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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 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 1 recites the limitation “Internal backmix system of the reagent mass comprised…” There is no mention of a reagent mass previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 1 as reciting: “Internal backmix system of a reagent mass comprised…” Claim 1 recites the limitation “…wherein the drag fins of the first (27) and the second (28) set of drag fins are attached to the inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor (2) by welding forming a drag string along a continuous helical path.” There is no mention of an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 1 as reciting: “…wherein the drag fins of the first (27) and the second (28) set of drag fins are attached to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor (2) by welding forming a drag string along a continuous helical path.” Claim 1 recites: “…wherein the drag fins of the first (27) and the second (28) set of drag fins are attached to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor (2) by welding forming a drag string along a continuous helical path.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. There is no clear disclosure in the specification of what a “dra g string” i s. Applicant discloses on paragraph [0025] of instant specification that: “ The distribution of fins in the vertical bands is repeated along the entire inner length of the rotating cylindrical reactor 2, generating a forward drag string of reagent mass, with regular sectors of fins bringing the hottest mass to the rear. This arrangement consists of a way to promote the thermal exchange of the reagent mass, conferring an increase in productivity to the rotating cylindrical reactor 2.” Claim 2 recites: “… characterized in that the first set of drag fins is arranged for dragging the reagent mass from the feed inlet of the rotating cylindrical reactor to the outlet .” There is no mention of an feed inlet nor an outlet previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 2 as reciting: “… characterized in that the first set of drag fins is arranged for dragging the reagent mass from a feed inlet of the rotating cylindrical reactor to an outlet .” Claim 3 recites: “… characterized in that the second set of drag fins is arranged for dragging the reagent mass from the outlet of the rotating cylindrical reactor to the feed inle t .” There is no mention of an feed inlet nor an outlet previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 3 as reciting: “…characterized in that the second set of drag fins is arranged for dragging the reagent mass from an outlet of the rotating cylindrical reactor to an feed inlet.” Claim 4 recites: “…characterized in that the first set of drag fins is adjacent to the second set of drag fins, both being parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotating cylindrical reactor.” There is no mention of a longitudinal axis previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 4 as reciting: “… characterized in that the first set of drag fins is adjacent to the second set of drag fins, both being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rotating cylindrical reactor.” Claims 6-8 are rejected because they depend on rejected claim 1. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN111410399A, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Li) . In regards to Claim 1 , Li discloses an i nternal backmix system of a reagent mass comprised in a rotating cylindrical reactor ( #2 ), characterized by comprising: a first set of drag fins ( #16 ) arranged for dragging the reagent mass in a first direction (see figure 2 and paragraph s [0009]-[0010] and [0022]-[0023] ) ; and a second set of drag fins ( #15 ) arranged for dragging the reagent mass in a second direction opposite to the first direction (see figure 2 and paragraph s [0009]-[0010] and [0022]-[0023] ) , wherein the first ( #16 ) and the second ( #15 ) set of drag fins are positioned internally along the length of the rotating cylindrical reactor ( #2 ) (see figure 2 and paragraph s [0009]-[0010] and [0022]-[0023]) ; and wherein the drag fins of the first ( #16 ) and second ( #15 ) sets of drag fins are attached to the inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor (#2 ) by welding forming a drag string along a continuous helical path (see figure 2 and paragraph s [0009]-[0010] and [0022]; Li discloses guide plate #16 and #15 are welded to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor #2 . ). Examiner notes that although Li does not explicitly disclose that the drag fins of the first and second sets of drag fins form a drag string along a continuous helical path, Li di scloses substantially similar internal backmix system as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s internal backmix system will reasonably function in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01. Claims 1 -4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballus et al. (WO2004/103540A1, hereinafter Ballus ) in view of Li. In regards to Claim 1 , Ballus discloses an i nternal backmix system of a reagent mass comprised in a rotating cylindrical reactor ( #1 ), characterized by comprising: a first set of drag fins ( #4a, #6, #7 a ) arranged for dragging the reagent mass in a first direction (see figure 1 and page 7, line 25 to page 8 line 12) ; and a second set of drag fins ( #5, #7 b ) adapted or dragging the reagent mass in a second direction opposite to the first direction (see figure 1 and page 7, line 25 to page 8, line 12) , wherein the first and the second set of drag fins are positioned internally along the length of the rotating cylindrical reac to r ( #1 ) (see figure 1 and page 7, line 25 to page 8, line 12) ; and wherein the drag fins of the firs t and second sets of drag fins are attached to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor ( #1) (see figure 1 and page 7, line 25 to page 8, line 12). Ballus fails to disclose wherein the drag fins of the first and second sets of drag fins are attached to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor by welding forming a drag string along a continuous helical path. However, Li teaches a multi-pass rotary furnace for a reagent mass comprising an i nternal backmix syste m comprising a first set of drag fins ( #16 ) a rranged for dragging the reagent mass in a first direction , a second set of drag fins ( #15 ) arranged for dragging the reagent mass in a second direction opposite to the first direction , wherein the first ( #16 ) and the second ( #15 ) set of drag fins are positioned internally along the length of the rotating cylindrical reactor ( #2 ) , and wherein the drag fins of the first ( #16 ) and second ( #15 ) sets of drag fins are attached to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor (#2 ) by welding forming a drag string along a continuous helical path , thereby obtaining a multi-pass structure which extends the drying process, extends the time and improves production capability (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0009]-[0010] , [0012] and [0022] -[0023]). It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the internal backmix system as disclosed by Ballus by having the drag fins of the first and second sets of drag fins to be attached to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor by welding, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Li teaches a multi-pass rotary furnace for a reagent mass comprising an i nternal backmix syste m comprising a first set of drag fins a rranged for dragging the reagent mass in a first direction , a second set of drag fins arranged for dragging the reagent mass in a second direction opposite to the first direction , wherein the first and the second set of drag fins are positioned internally along the length of the rotating cylindrical reactor , and wherein the drag fins of the first and second sets of drag fins are attached to an inner side of the rotating cylindrical reactor by welding forming a drag string along a continuous helical path , thereby obtaining a multi-pass structure which extends the drying process, extends the time and improves production capability (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0012] and [0022]-[0023]) . Examiner notes that although Ballus , as modified above does not explicitly disclose that the drag fins of the first and second sets of drag fins form a drag string along a continuous helical path, Ballus , as modified above, discloses substantially similar internal backmix system as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Ballus ’s internal backmix system , as modified above, will reasonably function in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01. In regards to Claim 2 , Ballus discloses wherein the system is characterized in that the first set of drag fins ( #4a, #6, #7a ) is arranged for dragging the reagent mass from a feed inlet (#2) of the rotating cylindrical reactor to an outlet (#3) (see figure 1 , abstract and page 7, line 25 to page 8, line 12). In regards to Claim 3 , Ballus discloses wherein the system is characterized in that the second set of drag fins (#5, #7b) is arranged for dragging the reagent mass from an outlet (#3) of the rotating cylindrical reactor (#1) to a feed inlet (#2) (see figure 1, abstract and page 7, line 25 to page 8, line 12). In regards to Claim 4 , Ballus discloses the system is characterized in that the first set of drag fins (#4a, #6, #7a) is adjacent to the second set of drag fins (#5, #7b), both being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rotating cylindrical reactor (#1) (see figure 1 and page 3, lines 19-29). In regards to Claim 6 , Ballus , in view of Li, discloses the system as recited in claim 1. Although Ballus , as modified above, is silent in regards to wherein the system is characterized in that the total area of the fins of the first set of drag fins in contact with the reagent mass is greater than the total area of the second set of drag fins, Ballus , as modified above, discloses substantially the same system as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Ballus ’s system , as modified above, is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01. In regards to Claim 7 , Ballus discloses wherein the system is characterized in that it comprises a greater number of fins in the first set of drag fins ( #4a, #6, #7a ) compared to the second set of drag fins (#5, #7b) (see figure 1 and page 7, line 25 to page 8, line 12) . In regards to Claim 8 , Ballus , in view of Li, discloses the system as recited in claim 6. Although Ballus , as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the fins of the first set of drag fins have a greater length and/or width than those of the second set of drag fins, Ballus clearly discloses some disadvantages can be overcome by modifying the design of the different drag fins (baffles) in the mixer to provide longitudinal flow of the contents in both directions over a significant portion of the mixer. For example, the longitudinal extent of each angled baffle plate is greater than the circumferentially extent of the baffle plates by a factor of at least 1.2. Some advantages obtained by modifying the design of the different drag fins include improved flow in the longitudinal direction rather than turbulence in the radial direction, promotes flow through the mixers in a plug flow fashion, promotes flow in a more uniform fashion, and emptying of the mixer is also made more rapidly and complete (see figure 1, page 3, lines 14-29, page 4, lines 5-8 and lines 20-24, and page 6, lines 21-29). In view of this, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to optimize the length and/or width of Ballus’s fins of the first set of drag fins , as modified above, to an optimum value, such as to a greater length and/or width than the second set of drag fins , as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, since this is a recognized result- effective variable which affects the flow of the reagent mass throughout the system. See MPEP 2144.05. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8139 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1051 . 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. /JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774