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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 are amended, and claims 1-9 remain pending. In view of the Applicant’s amendments, the objections to claims 2-9 and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 6 and 9 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Sars (EP 3412829, hereinafter De Sars, provided on IDS dated 08/26/2022) in view of Swanson (US 7566162, hereinafter Swanson) and Shearer (US 4025057, hereinafter Shearer).
Regarding claim 1, De Sars discloses an asphalt production facility comprising:
a drum dryer (figure 1, drum 4) comprising an elongated enclosure extending along a central axis (see figure 1), the drum dryer being mounted rotatable about the central axis (paragraph 0068, “drum 4 is rotated”), and having a first end (end 4A) for introducing into the drum dryer fresh granulates (via device 6) and a second, opposite end forming an exit (end 4B) of the drum dryer,
a combustion chamber (within device 8) rotatably linked to the drum dryer,
a burner (burner 10) configured to generate, in the combustion chamber, a hot gas flow circulating in the drum dryer from the first end to the second end (see figure 1), and
at least one first introduction device (ring 12) for introducing into the drum dryer asphalt aggregates to be recycled (paragraph 0070), the at least one first introduction device being arranged along the drum dryer, downstream from the combustion chamber (see position of ring 12 with respect to burner 10) and defining at least one first recycling area of the drum dryer for receiving the asphalt aggregates to be recycled into the drum dryer, the at least one first recycling area being downstream from the combustion chamber (at end 4A) and upstream from the exit (at end 4B) of the drum dryer.
De Sars is silent to a cooling channel as recited. Swanson teaches a drum dryer (dryer 130) having a combustion chamber (at heater 152) including a cooling channel (figure 2A, annular space 156) surrounding at least partially the combustion chamber, said cooling channel being defined between a wall of the combustion chamber and an external envelop of the drum (see figure 2A), and a device (tube 146) for injection of a cooling fluid (column 9, lines 9-15) into the cooling channel. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the drum dryer of De Sars with the cooling channel of Swanson for the purpose of extending the operational life of the dryer drum and reducing the amount of smoke produced by the dryer drum (Swanson: column 10, lines 8-10).
De Sars and Swanson do not explicitly disclose a control and regulation system as recited, although it is noted that Swanson teaches maintaining temperatures in the dryer of lower than 700 degrees C (column 10, line 7, 700 to 900 degrees F would be approximately 370 to 480 degrees C). Shearer teaches an asphalt drying system (figure 1) including a control and regulation system that controls the temperature within the chamber (“temperature control” in figure 1). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the combination of De Sars and Swanson with the control system of Shearer for the purpose of maintaining a desirable temperature within the apparatus to maximize efficiency, noting that Swanson specifically states advantages of maintaining a lower temperature (column 10, lines 8-10).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, De Sars is silent to the control and regulation system. Shearer is relied upon, as above, to teach such a system. Because the system of Shearer is capable of controlling temperature within the apparatus, it is deemed to be capable of controlling temperature within the ranges recited. Further, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited temperatures, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitations of the interior and exit temperatures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Swanson with the temperatures recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 4, De Sars is silent to the cooling fluid. Swanson is relied upon, as above, to teach cooling fluids, and further to teach said cooling fluid comprises a gaseous mixture coming from the exit of the drum dryer (column 2, lines 66-67), the asphalt production facitily comprising a recovering device (figure 2, recirculation tubes 144, 145, and 146) for recovering the gaseous mixer at the exit of the drum dryer, and a circuit for conveying said gas to the cooling fluid injection device (column 8, lines 39-44). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the drum dryer of De Sars with the cooling channel of Swanson for the purpose of extending the operational life of the dryer drum and reducing the amount of smoke produced by the dryer drum (Swanson: column 10, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, De Sars discloses the combustion chamber (figure 1, chamber within device 8) defining a drying area on the downstream side (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, De Sars discloses at least one second introduction device (figure 1, ring 14) for introducing into the drum dryer (drum 4) asphalt aggregates to be recycled, the at least one second introduction device being arranged along the drum dryer downstream from the at least one first introduction device (ring 12; see positions of rings 12 and 14 in figure 1), and being configured to introduce an additional quantity of asphalt aggregates to be recycled into the drum dryer (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 9, De Sars discloses a method for making asphalt in an asphalt production facility comprising:
providing an asphalt production facility including:
a drum dryer (figure 1, drum 4) comprising an elongated enclosure extending along a central axis (see figure 1), the drum dryer being mounted rotatable about the central axis (paragraph 0068, “drum 4 is rotated”), and having a first end (end 4A) for introducing into the drum dryer fresh granulates (via device 6) and a second, opposite end forming an exit (end 4B) of the drum dryer,
a combustion chamber (within device 8) rotatably linked to the drum dryer,
a burner (burner 10) configured to generate, in the combustion chamber, a hot gas flow circulating in the drum dryer from the first end to the second end (see figure 1), and
at least one first introduction device (ring 12) for introducing into the drum dryer asphalt aggregates to be recycled (paragraph 0070), the at least one first introduction device being arranged along the drum dryer, downstream from the combustion chamber (see position of ring 12 with respect to burner 10) and defining at least one first recycling area of the drum dryer for receiving the asphalt aggregates to be recycled into the drum dryer, the at least one first recycling area being downstream from the combustion chamber (at end 4A) and upstream from the exit (at end 4B) of the drum dryer.
De Sars is silent to a cooling channel as recited. Swanson teaches a drum dryer (dryer 130) having a combustion chamber (at heater 152) including a cooling channel (figure 2A, annular space 156) surrounding at least partially the combustion chamber, said cooling channel being defined between a wall of the combustion chamber and an external envelop of the drum (see figure 2A), and a device (tube 146) for injection of a cooling fluid (column 9, lines 9-15) into the cooling channel. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the drum dryer of De Sars with the cooling channel of Swanson for the purpose of extending the operational life of the dryer drum and reducing the amount of smoke produced by the dryer drum (Swanson: column 10, lines 8-10).
De Sars and Swanson do not explicitly disclose piloting the device as recited, although it is noted that Swanson teaches piloting the device to maintain temperatures in the dryer of lower than 700 degrees C (column 10, line 7, 700 to 900 degrees F would be approximately 370 to 480 degrees C). Shearer teaches an asphalt drying system (figure 1) including a control and regulation system that pilots the device to control the temperature within the chamber (“temperature control” in figure 1). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the combination of De Sars and Swanson with the control system of Shearer for the purpose of maintaining a desirable temperature within the apparatus to maximize efficiency, noting that Swanson specifically states advantages of maintaining a lower temperature (column 10, lines 8-10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Sars (EP 3412829, hereinafter De Sars, provided on IDS dated 08/26/2022) in view of Swanson (US 7566162, hereinafter Swanson) and Shearer (US 4025057, hereinafter Shearer), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crupi (US PGPub 2020/0248410, hereinafter Crupi).
Regarding claim 6, De Sars, Swanson, and Shearer are silent to the addition of a binder. Crupi teaches an asphalt production facility (figure 2) including a binder supply device (bin 35) and a mixing device (mixing drum 30) configured to mix the binder with hot and dried asphalt at the exit of the drum (paragraph 0017, “[t]he asphaltic binder is optionally not heated in the heating drum, but heated outside the system and injected into the mixing drum at the desired temperature”), and in that the mixing device comprises a mixing area (within drum 30) defined by the drum and/or a mixer (mixing drum 30) external to the drum, in which are poured the hot and dried granulates at the exit of the drum, and in that the binder supply device is configured for conveying the binder into said mixing area of the drum and/or into said external mixer (see figure 2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of De Sars with the mixing device of Crupi for the purpose of producing a complete asphalt product after processing the aggregates as in the other references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites openings configured to allow hot and dried granules to be poured out of the drum dryer upstream of the second introduction device, which is not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774