DETAILED ACTION
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, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 106016989 A), Cattapan (EP 2447027 A1), and Karles (US 20170245543 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a treatment apparatus, comprising:
at least one container (10) configured to hold incoherent plastics (the container 10 can hold incoherent plastics), said container comprising: at least one process gas inlet (inlet for air from flow generator 21) and at least one process gas outlet (gas leaves outlet of container and enters bottom inlet of heat exchanger 23);
at least one supply line configured to supply a process gas to said process gas inlet of said container (Fig. 1 shows a supply line leading gas flow from the container 10 to the exchanger 23);
at least one flow generator (21) configured to generate a process gas flow along said supply line towards said container;
at least one condenser (22) arranged along said supply line configured to condense contaminating vapors contained in the process gas flow, said contaminating vapors comprising organic compound vapors (the condenser is capable of condensing organic compound vapors because it condenses vapors released from heating the wet tobacco, and these vapors would contain organic compounds, nevertheless, see the Karles reference), said condenser comprising at least one contaminated gas inlet (Fig. 1 shows a bottom inlet) and at least one purified gas outlet (Fig. 1 shows a top outlet), wherein a cooling flow (water from tank 40) circulates in said condenser to cool the process gas flow to below a boiling point of an organic compound contained in the process gas flow (the process gas flow is condensed into a liquid in the condenser, which means the process gas flow containing the organic compounds are cooled below a boiling point of the organic compounds);
at least one exchanger (23) arranged along said supply line for cooling the process gas flow, said exchanger comprising at least one gas to be cooled inlet (Fig. 1 shows a bottom inlet), at least one cooled gas outlet (Fig. 1 shows a top outlet), at least one cooling gas inlet (Fig. 1 shows a right side inlet) and at least one heated gas outlet (Fig. 1 shows a left side outlet);
wherein said supply line comprises at least one connection portion which connects said cooled gas outlet with said contaminated gas inlet (Fig. 1 shows a vertical connection portion between elements 22 and 23 for delivering gas from element 23 to element 22), at least one recirculation portion which connects said purified gas outlet with said cooling gas inlet (Fig. 1 shows a recirculation portion for sending gas from the top of condenser 22 to the exchanger 23), and at least one delivery portion which connects said heated gas outlet with said process gas inlet of said container (Fig. 1 shows a delivery potion having blower 21).
Ma fails to disclose:
where the container has a plastics inlet and outlet; and
a molecular sieve dehumidification device arranged along said delivery portion configured to dehumidify the process gas flow.
However, Cattapan teaches a container (2) capable of drying incoherent plastics, where the container has a plastics inlet (Fig. 1, 2a) and outlet (Fig. 1, 2b); and
a molecular sieve dehumidification device (Fig. 1, 17) arranged along said delivery portion (process gas line leading back to the hopper 2) for dehumidifying the process gas flow (para. 23).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Ma where the container has a plastics inlet and outlet, so that there is a continuous feed and treatment of the product. The result is improved drying efficiency.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Ma to include a molecular sieve dehumidification device arranged along said delivery portion for dehumidifying the process gas flow. The motivation to combine is to improve the drying efficiency by further reducing the moisture content of the drying gas to be used in the container.
As explained in the rejection, Ma discloses a condenser that is capable of removing the organic compound vapors. As further support, Karles teaches that heating and drying tobacco releases organic compound vapors, and these vapors are condensed into a liquid, i.e., the process gas flow containing the organic vapor compounds are cooled below a boiling point of the organic vapor compounds (see paras. 57, 71). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application where the condenser is configured to condense organic compound vapors since in order to clean the drying air for reintroduction into the drying container.
Regarding claim 7, Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said supply line comprises at least one withdrawal portion which connects a process gas source with said gas to be cooled inlet (Fig. 1 shows a withdrawal portion leading gas flow from the container 10 to the exchanger 23).
Regarding claim 8, Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein said process gas source comprises said process gas outlet of said container (10) (Fig. 1), whereby said withdrawal portion connects said process gas outlet of said container with said gas to be cooled inlet (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 106016989 A), Cattapan (EP 2447027 A1), and Karles (US 20170245543 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhao (CN 208002013 U).
Regarding claim 9, Ma fails to disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising at least one absorption filter of the activated carbon type, configured to purify the process gas flow, said absorption filter being arranged along said delivery portion of said supply line.
However, Zhao teaches a drying tower comprising at least one absorption filter (Fig. 2, 15) of the activated carbon type, configured to purify the process gas flow (it filters dust), said absorption filter being arranged along said delivery portion of said supply line.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Ma to include at least one absorption filter of the activated carbon type, configured to purify the process gas flow, said absorption filter being arranged along said delivery portion of said supply line. The motivation to combine is to remove dust from the process gas.
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 106016989 A), Cattapan (EP 2447027 A1), and Karles (US 20170245543 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yoon (KR 101236381 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Ma fails to disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising at least one dust collector filter to remove dust from the process gas flow, said dust collector filter being arranged along said supply line before said gas to be cooled inlet, "before" intended with reference to a direction of the process gas flow.
However, Yoon teaches a treatment apparatus comprising at least one dust collector filter (Fig. 5, 410) to remove dust from the process gas flow, said dust collector filter being arranged along said supply line before said gas to be cooled inlet (Fig. 4: inlet into exchanger 300a), "before" intended with reference to a direction of the process gas flow.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Ma to include at least one dust collector filter to remove dust from the process gas flow, said dust collector filter being arranged along said supply line before said gas to be cooled inlet, "before" intended with reference to a direction of the process gas flow. The motivation to combine is to remove contaminating dust from the system, so that it won’t clog up or foul the system.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 106016989 A), Cattapan (EP 2447027 A1), and Karles (US 20170245543 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fujisawa (US 20160073678 A1)
Regarding claim 20, modified Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the organic compound is at least one of acetaldehyde, benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, or methylene. The apparatus is capable of condensing organic vapor compounds; therefore, it is also capable of condensing the recited organic compounds. See para. 116 of Fujisawa as evidentiary support showing where tobacco naturally contains acetaldehyde
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts on pages 7 and 8 the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
361
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The condenser 22 of Ma is configured to condense vapors; therefore, it is capable of condensing vapors containing organic compound vapors.
Furthermore, tobacco releases organic vapor compounds when heated, as evidenced by Karles, and a person skilled in the art would be motivated to remove these organic compounds from the recirculated process gas flow.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 Hoang can be reached at 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762