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(b)
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 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites:
6. The process gas treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the process gas dehumidifying device has a preheating unit, designed as a device component, having a preheating unit inlet and a preheating unit outlet, which preheating unit is arranged upstream of a condensation dehumidifying unit and/or of an adsorption dehumidifying unit. Emphasis added.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “condensation dehumidifying unit” and the “adsorption dehumidifying unit” are intended to be part of the “dehumidifying device” of claim 1. To overcome this rejection, claim 6 could be rewritten as:
6. The process gas treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the process gas dehumidifying device has a preheating unit, designed as a device component, having a preheating unit inlet and a preheating unit outlet, which preheating unit is arranged upstream of a condensation dehumidifying unit and/or of an adsorption dehumidifying unit of the process gas dehumidifying device.
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.
Claims 1, 3–6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1 in view of Pendzich et al., US 2012/0067205 A1 and in further view of Wedge et al., US 2003/0209141 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Reineccius teaches an apparatus 10 comprising a treatment containment housing 18 that receives compressed air (via conduit 102), with the container 18 being a drum coater (because it has a drum-like structure and is used to coat seeds with liquid). See Reineccius Fig. 1B, [0036]–[0038]. The apparatus 10 reads on the “process gas treatment device for a process gas for the treatment of a process material in the process apparatus.”
The apparatus 10 comprises a “process gas inlet” (the inlet of the compressed air line) and a “process gas outlet” (the outlet of the compressed air line) fluidly connected to the apparatus 10. See Reineccius [0038]. The process gas flows on the compressed air line (the “treatment section”) extending from the process gas inlet to the process gas outlet. Id.
The compressed air is dehumidified before it enters the container 18. See Reineccius [0038].
The apparatus 10 also comprises a device for measuring the humidity of the air supplied by the compressed air line that communicates with control panel 22. See Reineccius Fig. 1B, [0038]. The device for measuring the humidity reads on the “first measuring device having a relative humidity sensor for measuring the relative humidity of the process gas.” The device for measuring the humidity is downstream of the source of compressed air because the device for measuring humidity measuring the relative humidity of the incoming air entering the container 18. Id. The control panel 22 reads on the “control device.”
The apparatus 10 comprises the treatment container 18, which is a “drum coater,” as claimed, because the container 18 has a drum-like structure and is used to coat seeds with liquid. See Reineccius Fig. 1B, [0038]. The container 18 is arranged downstream of the dehumidifier. Id. The container 18 is configured for receiving dehumidified compressed air through the outlet of the compressed air line. Id. at [0036]–[0038].
PNG
media_image1.png
837
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reineccius differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the apparatus 10 comprising a process gas dehumidifying device and a process gas tempering device with the claimed configuration.
But, as noted, the compressed air is dehumidified before it enters the container 18. See Reineccius [0038]
With this in mind, Pendzich teaches a system for purifying compressed air comprising an air compressor 2 that feeds compressed air into a pressure line 3 with a pair of coolers 19, 20 located in series on the pressure line 3 (with a filter 10 in between). See Pendzich Fig. 2, [0024], [0031]. The cooler 19 is for cooling the compressed air so that it is to a temperature where oil condenses while the cooler 20 is for cooling the air to a temperature where water condenses. Id. at [0031]. Also, Wedge teaches an air drying apparatus for purifying compressed air comprising a coalescing pre-filter 32 located upstream from a membrane filter 36, with the membrane filter 36 being used to remove water from the compressed air. See Wedge Fig. 1A, [0040]–[0041]. The pre-filter 32 is configured to remove contaminants such as solid particulates and oil and water droplets, and is beneficial to remove a portion of these contaminants before the compressed air moves downstream. Id. at [0040]. It would have been obvious to provide the pre-filter 32 of Wedge upstream of the cooler 19 of Pendzich to remove contaminants such as solid particulates and oil and water droplets before the compressed air moves downstream to the coolers 19, 20. The system of Pendzich is beneficial because it is able to remove oil and water from the compressed air before it is sent downstream.
PNG
media_image2.png
628
858
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the compressed air purification system of Pendzich (modified to include the pre-filter 36 of Wedge upstream of the cooler 19) on the compressed air line of Reineccius to remove contaminants before the compressed air enters the container 18.
With this modification, the pre-filter 36 of Wedge reads on the “process gas dehumidifying device, designed as a device component, in flow direction of the process gas.” The coolers 19, 20 and filter 10 of Pendzich collectively read on the “process gas tempering device, designed as a device component, arranged downstream of the process gas dehumidifying device.”
The inlet and outlet of the pre-filter 36 read on the “dehumidifying device inlet” and the “dehumidifying device outlet,” respectively. The area of pressure line 3 of Pendzich upstream of the cooler 19 reads on the “tempering device inlet” and the area of the pressure line 3 downstream of the cooler 20 reads on the “tempering device outlet.” See Pendzich Fig. 2, [0031].
The cooler 19 reads on the “tempering unit, designed as a device component, for the process gas.” The inlet of the cooler 19 reads on the “tempering unit inlet” and the outlet of the cooler 19 reads on the “tempering unit outlet.” See Pendzich Fig. 2, [0031]. The cooler 20 reads on the “cooling unit, designed as a device component, for the process gas.” The inlet of the cooler 20 reads on the “cooling unit inlet” and the outlet of the cooler 20 reads on the “cooling unit outlet.” The cooler 19 has a bypass (where check valve 21 is located), which reads on the “bypass unit, designed as a device component, connected in parallel to the tempering unit.” Id. at Fig. 2, [0031]. The inlet of the bypass reads on the “bypass inlet” and the outlet of the bypass reads on the “bypass outlet.” The check valve 21 reads on the “valve arrangement, designed as a device component, is arranged on the bypass unit for optional throughflow of the tempering unit (cooler 19) or the bypass unit.” Id. The cooler 20 is a “constituent of the bypass unit,” as claimed, because air can pass through the bypass of the cooler 19 and into the cooler 20, as seen in Fig. 2
Regarding claim 3, Reineccius as modified teaches that the apparatus 10 (the “process gas treatment device”) further comprises a “process gas conveying device designed as a device component,” which is the air compressor 2 of Pendzich. See Reineccius [0038]; Pendzich Figs. 1, 2, [0024].
Regarding claim 4, Reineccius as modified teaches that the pre-filter 32 of Wedge (the “process gas dehumidifying device”) comprises a “condensation dehumidifying unit, designed as a device component” because water could condense on the pre-filter 32 depending on the moisture content in the air and the temperature of the air. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function). The inlet and outlet of the pre-filter 32 read on the “condensation dehumidifying unit inlet” and the “condensation dehumidifying unit outlet,” respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of this claim of—“the adsorption dehumidifying unit is designed as a drying wheel”—are optional because the device of claim 4 does not require that it comprises the “adsorption dehumidifying unit” and claim 5 fails to specify that the device comprises the “adsorption dehumidifying unit.”
Regarding claim 6, Reineccius as modified teaches that the apparatus 10 comprises the compressor 2 of Pendzich, which is located upstream of the pre-filter 32 of Wedge. See Pendzich Fig. 1, [0024]. The compressor 2 reads on the “preheating unit, designed as a device component,” because the compressor 2 heats air as part of the compression process. The inlet of the compressor 2 reads on the “preheating unit inlet” and the outlet of the compressor 2 reads on the “preheating unit outlet.” The pre-filter 36 reads on the “condensation dehumidifying unit” because water could condense on the pre-filter 32 depending on the moisture content in the air and the temperature of the air. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 8, Reineccius teaches that the apparatus 10 comprises a sensor for measuring the temperature of the compressed air entering the container 18. See Reineccius [0038]. This reads on “the first measuring device comprises a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the process gas.”
Regarding claim 10, Reineccius as modified teaches that the apparatus 10 comprises a section of the pressure line 3 of Pendzich between the pre-filter 32 of Wedge (the “process gas dehumidifying device”) and the cooler 19 of Pendzich (the “process gas tempering device”). See Pendzich Fig. 2, [0024]. This section of the pressure line 3 reads on the “process gas conveying device.”
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1 in view of Pendzich et al., US 2012/0067205 A1 in view of Wedge et al., US 2003/0209141 A1 and in further view of Alvey et al., US 2019/0145638 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Reineccius as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Reineccius as modified differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the first measuring device being arranged upstream of the cooler 19 of Pendzich (the “gas tempering device”).
But Alvey teaches an air stream water recovery device comprising a cooling interface 50 with a humidity sensor upstream of the interface 50 for measuring the humidity of air entering the cooling interface 50 and a humidity sensor downstream of the interface 50 for measuring the humidity of air exiting the interface 50. See Alvey Fig. 1, [0048]. The humidity sensors are beneficial because they can be used to calculate the efficiency of the cooling interface 50. Id.
It would have been obvious to provide humidity sensors upstream and downstream of the cooler 19 to measure the efficiency of the cooler 19. With this modification, the upstream humidity sensor reads on the “first measuring device is arranged upstream of the process gas tempering device.”
Regarding claim 11, Reineccius as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Reineccius as modified differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to a second measuring device, having a relative humidity sensor for measuring the relative humidity of the process gas, is arranged upstream of the pre-filter 32 of Wedge (the “process gas dehumidifying device”).
But Alvey teaches an air stream water recovery device comprising an interface 50 for removing water from the air stream with a humidity sensor upstream of the interface 50 for measuring the humidity of air entering the interface 50 and a humidity sensor downstream of the interface 50 for measuring the humidity of air exiting the interface 50. See Alvey Fig. 1, [0048]. The humidity sensors are beneficial because they can be used to calculate the efficiency of the interface 50. Id.
It would have been obvious to provide humidity sensors upstream and downstream of the pre-filter 32 of Wedge (which is used to remove water droplets from air) to measure the efficiency of the pre-filter 32. With this modification, the upstream humidity sensor reads on the “second measuring device, having a relative humidity sensor for measuring the relative humidity of the process gas, is arranged upstream of the process gas dehumidifying device.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1 in view of Pendzich et al., US 2012/0067205 A1 in view of Wedge et al., US 2003/0209141 A1 and in further view of Sugiyama, US 2021/0291109 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Reineccius as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Reineccius differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the cooler 19 (the “tempering unit”) being a heating device.
But Sugiyama teaches a moisture remover 33 that cools a gas to remove moisture, where the moisture remover 33 is a heating device because the moisture remover 33 heats coolant circulated through the moisture remover 33. See Sugiyama Fig. 1, [0026]–[0029].
It would have been obvious for the cooler 19 of Reineccius to utilize the coolant system of Sugiyama because this is a conventional mechanism for removing heat from a gas. With this modification, the cooler 19 reads on the claimed “heating device, designed as a device component” because the cooler 19 heats the coolant to remove heat from the air stream passing through the cooler. The inlet for the coolant reads on the “heating device inlet” and the outlet for the coolant reads on the “heating device outlet.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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 12 is allowable over Reineccius in view of Pendzich and Wedge because the prior art combination fails to teach the apparatus 10 further comprises a humidifying device arranged downstream of the pre-filter 32 of Wedge (the “process gas dehumidifying device”) and upstream of the cooler 19 of Pendzich (the “process gas tempering device”). It would not have been obvious to provide a humidifying device between the pre-filter 32 and cooler 19 because the pre-filter 32, cooler 19 and cooler 20 are provided in series to remove liquid (oil and water) from the compressed gas, with there being no rationale for adding humidity to the compressed air.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Application No. 18/690,478
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/690,478 in view of Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, claim 18 of the ’478 application teaches all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3, 7 and 10 except that it is silent as to the process gas preparation device comprising a relative humidify sensor for measuring the relative humidity of the process gas downstream of the dehumidifying device and with a control device a process apparatus designed as a fluidized bed apparatus, spouted bed apparatus or a drum coater arranged downstream of the process gas tempering device and configured to receive the process gas through the process gas outlet. But the process gas preparation device of claim 18 is for a process gas to treat a process material, and comprises a dehumidifier. Also, Reineccius teaches an apparatus 10 comprising a container 18 (a drum coater) for coating seeds, where the container 18 receives dehumidified air and comprises a relative humidity sensor downstream of the dehumidifier with the relative humidity sensor communicating with a control panel 22. See Reineccius Fig. 1B, [0038]. It would have been obvious for the process gas preparation device of claim 18 to supply dehumidified gas to the container 18 of Reineccius because Reineccius requires some source of dehumidified air, and the process gas preparation device of claim 18 is suitable for this purpose.
Claims 4 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/690,478 in view of Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claims 4 and 5, claims 18 and 5 of the ’478 application in view of Reineccius teach the limitations of claims 4 and 5 (not that the BRI of claim 5 is that the adsorption dehumidifying unit is optional). Note that it would have been obvious to modify claim 18 to include the features of claim 5 because this would merely represent combing embodiments.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/690,478 in view of Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 6, claims 18 and 9 of the ’478 application in view of Reineccius teach the limitations of claim 6. Note that it would have been obvious to modify claim 18 to include the features of claim 9 because this would merely represent combing embodiments.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/690,478 in view of Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 8, claims 18 and 13 of the ’478 application in view of Reineccius teach the limitations of claim 8. Note that it would have been obvious to modify claim 18 to include the features of claim 13 because this would merely represent combing embodiments.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/690,478 in view of Reineccius et al., US 2013/0273236 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 9, claims 18 and 15 of the ’478 application in view of Reineccius teach the limitations of claim 9. Note that it would have been obvious to modify claim 18 to include the features of claim 15 because this would merely represent combing embodiments.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776