DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 16 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 16 recites a combination of limitations that do not overlap in scope with any of the originally-filed claims.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 2-4, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (CN 102049178 A) in view of Shiromizu (JP 2003240437 A).
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 between 10 deg.C and 30 deg. C 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, Shiromizu teaches an organic waste drying system, comprising:
a purification group (15+16) which is positioned at an outlet of the dryer (12) and which is configured to purify the process gas from contaminating substances which are released by the material in the dryer,
a cyclone separator (14) 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,
wherein the purification group comprises:
a condenser (15) which is configured to cool the process gas to a predefined condensation temperature between 10 deg.C and 30 deg. C so as to separate from the process gas the contaminating substances thus condensed (see middle of pg. 6),
a filter (16) which is positioned at a downstream side of the condenser and which contains activated carbon capable of absorbing non-condensed contaminating substances (see bottom 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 between 10 deg. C and 30 deg. C 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 (note: Shiromizu teaches placing the filter downstream the condenser, and in the combination, the outlet of the condenser is a suitable downstream location for the filter).
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 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 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. Note: Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice; therefore, the Official Notice is taken to be admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 1, except wherein the filter comprises a plurality of filtering elements which contain activated carbon. However, a mere duplication of the filtering elements has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kinoshita discloses the plant according to claim 11, except wherein the filtering elements are cylindrical. However, 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 (Shiromizu; 43).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights