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 without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to. It is suggested that “a third conditioning member” be amended to “a second conditioning member” since the claim depends on claim 1 which does not have a second conditioning member.
Claim 10 is objected to. It is suggested that “a third conditioning member” be amended to “a second conditioning member” since the claim depends on claim 1 which does not have a second conditioning member.
Claim 11 is objected to. It is suggested that “a fourth conditioning member” be amended to “a second conditioning member” since the claim depends on claim 1 which does not have a second conditioning member.
Claim 12 is objected to. It is suggested that “the fourth conditioning member” be amended to “a second conditioning member” since the claim depends on claim 1 which does not have a second conditioning member.
Claim 13 is objected to. It is suggested that “the fourth conditioning member” be amended to “a second conditioning member” since the claim depends on claim 1 which does not have a second conditioning member.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim has multiple and/or limitations that require previous elements of previous and/or limitations. For example, “and/or a heating unit of the flow arranged downstream of the drying unit” appears to require the drying unit from the previous limitation while simultaneously using and and/or which suggests the drying unit is not required. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the supply line” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since they both depend on claim 3, and do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama (JP2012091159A cited in the IDS mailed 11/23/2022, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama (JP2012091159A cited in the IDS mailed 11/23/2022, a machine translation is provided) an apparatus for conditioning of granules, powders and/or liquids, (figures 1 and 6, the material being worked upon is considered intended use) wherein it comprises: a hopper for containing granules, powders and/or liquids, equipped, on an external surface thereof (item 1 the material being worked upon is considered intended use), with at least one manifold defining a respective duct in fluid communication with the inside of said hopper (item 22 is considered reading on a manifold defining a duct), at least one blower member associated with said duct for delivering a flow of mixing gas of the granules, powders, and/or liquids inside the hopper (item 14 sub nozzle is considered reading on a blower), and a first member for conditioning the flow of mixing gas arranged upstream of said blower member to regulate at least the pressure and/or humidity and/or temperature values and/or to supply the flow with an additive in a liquid or gaseous or vaporous form (filter backwash pipe items 9, pipe 25 and pipe 27 are considered reading on a first member is considered capable of regulating pressure and supplying flow from the slurry storage tank).
Regarding claim 2, Sugiyama teaches wherein the first conditioning member comprises a supply line (line item 27) which connects a supply source of pressurized flow (item 27 is connected to a pump) to said blow member (item 27 connects item 14 to the pump downstream of item 27), said first conditioning member further comprising a drying unit of the flow arranged downstream of the supply source (page 4 second paragraph teaches a drying treatment via air supply passages 19 and 20, which are downstream of pump with arrow at the end of item 27).
Regarding claim 3, Sugiyama teaches wherein said blower member comprises: a hollow element internally defining a duct (item 25 is hollow to allow for fluid flow), extending between an inlet section and an outlet section for the passage of the gas flow between said sections (item 25 has an inlet proximate it’s lower most portion and an outlet proximate item 9), wherein said inlet section can be connected to said supply line (item 25 bottom most portion is in fluidly connected to line 27, via item 1) and said outlet section can be connected to the hopper manifold (item 9 is in fluidly connected with item 22 via item 25), a shutter arranged for a controlled interruption of said gas flow through said outlet section (the valve on item 25 proximate item 9 is considered comprising a shutter in order to allow for control the flow of material into item 1); an actuator associated with the shutter and configured to adjust the position of said shutter corresponding with the width of the outlet section (valve on item 25 is considered inherently having an actuator in order to control the flow of material).
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 6, 9, 10, and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP2012091159A cited in IDS 11/23/2022, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 6, Sugiyama is silent to a second member for conditioning the flow of mixing gas engaged to said blower member for injecting an additive in a liquid or gaseous or vaporous form inside the blower member itself. Regarding claim 6, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of members in the apparatus in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9, Sugiyama is silent to the third member for condoning the environment inside the hopper associated with the hopper itself to adjust at least the temperature values and/or to supply an additive in an atomized liquid form or in a gaseous or vaporous form inside the hopper. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of members in the apparatus in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Sugiyama teaches a member for heating and/or cooling associated with the hopper for adjusting temperature inside the hopper itself (page 4 last paragraph teaches an electric heater). Regarding claim 10, Sugiyama is silent to the member being a third member. Regarding claim 10, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of members in the apparatus in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, Sugiyama teaches a member for conditioning the environment inside the hopper to adjust the pressure values inside the hopper itself (see pump on line 27). Regarding claim 11, Sugiyama is silent to the member being a fourth member. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of members in the apparatus in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP2012091159A, a machine translation is provided) in view of Bylsma (U.S. Patent 3,496,881).
Sugiyama is silent to the language of claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, Bylsma teaches wherein the shutter has a shape of a plunger (item 28) with a frusto-conical head portion (see figure 6 frusto-conical shape proximate items 36 and 37) and a stem extending from said head portion towards the actuator (item 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Sugiyama with the shape of Bylsma in order to obtain the desired flow rate of material being mixed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 12-13 are 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 (and the above claim objections).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the second conditioning member having a nozzle and auxiliary duct.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the two duct configuration, each duct having a valve.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if the above 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection is overcome and includes all the preceding claim language. Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the hollow element comprising the monolithic block having the lateral supply duct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774