DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the diffuser recited in claim 9 and the bypass valve recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 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 depends on claim 1; however, claim 6 should instead depend on claim 5 since a heat exchanger 31 is recited, and this heat exchanger is recited for the first time in claim 5. Note: For purpose of examination under 35 USC 103, claim 6 has been examined to depend on claim 5.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a movement unit which is configured to move the process gas along the process gas circuit in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structures described in the specification are:
movement unit [Wingdings font/0xE0] a blower
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (CN 102049178 A) in view of Lee (KR 101692830 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses (see English translation and Fig. 1 for citations) a plant for drying granular polymer material (para. 37), comprising a hopper (40; abstract), in which granular polymer material is dried, and a process gas circuit (para. 41), which is configured to supply a process gas to the hopper in order to dry the granular polymer material, wherein the process gas circuit comprises:
a dehumidification and heating unit (26+46) which is configured to dehumidify and heat the process gas to predefined humidity and temperature values for supply to the hopper, respectively.
Kinoshita fails to disclose:
a purification group which is positioned at an outlet of the hopper and upstream of the dehumidification and heating unit and which is configured to purify the process gas from contaminating substances which are released by the granular polymer material in the hopper,
a cyclone separator which is positioned at the outlet of the hopper and upstream of the purification group, and which is configured to separate a dust of the polymer material granules from the process gas being introduced into the purification group,
wherein the purification group comprises:
a condenser which is configured to cool the process gas to a predefined condensation temperature of the contaminating substances so as to separate from the process gas the contaminating substances thus condensed,
a filter which is positioned at the outlet of the condenser and which contains activated carbon capable of absorbing non-condensed contaminating substances.
However, Lee teaches an organic waste drying system, comprising:
a purification group (17+19) which is positioned at an outlet of the dryer (11) and which is configured to purify the process gas from contaminating substances which are released by the material in the dryer (middle of pg. 4),
a cyclone separator (13) which is positioned at the outlet of the dryer and upstream of the purification group, and which is configured to separate a dust of the material from the process gas being introduced into the purification group (bottom of pg. 3),
wherein the purification group comprises:
a condenser (17) which is configured to cool the process gas to a predefined condensation temperature of the contaminating substances so as to separate from the process gas the contaminating substances thus condensed (bottom half of pg. 4),
a filter (19) which is positioned at the outlet of the condenser and which contains activated carbon (18a) capable of absorbing non-condensed contaminating substances (top half of pg. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Kinoshita to include a purification group which is positioned at an outlet of the hopper and upstream of the dehumidification and heating unit and which is configured to purify the process gas from contaminating substances which are released by the granular polymer material in the hopper, a cyclone separator which is positioned at the outlet of the hopper and upstream of the purification group, and which is configured to separate a dust of the polymer material granules from the process gas being introduced into the purification group,
wherein the purification group comprises: a condenser which is configured to cool the process gas to a predefined condensation temperature of the contaminating substances so as to separate from the process gas the contaminating substances thus condensed, a filter which is positioned at the outlet of the condenser and which contains activated carbon capable of absorbing non-condensed contaminating substances.
The motivation to include the purification group and cyclone is so that the contaminated process/drying gas can be cleaned before being reintroduced into the drying hopper. The result is improved quality of the product and less contamination of the process gas circuit.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, except wherein the condenser is configured to cool the process gas to a temperature between 10 deg.C and 30 deg.C. However, the claimed temperature range is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. The temperature affects the amount of liquid condensed out of the gas, and the amount of liquid condensed out would affect the drying efficiency since the process gas is reintroduced into the hopper for further drying.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, except wherein the condenser is configured to cool the process gas to a temperature between 15 deg.C and 25 deg.C. However, the claimed temperature range is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. The temperature affects the amount of liquid condensed out of the gas, and the amount of liquid condensed out would affect the drying efficiency since the process gas is reintroduced into the hopper for further drying.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, except wherein the condenser is configured to cool the process gas to a temperature of substantially 20 deg.C. However, the claimed temperature range is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. The temperature affects the amount of liquid condensed out of the gas, and the amount of liquid condensed out would affect the drying efficiency since the process gas is reintroduced into the hopper for further drying.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein the purification group comprises a first pipe (Fig. 1 of Lee; pipe supplying gas to purification group 19 + inlet 24) for the process gas which is being discharged from the hopper (Kinoshita; 40) and upstream of the condenser (Lee; 17), a second pipe (Lee; 36 + outlet 25) for the process gas which is being discharged from the filter (Lee; 19) and upstream of the dehumidification and heating unit (Kinoshita; 26+46), and a heat exchanger (Lee teaches a cooling jacket with inlet 53 and outlet 54, and a steam jacket 29) which includes the first pipe (34) and second pipe (35), the heat exchanger being configured to exchange heat between the process gas being introduced into the purification group through the first pipe and the process gas being discharged from the purification group through the second pipe.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein the process gas circuit comprises a movement unit (blower 18 of Kinoshita and/or blower 45 of Lee) which is configured to move the process gas along the process gas circuit between the dehumidification and heating unit, the hopper and the purification group, and to move the process gas in the purification group between the heat exchanger, the condenser and the filter.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein the process gas circuit is a closed circuit (see Fig. 1 of Kinoshita).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein further comprising, downstream of the dehumidification and heating unit,there is provided an inlet pipe (Fig. 1 of Kinoshita discloses a pipe with temperature sensor 11b), by means of which the process gas is introduced into the hopper, and a sampling location (Kinoshita, 44), along the inlet pipe, for sampling the process gas (the gas can be sampled at said location).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein further comprising, downstream of the dehumidification and heating unit, there is provided an inlet pipe (Fig. 1 of Kinoshita discloses a pipe with temperature sensor 11b), by means of which the process gas is introduced into the hopper, and a diffuser (Kinoshita, 44) mounted at the end of the inlet pipe which is introduced into the granular polymer material contained in the hopper.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, except further comprising a bypass valve of the process gas which allows the purification group to be excluded from the process gas circuit. However, Official Notice is taken that a bypass valve for circumventing a device, such as a purification device, is well-known and common knowledge. And it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Kinoshita to include a bypass valve of the process gas which allows the purification group to be excluded from the process gas circuit. The motivation to combine is so that the process gas can bypass the purification device if the process gas has little to no contamination.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a plurality of filtering elements which contain activated carbon (see Fig. 3 of Lee showing a plurality of filters 18a containing activated carbon).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 11, and suggests wherein the filtering elements are cylindrical. Lee, at the top of pg. 5, discloses where the purification group 19 has a cylindrical top, which suggests the main body and the filter elements inside the main body are also cylindrical. However, even if Lee does not disclose or suggest a cylindrical filter element, the particular shape of the filter element was a matter of obvious design choice with no particular significance. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein the condenser is connected to a cooling water line (Fig. 2 of Lee; line connected to inlet 53).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein the process gas circuit comprises a movement unit, comprising at least one blower (Kinoshita; 18), in order to move the process gas along the process gas circuit.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, wherein the movement unit (Kinoshita; 30) is connected downstream of the cyclone separator (see rejection of claim 1) with respect to the process gas flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762