the claim. In any event, Schlienger discloses that the apparatus is used to effect at least a partial breakdown of the ceramic casting cores 32 and 33 in the cast component 30, by leaching the ceramic material from the cast component 30 during treatment.
Regarding claim 3, Schlienger (see FIG. 6; column 7, lines 10-21) discloses that the treatment vessel 35 has a working volume which is variable in size (i.e., the working volume of the vessel 35 can be decreased by expansion of the bladder 62, and the working volume of the vessel 35 can be increased by contraction of the bladder 62).
Regarding claim 12, Schlienger discloses that a single arrangement or mechanism (i.e., the volume variation mechanism 47, FIG. 5; or the volume variation mechanism 61, FIG. 6) is provided to cause pressurization and depressurization.
Regarding claim 13, Schlienger (see FIG. 5) discloses that a movable piston (i.e., the piston 48 of the volume variation mechanism 47) is associated with the treatment vessel 35 to cause pressure increases within the working volume of the treatment vessel.
Regarding claim 19, Schlienger discloses a controller 50 provided to control the at least one pressurization arrangement or mechanism and at least one depressurization arrangement or mechanism to define one or more operational parameters of the increase in pressure and depressurization (i.e., a control device 50 in operational communication with sensors in the system and for controlling the movement of the piston 48 or the expansion and contraction of the bladder 62 to control the pressure in the system; see FIG. 5-6; column 6, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 28, Schlienger discloses that a movable mechanism (i.e., the piston 48, which is movable; see FIG. 5) is associated with the treatment vessel 35 to cause pressure increases within the working volume of the treatment vessel.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlienger (US 6,739,380) in view of Horton (US 3,636,190).
Schlienger shows that the material or product item 30,32,33 is surrounded by the working fluid 36 in the treatment vessel 35, so that the working fluid 36 can access multiple sides of the material or product item 30,32,33. Schlienger, however, fails to disclose that the apparatus further comprises a mount to locate the material or product item 30,32,33 within the treatment vessel 35 to allow the at least one working fluid 36 access to multiple sides of the material or product item 30,32,33.
Horton discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 1) comprising a treatment vessel (i.e., a tank 11) in which a material or product item to be treated (i.e., an investment mold 30 containing a pattern material) is located; and at least one entry into the treatment vessel for introduction of at least one working fluid (i.e., a pipe 15 for introducing a liquid 33 from a second tank 10 into the tank 11). Specifically, Horton discloses that the apparatus further comprises a mount (i.e., a ring 31 with attached legs 32) to locate the material or product item within the treatment vessel 11 and to allow the working fluid access to multiple sides of the material or product item (i.e., the mold 30 is supported on the ring 31 and spaced above the bottom of the tank 11 by legs 32 in order to afford circulation of the liquid 33 around the bottom of the mold 30; see column 5, lines 48-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mount within the treatment vessel in the apparatus of Schlienger because the mount would have allowed for the material or product item to be supported above the bottom of the treatment vessel, so that the working fluid can be circulated around the bottom of the material or the product item during treatment, as taught by Horton.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redding (WO 92/09368 A1).
Redding (at page 8, line 30, to page 9, line 1; with emphasis added) further discloses
“By repeatedly recycling or passing the slurry through the system, the target particles can be reduced to the desired size. Recycling can be performed automatically using a closed-loop system or manually with open system depicted in Figure 1.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide at least one recycle line (i.e., line(s) forming a closed-loop system) to recycle at least part of the at least one working fluid in the apparatus of Redding because the at least one recycle line would allow for the recycling of the working fluid and the material through the treatment vessel multiple times, so that the material can be further reduced to the desired size, as suggested by Redding.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 102059075 A) in view of Rawls et al. (US 2014/0110069).
Ge et al. discloses that the treatment vessel 2 has an outlet (i.e., a discharge 4, controlled by the quick-opening valve 5) for discharging the working fluid and the treated material, together, from the treatment vessel 2. Ge et al., however, fails to disclose that the apparatus further comprises at least one outlet for each of the at least one working fluid and the treated material.
Rawls et al. discloses an apparatus (i.e., an apparatus for steam explosion treatment; see FIG. 1-3) comprising: a treatment vessel (i.e., a pressurized reactor vessel 20; see paragraph [0026]) in which a material (i.e., a biomass material 10 to be subjected to a steam explosion process; see paragraph [0025]) is located for treatment; at least one entry into the treatment vessel 20 for the introduction of a working fluid (i.e., an inlet for steam 14); a pressurization arrangement to increase the pressure on the material in the treatment vessel (i.e., the steam 14 added to the reactor vessel 20 increases the pressure on the biomass material 10 in the reactor vessel; see paragraph [0027]); and a mechanism (i.e., a valve 22 at a reactor vessel outlet 21) for causing rapid depressurization on the material within the treatment vessel 20. Specifically, Rawls et al. discloses that the apparatus further comprises an outlet for each of the working fluid (i.e., via a vent 34, which allows for recapturing the steam and other desirable gasses, see paragraph [0002]) and the treated material (i.e., via an outlet for the steam exploded biomass material 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide at least one outlet for each of the working fluid and the treated material in the apparatus of Ge et al. because the at least one outlet would have allowed for the separation and recapture of the working fluid (steam), along with any other desirable gases, from the treated material, as taught by Rawls et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774