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 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 29 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. Newly added claim 29 states that the heating arrangement softens the substances separated by the cooling arrangement without heating the substances to a point of liquefication. The specification does not state this and instead refers to partial liquefication and softening. Therefore this is considered to be new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 13-15, 19, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP370 (JPS5310370A, attached translation will be referenced).
Claim 5: JP370 teaches a device for the purification of gases (The limitation of “from the degassing of polymer melts, wherein the gas to be purified is fed from a vacuum zone of a plasticizing unit to the device by at least one vacuum or degassing line” is intended usage. There must be a line to send the gas to this invention therefore any kind of line sending the gas, such as a degassing line, is read upon by the prior art.), the device comprising: a vacuum separator (The device of figures 1-3. Page 2 teaches that there is a vacuum pump attached to the device.), which has a housing having a gas inlet for the gas to be purified and a gas outlet (Tube 2 is the housing. Gas inlet is 5 and gas outlet is 6, taught in the bottom of page 4.), a cooling arrangement configured to separate condensible, separable by freezing, and/or re-sublimable substances from the supplied gas to be purified (Examiner notes that the translation states the cooling pipe is 6, but it should be reference 3 as 6 is the outlet. Page 2 teaches that there is a freezing potion of the cooling pipe 3 that deposits on the surface of the cooling pipe for freezing. This reads upon removing substance by freezing. Page 3 further teaches while sometimes the area most near the heater can be melted, the surface of other parts of the cooling pipe is affected by the heat and in case breaks parts of the ice. It states that the scraper 4 is capable of peeling frozen ice or breaking frozen substance from the pipe. Page 2 also states that the scrapers scrape solids such as frozen compound off the cooling pipe 6.), and from which the separated substances can be removed from the housing of the vacuum separator (There are scrapers that scrapes the cooling pipe so that solids fall down.), and a mechanical purifying device for at least partial surface scraping of the cooling arrangement (Scrapers that are indicated by 4 and 8),wherein, the cooling arrangement is designed so that the separation of the substances from the gas to be purified in the vacuum separator occurs by freezing-out the substances to be separated (Pages 2-3 teach this cooling pipe 3 freezes part of the gas that comes into contact with this pipe.), wherein the vacuum separator is provided with a heating arrangement which is suitable for softening substances separated by means of the cooling arrangement (Examiner notes the translation states the heating wire is 26, but figure 2 shows that reference 23 is the heating wire. Figure 2 shows a heating wire 26 on the cooling pipe to melt the frozen portion on the cooling tube 3.), and a removal opening is provided in the lower region of the housing of the vacuum separator, via which removal opening the substances to be softened can be removed (Outlet path 17 or just the bottom of the housing 2.).
Claim 13: JP370 teaches the vacuum separator has a solvent feed configured to feed a solvent for the separated substances to the housing in such a way that the supplied solvent impinges on the cooling arrangement (Figure 1 shows that the gas inlet 5 is sent in and meets the cooling tube 3 before leaving via outlet 6. This would read upon the limitation.).
The limitation “is suitable for at least partially dissolving substances separated thereon, so that the at least partially dissolved substances can be removed from the housing of the vacuum separator via the removal opening” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 14: JP370 teaches the mechanical purifying device is designed as part of the heating arrangement (Figure 3 shows there are grooves along the tube for heating element so that the scraper does not hit the heating element 23. This would read upon being designed as part of the heating arrangement as the scraper is made so as to not hit this element.).
Claim 15: JP370 teaches the mechanical purifying device is provided with at least one scraper which is oriented obliquely to a vertical of the vacuum separator (Figure 1 shows this.).
The limitation “is suitable for purifying the surface of the cooling arrangement with the substances separated thereon and scraping off said substances” is considered to be intended usage. The prior art already teaches the scraper is used to scrape off things that are on the cooling tube. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 19: JP370 teaches the mechanical purifying device comprises at least one scraper (Scrapers that are indicated by 4 and 8).
Claim 26: The limitation “several vacuum separators are associated with auxiliary filters, so that an alternative operation of the individual vacuum separators and/or auxiliary filters is made possible” is considered to be intended usage. It is unclear what structure is being claimed with being “associated with auxiliary filters” and “alternative operation”. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 29: JP370 teaches the heating arrangement softens the substances separated by the cooling arrangement without heating the substances to a point of liquefication (Page 2 teaches that the scraper scrapes solids that are frozen on the cooling pipe. Bottom of page 3 and page 4 teaches that this is to help lessen the burden of the scraper when it has to remove the ice.).
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.
Claim(s) 5-11, 13-22, 24, and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabiser (US20150343672A1) in view of JP370.
Claim(s) 12 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabiser in view of JP370 further in view of Friedl (US20180021693A1).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabiser in view of JP370 further in view of Herzhoff (US3900326).
Rejection in view of Rabiser and JP370
Claim 5: Rabiser teaches a device for the purification of gases (Abstract teaches device for degassing polymer melts. Figure 1 shows there is a line sending the gas to the separator 15a and 15b. The limitation of “from the degassing of polymer melts, wherein the gas to be purified is fed from a vacuum zone of a plasticizing unit to the device by means of at least one vacuum or degassing line” is intended usage. There must be a line to send the gas to this invention therefore any kind of line sending the gas, such as a degassing line, is read upon by the prior art.), a vacuum separator (15a and 15b are vacuum separators.), which has a housing having a gas inlet for the gas to be purified and a gas outlet (Figures 2-4 show the vacuum separators. These have a housing 115 with a gas inlet 19 and outlet 21.), a cooling arrangement configured to separate condensible, separable by freezing, and/or re-sublimable substances from the supplied gas to be purified (Cooling tubes 45 with supply 41 are used in the separator as taught in [0060]. [0070] teaches that the solids in the gas settle on the cooling tubes and sublimed and/or condensed substances can settle on the tubes as well.), and from which the separated substances can be removed from the housing of the vacuum separator ([0068]-[0070] teaches that solids and liquid can be separated by gravity and removed by cleaning opening 51.), wherein, a mechanical purifying device for at least partial surface scraping of the cooling arrangement (Wipers 61.), the cooling arrangement is designed so that the separation of the substances from the gas to be purified in the vacuum separator occurs by freezing-out the substances to be separated ([0070] teaches that sublimed and/condensed substances can settle on the surface of cooling tubes.), and wherein a removal opening is provided in the lower region of the housing of the vacuum separator, via which removal opening the substances to be softened can be removed (Cleaning opening 51.).
Rabiser does not explicitly teach the vacuum separator is provided with a heating arrangement which is suitable for softening substances separated by means of the cooling arrangement. Rabiser does teach multiple coolant supply lines 41 and 37. [0060] teaches that this is to control the temperature of the tubes. JP370 teaches a device that also cools down gas with a refrigerant and generates ice along the outside and scrapes down the ice with scrapers. JP370 teaches the use of a heating wire in order to lessen the burden of the scraper by having being able to soften the ice so it can be peeled or broken easily. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a heating arrangement as taught by JP370 in the device of Rabiser as JP370 teaches the benefit of being able to lessen the burden of the scraper so it can continuously run as softening the ice would allow for less wear and breakage (bottom of page 3 of JP370).
Claim 6: Rabiser teaches the cooling arrangement is designed to cool the gas to be purified in such a way that the freezing-out is effected by cooling to a temperature below the triple point of the substances to be separated ([0070] teaches that sublimed and/condensed substances can settle on the surface of cooling tubes.).
Claim 7: Rabiser and JP370 do not explicitly state the freezing-out takes place at a negative pressure of below 100 mbar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal pressure so that the substances in the gas are able to be removed by the vacuum separator.
Claim 8: The limitation “is designed to heat the substances separated by means of the cooling arrangement to a temperature in the range of the liquefaction or softening temperature of at least part of the separated substances” is considered to be intended usage. JP370 already teaches heating it so make the ice easier to remove.
Claim 9: Rabiser and JP370 teaches the heating arrangement has at least one heating pipe extending into the interior of the housing of the vacuum separator, which heating pipe is designed in particular as a double-walled heating pipe for receiving a heating medium (Rabiser abstract teaches the cooling pipes are double walled. Figure 2 shows that they extend into the interior of the housing. JP370 shows the heating tube going into the system as well in figure 1).
Claim 10: Rabiser teaches the housing of the vacuum separator has a cover which forms a feed and/or discharge line for heating medium to several heating pipes extending in particular in parallel and/or formed as a double pipe (Rabiser teaches in figure 2 multiple tubes within the device, and the inlet/outlet is on the separator housing cover that is bade up of 45d.).
Claim 11: Rabiser and JP370 teaches the heating arrangement is arranged at least partially in the wall of the housing and has at least one heating pipe extending in the wall of the housing and/or at least one or more heating pipes connected to one another in a meandering manner and/or one or more interstices extending in a planar way over the wall of the housing for receiving a heating medium (Rabiser figure 2 shows the tubes extend in a meandering manner and it can be seen inlet 37 extends into a wall portion of the housing. Both supply pipes do extend through the wall.).
Claim 13: Rabiser teaches the vacuum separator has a solvent feed by means of which a solvent for the separated substances can be fed to the housing in such a way that the supplied solvent impinges on the cooling arrangement and is suitable for at least partially dissolving substances separated thereon, so that the at least partially dissolved substances can be removed from the housing of the vacuum separator via the removal opening (Figure 2 shows that the gas must go through the cooling tubes before reaching the outlet. [0070] teaches that the solids in the gas settle on the cooling tubes and sublimed and/or condensed substances can settle on the tubes. [0068]-[0070] teaches that solids and liquid can be separated by gravity and removed by cleaning opening 51. The limitation “is suitable for at least partially dissolving substances separated thereon, so that the at least partially dissolved substances can be removed from the housing of the vacuum separator via the removal opening” is considered to be intended usage. ).
Claim 14: Rabiser and JP370 teaches the mechanical purifying device is designed as part of the heating arrangement (Rabiser teaches in figures 3 and 4 the wiper on the cooling tubes.). The limitation of “designed as part of the heating arrangement” is considered to be intended usage. The entire device is designed with each part in mind and therefore it would read upon the limitation as all of the parts are a part of the device as a whole.
Claim 15: Rabiser teaches the mechanical purifying device is provided with at least one scraper which is oriented obliquely to a vertical of the vacuum separator and is suitable for purifying the surface of the cooling arrangement with the substances separated thereon and scraping off said substances (Figures 4 and 5 show this orientation. [0073] teaches the wipers purify the surface of the cooling tubes.).
Claim 16: Rabiser teaches at least one auxiliary filter arranged downstream in the gas flow and suitable for filtering out non-separated substances in the gas to be purified (Figure 1 teaches filters 25a and 25b that are downstream of the gas flow.).
If the prior arts do not teach the location of the filters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the filters at a desired location to filter out contaminants, especially ones that could potentially damage the downstream devices if not removed.
Claim 17: Rabiser teaches several vacuum separators are provided, which are arranged upstream and downstream of at least one switching valve and which in particular are associated with further auxiliary filters, so that an alternative operation of individual vacuum separators and/or auxiliary filters is made possible (Figure 1 teaches multiple vacuum separators 15a and 15b. They are both downstream of valves by reference 35 and upstream of valves by reference 35.2. Each of the separators has an aux filters 25a and 25b.).
Claim 18: Rabiser teaches a controller which is connected to several sensors for detecting operating parameters of the device and to several actuators for controlling the device ([0081] teaches the usage of sensors P to trigger control signals. [0056] teaches that a controller can be used to control the system, including valves.).
Claim 19: Rabiser teaches the mechanical purifying device comprises at least one scraper (wipers 61).
Claim 20: Rabiser and JP370 do not explicitly teach the cooling arrangement is designed to cool the gas to be purified in such a way that the freezing-out is effected by cooling to a temperature in the range of minus 18 °C or below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal temperature to be able to purify the gas depending on the material.
Claim 21: The prior arts do not explicitly state the freezing-out takes place at a negative pressure of below 10 mbar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal temperature to be able to purify the gas depending on the material.
Claim 22: The prior arts do not explicitly state the heating occurs in particular to a temperature in the range of 100 °C or above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal temperature to be able to soften and remove the frozen material.
Claim 24: The prior arts do not explicitly state the heating arrangement has several heating pipes or one or more double-walled heating pipes extending into the interior of the housing of the vacuum separator, which at least one heating pipe, and wherein said several heating pipes and/or inner and outer pipes of said one or more double-walled heating pipes are interconnected in a meandering manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multiple heating pipes to be able to make sure each of the cooling pipes can be adequately heated 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 the locations of these pipes it would have been obvious to place them in an optimal location similar to the wire in JP370 since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 26: The limitation “several vacuum separators are associated with auxiliary filters, so that an alternative operation of the individual vacuum separators and/or auxiliary filters is made possible” is considered to be intended usage. It is unclear what structure is being claimed with being “associated with auxiliary filters” and “alternative operation”. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 27: Rabiser teaches the operating parameters of the device include temperature, pressure, time, volume, or mass ([0048] teaches temperature can be controlled. [0082] teaches differential pressure measurement.).
Claim 28: Rabiser teaches the controller connected to the several actuators is configured to control gas flow, the heating arrangement, the cooling arrangement, the vacuum arrangement, and/or the purifying arrangement ([0056][ teaches that the system is controlled by valves.).
Claim 29: JP370 teaches the heating arrangement softens the substances separated by the cooling arrangement without heating the substances to a point of liquefication (Page 2 teaches that the scraper scrapes solids that are frozen on the cooling pipe. Bottom of page 3 and page 4 teaches that this is to help lessen the burden of the scraper when it has to remove the ice.).
Rejection in view of Friedl
Claim 12: The prior arts do not explicitly teach the cooling arrangement and the heating arrangement of the vacuum separator have at least one common pipe and/or at least one interstice for receiving a heating medium and a coolant. Friedl teaches in [0015] that an actuating and/or regulating means can set different temperatures for cooling and heating. It also teaches it can have a common cooling system. The actuating or regulating means reads upon a switching valve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a common pipe for the cooling and heating arrangement as taught by Friedl as Friedl teaches the benefit of having a more compressed system by having a common pipe and being able to further control the temperatures as needed.
Claim 25: Friedl teaches at least one switching valve is connected upstream and downstream of the at least one common pipe and/or interstice, so that a selective application of heating medium or coolant to the common pipes and/or interstices is possible (Friedl teaches in [0015] that an actuating and/or regulating means can set different temperatures for cooling and heating. It also teaches it can have a common cooling system. The actuating or regulating means reads upon a switching valve).
Rejection in view of Herzhoff
Claim 23: The prior arts do not explicitly state the at least one heating pipe is designed as a double-walled heating pipe for receiving a heating medium. Herzhoff teaches in column 1 lines 45-50 that heating mediums transferred through double walled vessels and pipes leads to less heat loss. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a double wall heating pipe as it would allow for less heat loss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5-18 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP370 does not teach softening the material to scrape but instead fully melts and liquefies the material.
Examiner has argued above and shown that JP370 does not melt all of the material, in fact it teaches softening the ice to make it easier to remove so as to lessen the burden on the scraper (pages 2-4). Examiner also argues that applicant’s specification does not teach not liquefying as it states partial liquefication. Having a device being used for a specific purpose (polymer degassing process) is considered intended usage.
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 PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 08/07/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights