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 with traverse of claims 5-18 in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the international search report states there is no lack unity of invention in page 3 of the remarks and that the examiner has not explained why each group lacks unity with each other group. Applicant argues that using US20150343672A1 is more so a prior art discussion and not a restriction.
This is not found persuasive because even if the internation search report does not indicate there is a lack of unity of invention, it does not mean this is guaranteed to be true. Examiner indicates that the groups lack unity of invention not because there is no single general inventive concept, but because technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. This is why the prior art was cited in order to show this is not a special technical feature as the prior art already teaches this.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/06/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-18 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 5 recites the limitation of “in particular, with at least one scraper.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims as this merely an example of a mechanical purifying device. It will be interpreted to read as “a mechanical purifying device.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation of “in particular, at a temperature in the range of minus 18C or below.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims. It will be interpreted to read as “cooling to a temperature below the triple point of the substances to be separated.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “in particular, below 10mbar.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims. It will be interpreted to read as “below 100mbar.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “in particular, at a temperature in the range of 100C or above.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims. It will be interpreted to read as “designed to heat the substances separated by means of the cooling arrangement to a temperature in the range of the liquefaction of softening temperature of at least part of the separated substances.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “in particular as a double walled heating pipe” and “in particular several heating pipes.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims. It is suggested to remove the “in particular” limitation from this claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of “in particular in parallel and/or formed as a double pipe.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims. It is suggested to remove the “in particular” limitation from this claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of “in particular at least one switching valve.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims. It is suggested to remove the “in particular” limitation from this claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation of “in particular, the at least one scraper.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims as this merely an example of a mechanical purifying device. It will be interpreted to read as “the mechanical purifying device.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “in particular are associated with further auxiliary filters.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims. It is suggested to remove the “in particular” limitation from this claim.
Claim 17 also recites “further auxiliary filters, however claim 5 does not teach any auxiliary filters. It will be assumed that claim 17 depends off of claim 16, as 16 teaches the auxiliary filter.
Claim 18 recites the limitation of “in particular, the temperature, pressure, time, volume, or mass” and “in particular, for controlling the gas flow, the heating arrangement, the cooling arrangement, the vacuum arrangement, and/or the purifying arrangement.” It is unclear if this limitation is included or not in the claims as this merely an example the sensors and actuators. It will be interpreted to read as “having a controller which is connected to several sensors for detecting operating parameters of the device and to several actuators for controlling the device.”
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.
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: “separated by means of the cooling arrangement” in claims 5 and 8. Claim 5 specifies the cooling arrangement uses condensing, freezing or resublimation for separating the substances.
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 § 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 and 13-15 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 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.), with 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.), having a cooling arrangement, by means of which condensible, separable by freezing, and/or re-sublimable substances can be separated 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.), 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.), 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.), the vacuum separator is provided with a heating arrangement which is suitable for at least partially liquefying or 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.), it further has a mechanical purifying device for at least partial surface scraping of the cooling arrangement (Scrapers that are indicated by 4 and 8), and in that a removal opening is provided in the lower region of the housing of the vacuum separator, via which removal opening the substances to be at least partially liquefied or 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 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 (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 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) 5-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabiser (US20150343672A1) in view of Friedl (US20180021693A1).
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.), with 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.), having a cooling arrangement, by means of which condensible, separable by freezing, and/or re-sublimable substances can be separated 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, 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.), it further has a mechanical purifying device for at least partial surface scraping of the cooling arrangement (Wipers 61.), and in that a removal opening is provided in the lower region of the housing of the vacuum separator, via which removal opening the substances to be at least partially liquefied or 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 at least partially liquefying or 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. Friedl teaches in figure 1 a desublimator device which operates by having gas contact a cooling medium to remove products out of gas mixtures (Abstract and [0002] teach this. This is an analogous art as both are using cooling tubes to remove a product from the gas.). Friedl teaches being able to temperature control different portions via actuating and/or regulating means and able to use cooling and heating ([0015]). Friedl teaches in [0039] that a change in temperature of the tubes can cause the product that is captured to change phases and be removed when the desubliminators have too much product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have cooling and heating for the different supply tubes of Rabiser as taught by Friedl, as Friedl teaches the benefits of being able to temperature control different portions of the device and also to be able to make sure the tubes can continue to remove product from the gas when the heating portion makes it so the tubes can further receive loading.
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 Friedl 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: Friedl teaches the heating arrangement 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 ([0039] teaches that a change in temperature of the tubes can cause the product that is captured to change phases and be removed.).
Claim 9: Rabiser and Friedl 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. Friedl teaches that some cooling mediums can be heating mediums as well and it can also use heating mediums as indicated in the rejection of claim 5.).
Claim 10: Rabiser and Friedl 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 Friedl 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 12: Friedl teaches 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, wherein in particular 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.).
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 Friedl 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.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20190063832.
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 12/08/2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776