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 § 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 1-12 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 claims 1-12, the recitation of “A/The powder bed” in the preamble of each claim is unclear. As best understood, Applicant is attempting to claim an apparatus. However, the “powder bed” is merely the material, e.g., a bed of fine powder, to be worked upon by the apparatus during its use. For instance, as shown in FIG. 5 of the disclosure, the apparatus is a device that comprises a vessel (3), plate pairs each including a swinging perforated plate (5) and a static perforated plate (4), a motor (1) connected to a rotating shaft (2), a ring-shaped air supply tube (6), and a discharge port (7). In use, a powder is filled in the vessel (3) up to a predetermined height to form a powder bed. It is therefore suggested that the preamble of each claim be amended to recite --A/The device--, and wherein the body of claim 1 further recites --a vessel containing a powder bed--.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “one or more plate pairs attached to the powder bed” (at line 4) is unclear. Since powder is introduced into and discharged from the vessel in use, it is unclear as to how the one or more plate pairs could be “attached to” the powder bed. It is therefore suggested that the limitation be changed to, for instance, --one or more plate pairs installed in the vessel--.
Also, it is unclear as to the further structural limitation intended by, “wherein the one or more plate pairs are configured such that a bulk density corresponding to the powder bed is averaged, an amount of drift corresponding to powder in the powder bed is decreased, and uniform contact between the supplying gas and the powder is increased” (at lines 12-17) because it is unclear as to what “configuration” (structural features) of the one or more plate pairs allows for it to produce the claimed results.
Also, the recitation of “the supplying gas” (at line 17) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is also noted that no structural element(s) for supplying a gas to the powder bed is recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “the static perforated plate” (at line 3), which refers to only one static perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-8) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including… a static perforated plate”, which scope includes one static perforated plate or a plurality of static perforated plates.
Also, the limitation “the static perforated plate is configured to… decrease loading… decrease compaction… and decrease gas passage resistance…” (at lines 5-11) is unclear because, as best understood from the disclosure, the claimed results are achieved by using the static perforated plate and the swinging perforated plate, in combination.
Also, the claim language “decrease loading of the powder weight on a bottom of the powder bed from being concentrated” (at line 5-6) is unclear because it is not in proper grammatic form. It is suggested that the underlined portion of the limitation be deleted.
Regarding claim 3, the relationship between “a horizontal plane” (at line 3) and “a horizontal plane” previously set forth in claim 1 (at line 7) is unclear.
Also, the limitation “a ring inscribed in a long end of the eccentric cam” (at line 6) is unclear. The disclosure (at paragraph [0032]) states, “The long end of the eccentric cam 10 is contacted with the inside of the ring 9, and its rotation pushes the ring 9, then, the swinging perforated plate 5 attached with the ring 9 moves to rotate.” Therefore, it appears that the eccentric cam is inscribed in the ring, wherein a long end of the eccentric cam contacts the inside of the ring.
Also, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plate” (twice, at lines 7 and 10), which refers to only one swinging perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including… a swinging perforated plate”, which scope includes one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the claim recites only one eccentric cam (at line 4) and only one ring (at line 6). However, based on Applicant’s disclosure, an eccentric cam and a ring are required for each respective swinging perforated plate of the one or more plate pairs.
Also, the recitation of “an inner diameter corresponding to the powder bed” (at line 8) is unclear. While a vessel that contains the powder bed will have an inner diameter, the powder bed (the powder material) does not have an inner diameter.
Also, the recitation of “one or more restraining mechanisms attached… on an inner wall of the powder bed” (at line 16) is unclear. While a vessel that contains the powder bed will have an inner wall to which the one or more restraining mechanisms can be attached, the powder bed (powder material) does not have an inner wall.
Also, the recitation of “one or more” restraining mechanisms (at line 15) is considered indefinite because the claim subsequently recites the attachment of the restraining mechanisms “at three or more axisymmetric positions” (at lines 15-16), which would therefore necessitate “three or more” restraining mechanisms.
Also, the relationship between “an annular swing motion” (at lines 18-19) and “a circular swinging motion” set forth in claim 1 (at lines 6-7) is unclear. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the two motions are the same motion.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plate” (at lines 3-4), which refers to only one swinging perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including… a swinging perforated plate”, which scope includes one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the relationship between “a horizontal plane” (at line 4) and “a horizontal plane” previously set forth in claim 1 (at line 7) is unclear.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plate” (twice, at line 7 and 16), which refers to only one swinging perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including… a swinging perforated plate”, which scope includes one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the recitation of “aerated fluidizing gas” (at line 9) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is also unclear as to the relationship between the aerated fluidizing gas and “the supplying gas” set forth in claim 1 (at line 17). The two gases appear to be the same gas.
Also, the recitation of “particles” (twice, at line 10) lacks proper positive antecedent basis, and the relationship between the particles and the “powder” previously set forth in the claims is unclear.
Also, it is unclear as to the structural limitation intended by, “wherein the swinging perforated plate…. Is configured to: equalize… suppress…; and average…” (at lines 8-16) because it is unclear as to what further “configuration” (structural features) of the swinging perforated plate allows for it to produce the claimed results.
Regarding claim 6, the claim language “one or more protrusions provided on both upper and lower surfaces of one or more swinging perforates plates such that an increase in efficiency of transmission of a swinging motion of the one or more swinging perforated plates” (at lines 10-13) is unclear because the limitation is not written in proper grammatical form.
Also, the relationship between “a swinging motion” (at line 12) and “a circular swinging motion” previously set forth in claim 1 (at lines 6-7) is unclear.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear as to the further structural intended by “a height of the powder bed is lowered with respect to a horizontal movement distance of the powder in each stage of the powder bed” (at lines 2-5) because it is unclear as to what further structural feature(s) of the apparatus allow for it to produce the recited result.
Also, the recitation of “each stage” (at lines 4-5) lacks proper positive antecedent basis, and the relationship of “each stage” to the other elements of the apparatus is unclear.
Also, the relationship between “a fluidized bed” (at line 7) and the “powder bed” previously set forth in the claims is unclear. As best understood, the powder bed is the fluidized bed.
Also, the relationship between “a first static perforated plate” (at lines 7-8) and “a second static perforated plate” (at line 11) and “a static perforated plate” of the “one or more plate pairs” set forth in claim 1 (at lines 4-8) is unclear. It is suggested that the claim include the further limitation that --the one or more plate pairs comprises a plurality of plate pairs--.
Also, the relationship between “a swinging perforated plate” (at line 9) and “a swinging perforated plate” of the “one or more plate pairs” previously set forth in claim 1 (at lines 4-6) is unclear. It is also unclear as to which static perforated plate the recited “swinging perforated plate” (at line 9) is to be paired with (e.g., paired with the “first static perforated plate” at a bottom of the fluidized bed? Or paired with another static perforated plate of another plate pair located near the center height of the fluidized bed?).
Also, the recitation of “a strip type vertical plate” (at line 19) is considered indefinite because the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III, E.
Also, the recitation of “one or more protrusions on the upper surface of the swinging perforated plate” (at line 21) lacks proper positive antecedent basis because the claims have not set forth that the swinging perforated plate comprises an upper surface provided with one or more protrusions.
Also, it is unclear as to what is meant by the limitation “restraining the horizontal motion of the powder above the powder bed” (at lines 25-26) because, as best understood, the powder bed is composed of the powder.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plates” (at line 1), which refers to plural swinging perforated plates, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including: a swinging perforated plate”, which scope includes either one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the recitation of “the mechanism” (at line 2), which refers to only one mechanism, is considered indefinite because claim 3 (at line 15) sets forth “one or more restraining mechanisms”, which scope include one or a plurality of restraining mechanisms.
Also, the relationship between the “horizontal annular swing motion” (at line 2) and “a circular swinging motion” set forth in claim 1 (at lines 6-7) is unclear. As best understood, the two motions appear to be the same motion.
Also, the limitation, “the mechanism enabling horizontal annular swing motion is used” is unclear because it is unclear as to what purpose the mechanism is used for (e.g., for holding each swinging perforated plate at the predetermined height?).
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plate” (at line 3), which refers to only one swinging perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including: a swinging perforated plate”, which scope include one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the relationship between “a horizontal plane” (at line 3) and “a horizontal plane” previously set forth in claim 1 (at line 7) is unclear.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plate” (at lines 2-3), which refers to only one swinging perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including: a swinging perforated plate”, which scope include one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the recitation “the inner wall of the powder bed” (at lines 3-4) is unclear. While the vessel that contains the powder bed will have an inner wall, the powder bed (powder material) does not have an inner wall.
Also, the claim language “further comprising a supporting mechanism including a hole with a diameter of swinging motion provided in the swinging perforated plate is passed through a vertical pin on the supporting mechanism protruding from the inner wall of the powder bed” is unclear because the limitation is written as a run-on sentence and it is not in proper grammatic form.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plate” (twice, at lines 1 and 8), which refers to only one swinging perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including: a swinging perforated plate”, which scope include one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the relationship between “an aerated fluidizing gas” (at line 3) and the “supplying gas” set forth in claim 1 (at line 17) is unclear. It appears that the two gases are the same gas.
Also, the recitation of “particles” (at line 4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis, and its relationship with the “powder” that forms the “powder bed” is unclear.
Also, it is unclear as to the structural limitation intended by, “wherein the swinging perforated plate…. Is configured to: equalize… suppress…; and average…” (at lines 3-8) because it is unclear as to what further “configuration” (structural features) of the swinging perforated plate allows for it to produce the recited results.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “the swinging perforated plate” (twice, at lines 1 and 8), which refers to only one swinging perforated plate, is considered indefinite because claim 1 (at lines 4-6) sets forth “one or more plate pairs… each of the one or more plate pairs including: a swinging perforated plate”, which scope include one swinging perforated plate or a plurality of swinging perforated plates.
Also, the relationship between “an aerated fluidizing gas” (at line 3) and the “supplying gas” previously set forth in claim 1 (at line 17) is unclear. As best understood, the two gases are the same gas.
Also, the recitation of “particles” (at line 4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis, and its relationship with the “powder” that forms the “powder bed” is unclear.
Also, it is unclear as to the structural limitation intended by, “wherein the swinging perforated plate…. Is configured to: equalize… suppress…; and average…” (at lines 3-8) because it is unclear as to what further “configuration” (structural feature(s)) of the swinging perforated plate allows for it to produce the recited results.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (SU 1214245 A1) in view of Paterson et al. (US 1,848,141) and Beber et al. (US 2,856,273).
Regarding claim 1, Levin et al. discloses a device (see FIG. 1-3; translation) comprising:
a vessel (i.e., a working tank 1) containing a powder bed (i.e., a fluidized bed of polymeric powder 2);
one or more plate pairs (i.e., one plate pair) installed in the vessel (1), wherein each of the one or more plate pairs includes:
a swinging grid (6) configured to move in a swinging motion (see arrows) relative to a horizontal plane (i.e., the grid 6 oscillates on springs 8 in the horizontal plane due to the vibrations transmitted by a node 9 via a rod 12 to the grid 6); and
a static porous partition (3) being fixed at a constant interval relative to (i.e., parallel to and spaced below) the swinging grid (6) in the vertical direction; and
a chamber (4) disposed below the powder bed for supplying a gas (i.e., compressed air) to the powder bed (2).
The plate pair (6)(3) is deemed to be “configured such that a bulk density corresponding to the powder bed is averaged, an amount of drift corresponding to powder in the powder bed is decreased, and uniform contact between the supplying gas and the powder is increased” because the horizontal swinging motion of the swinging grid (6) would be able to impart a shear stress in the horizontal direction to the powder of the powder bed (2) that is located between the swinging grid (6) and the static porous partition (3), and accordingly, as best understood, the claimed result of an averaged bulk density of the powder bed (2), a decrease in the amount of drift of the powder bed (2), and an increase in uniform contact between the supplying gas (i.e., the air supplied to the bottom of the fluidized bed 2 via the chamber 4) and the powder of the powder bed (2) can be attained. The attainment of the claimed result is further suggested by Levin et al. (see translation at page 2), which states,
“Air-powder mixture, passing through the vibrating mesh, moves, resulting in a mixture of powder with air of uniform consistency. With its plates, the vibrating net breaks up large air inclusions and denser areas of the air-powder mixture; it somehow sifts this mixture before it enters the sprayed area.
The oscillations of the mesh in the zone in which the polymer coating is deposited provide a steady and uniform boiling of the powder. In addition, the vibrating mesh does not change the movement of the ascending air flow, it only mixes it efficiently, therefore the air-powder mixture does not shift to the side. The creation of a uniform fluidized bed in the deposition zone contributes to uniform coating in the grooves of the magnetic cores.” (with emphasis added).
Levin et al. discloses that the swinging grid (6) is configured to move in a swinging motion relative to the horizontal plane (i.e., horizontally, forward and backward), but does not specifically disclose a “circular swinging motion” relative to the horizontal plane.
Paterson et al. discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 1-3) comprising a swinging screen (i.e., a screen pan 2 comprising a suitable wire mesh 5) configured to move in a “circular swinging motion” relative to a horizontal plane (i.e., vibratory movement is imparted to the screen pan 2 by means of a motor 36 via an attached crank arm 29, wherein an eccentric connection between a bevel gear 32 and the crank arm 29 gives a forward and backward movement as well as a sidewise movement in a rotary path to the screen pan 2, so that there is a substantially universal movement of the screen pan 2; see page 2, lines 40-53).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the swinging grid (6) to move in a “circular swinging motion” relative to the horizontal plane in the device of Levin et al. because the circular swinging motion (i.e., including forward and backward movement, as well as a sidewise movement in a rotary path) would prevent the formation of eddies either in the center of the swinging grid or around the periphery thereof, as taught by Paterson et al.
Levin et al. also fails to disclose that the swinging grid (6) and the static porous partition (3) comprise “perforated plates”.
Beber et al. discloses a device (i.e., a gas-solids contacting apparatus; see FIG. 7-8; column 5, line 70, to column 6, line 14) comprising: a vessel for containing a bed of solids (i.e., a fluidized bed of solid material); and a support (70,80) installed in the vessel; wherein a horizontal motion can be imparted to the support (70,80) by means of a rod (72,81) connected a vibrating mechanism (83). Specifically, Beber et al. discloses that the support (70,80) can comprise “any form of perforated member” adapted to support the solid material and allow the passage of a gas therethrough, including a perforated plate, a porous plate, a grid, etc. (see, e.g., column 3, lines 71-74; column 6, line 19)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further substitute a perforated plate for each of the grid (6) and the porous partition (3) in the modified device of Levin et al. because a perforated plate would have been considered a structural equivalent to a grid or a porous partition plate by one of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Beber et al., and the substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I, B.
Regarding claim 2, Levin et al. discloses that the static porous partition (3) is configured to support the powder (2) weight thereon. Also, as best understood, the plate pair (6)(3) is further configured to decrease the loading of the powder weight on a bottom of the powder bed (2), decrease compaction of the powder at the bottom of the powder bed (2), and decrease gas passage resistance due to the compaction of the powder (i.e., since a portion of the powder weight is supported above the bottom of the powder bed 2 by the grid 6). As modified by the teachings of Beber et al., in claim 1 above, the swinging grid (6) and the static porous portion (3) in the modified device of Levin et al. are perforated plates.
Regarding claim 5, Levin et al. discloses that the swinging grid (6) is swung in a horizontal direction (see arrows; FIG. 1), so that a shear stress in the horizontal direction can be imparted to the powder of the powder bed (2) located between the swinging grid (6) and the static porous partition (3). As modified by the teachings of Beber et al., in claim 1 above, the swinging grid (6) and the static porous portion (3) in the modified device of Levin et al. are perforated plates. Therefore, as best understood, the swinging perforated plate (6) is configured to (able to) equalize a flow velocity of aerated fluidizing gas (i.e., the air supplied from the chamber 4) to a minimum fluidizing velocity of particles or lower than the minimum fluidizing velocity of the particles, such that the powder becomes stationary; suppress back mixing of the powder bed (2), and average the bulk density such that a first plug flow property corresponding to the powder bed (2) is improved as compared to a second plug flow property of a powder bed that does not include the swinging perforated plate (due to the shear stress in the horizontal direction being imparted to the powder bed by the swinging perforate plate).
Regarding claim 6, Levin et al. further discloses a gas distribution plate (i.e., the porous partition 3) at a bottom of the powder bed (2) being used as one of the static plates; and one or more protrusions (i.e., longitudinal plates 7) provided on an upper surface of the swinging grid (6) to increase the efficiency of transmission of the swinging motion of the swinging grid (6) (i.e. the longitudinal plates 7 help to further break up large air inclusions and denser areas of the air-powder mixture; see translation at page 2, third paragraph). As modified by the teachings of Beber et al., in claim 1 above, the swinging grid (6) and the static porous portion (3) in the modified device of Levin et al. are perforated plates. Thus, the one or more protrusions (7) would be provided on the upper surface of the swinging perforated plate (6).
Levin et al. fails to disclose that the one or more protrusions (7) are also provided on a lower surface of the swinging perforated plate (6).
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also provide the one or more protrusions (7) on the lower surface of the swinging perforate plate in the modified device of Levin et al. because the duplication of parts to produce a multiplied effect (in this case, the predictable effect of additionally breaking up large air inclusions and denser areas of the air-powder mixture located below the swinging grid 6) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or adequately suggest a device that further comprises the claimed mechanism for imparting the circular swinging motion to each swinging perforated plate of the one or more plate pairs, wherein the mechanism includes: a vertical rotating shaft, a ring attached to each swinging perforated plate, an eccentric cam inscribed in each ring and rotated by the vertical rotating shaft, and three or more restraining mechanisms attached to three or more axisymmetric positions on an inner wall of the vessel, the restraining mechanisms being configured to convert a rotating motion of each eccentric cam into the circular swinging motion within a predetermined range (see claim 3).
The prior art also fails to disclose or adequately suggest a device that further comprises: a first static perforated plate as a dispersion plate at a bottom of the powder bed; a swinging perforated plate near the center height of the powder bed, wherein the swinging perforated plate comprises one or more protrusions provided on its upper surface; a second static perforated plate near an upper surface of the powder bed; and an upper dispersion plate having a vertical flat plate or a strip vertical plate attached to a lower surface thereof, wherein the vertical flat plate or the strip vertical plate extends into the powder bed, but does not come into contact with the one or more protrusions on the upper surface of the swinging perforated plate (see claim 7).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Glatt (US 4,323,312), Fenske (US 2,635,949), Helwig (US 2,740,698), Heytmeijer (US 3,264,098), and Spars (US 4,456,504) are cited to further illustrate the state of the art.
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