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
The proposed amendments filed 01/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, and 18-25 are currently pending. Claims 20-25 are newly added. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previous set forth.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 11 recites: “at least one heating means used for heating the evacuable volume”
Prong 1: the term “means” is present in the above limitation
Prong 2: the term “means” is modified with functional language to be “means for”
Prong 3: there is not sufficient structure provided by the claim to clarify what a heating means for heating would constitute
Interpretation: A review of the specification has not provided any further description to assist the Examiner in interpreting what constitutes heating means. The Examiner will broadly interpret the term heating means as a generic heater.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a calibration of the sensor by means of a test medium” in claim 3; “by means of the pump arrangement” in claim 15; “by means of suction fluid flow” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The use of “at least one heating means used to heat the evacuable volume” (as interpreted above by 112f) does not have adequate written description to provide one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected for being dependent from an unsupported and rejected claim.
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 11-16 and 18 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.
Claim 11 recites “at least one heating means used to heat the evacuable volume” where the term heating means for heating is unclear to the Examiner as to what is meant by the Applicant. A review of the specification was conducted when reading the claims in light of 112(f) and the specification filed does not provide any further clarifying language to the limitation above. For examination purposes, the limitation “at least one heating means used to heat the evacuable volume” will rea don any possible heating device.
Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites “the pump arrangement comprises a positive-displacement pump, a stage ejector pump, and/or a side-channel compressor” where this listing of vacuum pumps are previously listed in claim 11 from which claim 12 and then claim 13 depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 14 is rejected for being dependent from an unclear claim.
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.
Claims 11, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0024162 (Maguire hereinafter) in view of US 9278391 (Baer hereinafter) and further in view of US 2019/0046924 (Rheaume hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Maguire teaches a granular drying system that discloses a material to be dried being contained in an evacuable volume (Figure 20 with chambers 210/212 per ¶ 167-174), the evacuable volume being fluidically connected to a vacuum pump arrangement (Vacuum pump 208), and the vacuum pump arrangement being fluidically connected on the inlet side to the evacuable volume and on the outlet side to the surroundings of the evacuable volume (Evident of Figure 20), and at least one heating means used to heat the evacuable volume (Figure 20, heaters 214 and 216).
Maguire is silent with respect to a metal powder or a metal powder blend.
However, Baer teaches the drying of metallic powders (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 48-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capable target material of Maguire with the metallic powder of Baer to allow for more applications and usages of Maguire.
Maguire silent with respect to the pump arrangement comprises a single-stage or a multiple-stage ejector pump for vacuum conveying.
However, Rheaume teaches a vacuum system that discloses the use of a single-stage or a multiple-stage ejector pump (¶ 26). The resultant combination would allow for the ejector of Rheaume to provide the necessary vacuum for the vacuum conveying of Maguire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unspecified vacuum pump of Maguire with the ejector pump of Rheaume to ensure that the vacuum chamber is at the required pressure levels.
Regarding claim 15, Maguire’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 where the combination of Maguire, Rheaume, and Baer further discloses that a suction fluid flow can be created in the evacuable volume by means of the pump arrangement (Suction drawn by the pumps of Maguire/Rheaume), with the result that the powdered and/or granular material can be conveyed into the evacuable volume through a volume inlet by means of suction fluid flow (Evident from Figure 20 of Maguire) and conveyed out of the evacuable volume through a volume outlet (Evident from Maguire Figure 20).
Regarding claim 16, Maguire’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 where the combination of Maguire, Rheaume, and Baer further discloses at least one blocking device which is arranged between the pump arrangement and the evacuable volume (206 of Maguire).
Regarding claim 18, Maguire’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 where the combination of Maguire, Rheaume, and Baer further discloses a vacuum conveyor for conveying the metal powder or the metal powder blend, wherein the vacuum conveyor comprises a device for drying the metal powder or the metal powder blend as claim in claim 11 (Please refer back to the rejection of claim 11).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0024162 (Maguire) in view of US 9278391 (Baer) in view of US 2019/0046924 (Rheaume) and further in view of US 2005/0102851 (He hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Maguire’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 but are silent with respect that the vacuum pump arrangement on the outlet side comprises a sensor for recording a moisture in a fluid pumped out of the evacuable volume, the sensor being used to record a residual moisture in the metal powder or the metallic powder blend as a function of the moisture in the fluid that is pumped out.
However, He discloses a method of drying material that discloses the use of a sensor to detect a moisture of the pumped material (Figure 1 with humidity sensor 350 per ¶ 20). The resultant combination would disclose that the vacuum pump arrangement on the outlet side comprises a sensor for recording a moisture in a fluid pumped out of the evacuable volume, the sensor being used to record a residual moisture in the metal powder or the metallic powder blend as a function of the moisture in the fluid that is pumped out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying system of Maguire with the humidity sensor of He to ensure that the pumped fluid is at the correct dryness level.
Regarding claim 13, Maguire’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Maguire, Baer, Rheaume, and He would further disclose that the pump arrangement comprises a single-stage or a multiple-stage ejector pump (¶ 26 of Rheaume).
Regarding claim 14, Maguire’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 where the combination of Maguire, Baer, Rheaume, and He but are silent with respect that the sensor is arranged on the outlet side of the positive-displacement pump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change the location of the sensor to at an outlet side of the positive-displacement pump, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-15 and 18 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, and 19-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein the vacuum pump arrangement on the outlet side comprises a sensor for recording a moisture in a fluid pumped out of the evacuable volume, the sensor used to record a residual moisture in the powdered and/or granular material as a function of the moisture in the fluid that is pumped out: and wherein, for the determination of the residual moisture in the powdered and/or granular material, the sensor signal and the change in the sensor signal over time are taken into account.” A further modification to the prior rejection of record would require excessive modifications to recreate the claim structure as set forth by the Applicant. For at least this reason, independent claim 1 and claims 3-8, 10, and 19 are found to be allowable over the prior art.
Claim 20 has been newly added and requires “a. providing an evacuable device having a material inlet; b. providing a vacuum pump arrangement that is connected to said evacuable device; said vacuum pump arrangement is configured to both convey said powdered and/or granular material to said evacuable device and to remove fluid from said evacuable device; said evacuable pump arrangement includes first and second pumps; said first pump is a different type of pump from said second pump; c. providing a moisture sensor to measure moisture in said fluid that is removed from said evacuable device; d. conveying said powdered and/or granular material into said inlet of said evacuable device using said vacuum pump arrangement by said first pump; and e. drawing fluid out of said evacuable device using said vacuum pump arrangement by said second pump so as to dry said powdered and/or granular material while in said evacuable device; and wherein said vacuum pump arrangement does not remove fluid said evacuable device while said first pump is causing said powdered and/or granular material to be conveyed into said evacuable device; and wherein said vacuum pump arrangement does not cause said powdered and/or granular material to be conveyed into said evacuable device by said first pump while said second pump is causing fluid to be removed from said evacuable device; and wherein said sensor is configured to record said moisture in said fluid and to record a residual moisture in said powdered and/or granular material as a function of said moisture in said fluid that is removed from said evacuable device.” The Applicant has claimed in specific detail a method for drying that would require a plurality of references reliant on modifying already modifying references and therefore would be improper. The Examiner is of the point of view that the claim is non-obvious and therefore independent claim 20 and dependent claims 21 and 22 are found to be allowable over the prior art.
Claim 23 has been newly added and requires “a. an evacuable device that includes a material inlet; said evacuable device configured to hold said powdered and/or granular material while said powdered and/or granular material is dried in said evacuable device; b. a vacuum pump arrangement that is connected to said evacuable device; said vacuum pump arrangement is configured to both convey said powdered and/or granular material to said evacuable device and to remove fluid from said evacuable device; said evacuable pump arrangement includes first and second pumps; said first pump is a different type of pump from said second pump; c. a moisture sensor that is configured to measure moisture in said fluid that is removed from said evacuable device; and wherein said vacuum pump arrangement is configured to convey said powdered and/or granular material into said inlet of said evacuable device using said first pump; and wherein said fluid is removed from said evacuable device using said second pump of said vacuum pump arrangement so as to dry said powdered and/or granular material while in said evacuable device; and wherein said vacuum pump arrangement is configured to not remove fluid said evacuable device while said first pump is causing said powdered and/or granular material to be conveyed into said evacuable device; and wherein said vacuum pump arrangement is configured to not cause said powdered and/or granular material to be conveyed into said evacuable device by said first pump while said second pump is causing fluid to be removed from said evacuable device; and wherein said sensor is configured to record said moisture in said fluid and to record a residual moisture in said powdered and/or granular material as a function of said moisture in said fluid that is removed from said evacuable device.” The Applicant has claimed in specific detail a device for drying that would require a plurality of references reliant on modifying already modifying references and therefore would be improper. The Examiner is of the point of view that the claim is non-obvious and therefore independent claim 23 and dependent claims 24 and 25 are found to be allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762