DETAILED ACTION
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 conveyor system disposed within the solar tower, wherein the conveyor system is configured to transport the organic matter within the hollow interior of the solar tower, as recited in claim 1.
a control system configured to control transportation of the organic matter via the conveyor system, as recited in claim 1.
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:
conveyor system [Wingdings font/0xE0] conveyor belt, roller conveyors, chain conveyors, screw or auger conveyors, chutes, horizontal conveyors, vertical conveyors, spiral conveyors, and vibrating conveyors (see pgpub; para. 31)
control system [Wingdings font/0xE0] programable automated system, or may be a manual system to be controlled by an operator (see pgpub; para. 45)
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites a plurality of fans and these fans were first recited in claim 1; however, claim 9 broadens the scope of claim 1 instead of further narrowing it.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6, 9-13, 15, 20, 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir (WO 2020051631 A1) in view of Millar (US 20220113088 A1), and Strong (US 20150010679 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weir discloses a system for drying organic matter, the system comprising:
a. a solar tower (structure 100) clad in a transparent or translucent covering (the tower 100 is a greenhouse and a greenhouse is a structure comprising a transparent or translucent cover; para. 45), comprising a hollow interior to allow components to be disposed within the solar tower (para. 46);
b. a conveyor system disposed within the solar tower, wherein the conveyor system is configured to transport the organic matter within the hollow interior of the solar tower (para. 47);
c. a plurality of sensors disposed within the solar tower (para. 17, 18), and operatively coupled to a control system for collecting information comprising temperature, relative humidity, water content of the organic matter, and providing the information to the control system as appropriate for weather conditions and the organic matter (paras. 16, 19, 20, 53, 54), and
d. the control system operatively connected to the conveyor system, the control system configured to control transportation of the organic matter via the conveyor system (para. 51), a plurality of fans such that the organic matter is dried (paras. 55, 81);
wherein sunlight causes a thermal gradient within the hollow interior, causing air in an upper portion of the hollow interior to be hotter than air in a lower portion of the hollow interior (this limitation is inherent since hot air rises, which means the air heated in the solar tower would rise to an upper portion of the hollow interior and the relatively cooler air would be at the bottom).
Weir fails to disclose:
sensors disposed on the conveyor system and on an exterior of the solar tower;
a plurality of water condensers;
where the plurality of fans circulate the air in the upper portion of the hollow interior throughout the lower portion of the hollow interior; and
wherein the conveyor system is configured to transport the organic matter from
the lower portion of the hollow interior to the upper portion of the hollow interior.
Weir discloses placing the sensors in each zone of the solar tower (para. 51, but the precise location is not disclosed; however, disposing the sensors on the conveyor system is a matter of obvious design choice. The particular placement is not critical since the sensors can be placed anywhere in the zone, including in a position attached to the conveyor system, and still function as intended. Nevertheless, Official Notice is taken that placing a sensor on a conveyor system 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 do so because it would be sturdy structure for holding and retaining the sensors (note: Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice; therefore, it is taken to be admitted prior art).
Strong teaches a heating chamber (Fig. 1, 40) for a pasteurization process, comprising:
a fan (Fig. 1; blower 52) circulating the air in the upper portion of the hollow interior throughout the lower portion of the hollow interior (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of nozzles 54 for circulating air from the blower, which is located in the upper portion of the hollow interior, downward throughout the lower portion of the hollow interior; see paras. 48, 52); and
wherein the conveyor system (20) is configured to transport the organic matter from
the lower portion of the hollow interior to the upper portion of the hollow interior.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weir where the plurality of fans circulate the air in the upper portion of the hollow interior throughout the lower portion of the hollow interior; and wherein the conveyor system is configured to transport the organic matter from the lower portion of the hollow interior to the upper portion of the hollow interior.
The motivation to combine is to provide a solar drying system that takes up less floor space by utilizing vertical space (a vertically oriented conveyor would take up less floor space than a horizontally oriented conveyor). Moreover, circulating the air in the upper portion of the hollow interior throughout the lower portion of the hollow interior ensures uniform temperatures, and uniform drying conditions inside the solar tower.
Millar teaches a system for drying organic matter, comprising: a sensor (environment sensor 86; para. 50) disposed on an exterior of the solar tower; and a plurality of water condensers (dehumidifier 18, paras. 50, 58). Note: Millar also teaches a plurality of fans (Fig. 8; “circulations fans”) configured to circulate the air in the upper portion of the hollow interior throughout the lower portion of the hollow interior
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weir to include a sensor disposed on an exterior of the solar tower and a plurality of water condensers. The motivation to include the condensers is to quickly dry the drying air and the organic material. The motivation to include the sensor is so that the external environmental conditions, such as temperature and relative humidity, can be used by the controller to control the fan and the condenser (Millar, para. 50, 53) and optimize drying conditions.
Regarding claim 2, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to dry either a continuous flow of organic matter or a batch of organic matter (Weir, para. 9).
Regarding claim 3, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the conveyor system comprises one or more conveyors (Weir, para. 47).
Regarding claim 4, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the conveyor system comprises at least one of a linear conveyor, a spiral conveyor, an elevator, a chute, or a mobile conveyor container (Weir, para. 47).
Regarding claims 5, 6, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 3, including a conveyor, except Weir does not discuss the details of the conveyor; therefore, Weir does not disclose wherein two or more components of the conveyor system are powered by a shared motor (as recited in claim 5), and wherein two or more components of the conveyor system convey the organic matter at different speeds (as recited in claim 6).
However, Official Notice is taken that it is well-known and common knowledge where a conveyor system has two or more components powered by a shared motor, and that a conveyor can convey at different speeds (note: the Official Notice is taken to be admitted prior art since it was not traversed). For example, it is well-known that a belt conveyor has a belt, motor shaft, and gears, and that these components are driven by the same motor, and can be driven at different speeds.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weir wherein two or more components of the conveyor system are powered by a shared motor, and wherein two or more components of the conveyor system convey the organic matter at different speeds. The motivation to combine is to provide a workable conveyor for the conveyor disclosed in Weir.
Regarding claim 9, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, additionally comprising one or more fans configured to circulate air from the upper portion of the hollow interior to the lower portion of the hollow interior or from the lower portion of the hollow interior to the upper portion of the hollow interior (note: according to Applicant’s specification, the fans recited for this claim are the same fans recited in claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 9, the one or more fans are configured to circulate air within the hollow interior of the solar tower or between the hollow interior of the solar tower and an exterior of the solar tower (Weir, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to produce usable water (the condensate produced in the combination can be used for any number of things, such as use for watering the lawn or other vegetation).
Regarding claim 12, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the system additionally comprises a water condenser configured to condense moisture within the hollow interior of the solar tower and transport the condensed moisture to a water storage (note: according to Applicant’s specification, the water condenser recited for this claim is the same water condenser recited in claim 1) (Millar teaches a moisture measurement device used in conjunction with the dehumidifier to condense moisture out of the organic material, as well as a piping, valves, and a water container for transporting and holding the condensed moisture; para. 58 and Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the organic matter comprises an agricultural product, food waste, or manure (Weir, paras. 15, 63).
Regarding claim 15, modified Weir discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) a method for drying organic matter, the method comprising: a. providing a solar tower in which sunlight causes a thermal gradient within the hollow interior, causing air in an upper portion of the hollow interior to be hotter than air in a lower portion of the hollow interior; b. transporting the organic matter to a conveyor system disposed within the solar tower; and c. transporting the organic matter throughout the hollow interior via the conveyor system such that the organic matter is exposed to the thermal gradient for a sufficient period of time to achieve a desired degree of dehydration; and d, circulating, by a plurality of fans disposed in the solar tower, the air in the upper portion of the hollow interior throughout the lower portion of the hollow interior; wherein the conveyor system is configured to transport the organic matter from the lower portion of the hollow interior to the upper portion of the hollow interior.
Regarding claim 20, modified Weir discloses the method of claim 15, wherein all of the energy required for heating the solar tower is generated by harnessing solar power (Weir, para. 10).
Regarding claim 41, modified Weir discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the solar tower further comprises a plurality of sensors disposed on the conveyor system, within the solar tower and on an exterior of the solar tower, operatively coupled to a control system for collecting information, wherein the control system is configured to receive the information from the plurality of sensors and use the information to determine a speed of the conveyor system, speed of fans, and operation of a water condenser system (see Millar and the modification made in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 42, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising a solar power system (photovoltaic module; para. 10 of Weir) except for converting sunlight into power for the conveyor system, the plurality of sensors, the plurality of water condensers, the plurality of fans, and the control system. However, Official Notice is taken that it is well-known and common knowledge to power a wide range of electrical devices using PV modules (note: Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice; therefore, it is taken to be admitted prior art).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weir where the photovoltaic module is used for converting sunlight into power for the conveyor system, the plurality of sensors, the plurality of water condensers, the plurality of fans, and the control system. The motivation to combine is so that the dryer is made portable, and does not need an external power supply.
Regarding claim 43, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the information collected by the plurality of sensors comprises temperature inside and outside the solar tower, relative humidity, and water content of the organic matter (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir (WO 2020051631 A1) in view of Millar (US 20220113088 A1), and Strong (US 20150010679 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Downing (US 4064636 A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, except one or more mixing components configured to mix the organic matter as it is transported by the conveyor system.
However, Downing teaches a cotton seed drying system, comprising one or more mixing components (conveyor-agitator) configured to mix the organic matter as it is transported by the conveyor system (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weir to include one or more mixing components configured to mix the organic matter as it is transported by the conveyor system. The motivation to combine is to help uniformly and thoroughly dry the organic material by agitating the material.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir (WO 2020051631 A1) in view of Millar (US 20220113088 A1), and Strong (US 20150010679 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Raudales (US 6922908 B1).
Regarding claim 44, modified Weir discloses the system of claim 1, except further comprising a heat sink disposed adjacent to an external surface of the solar tower for trapping additional radiant heat to be released into the solar tower after sunset to prolong drying time.
However, Raudales teaches a vegetable drying system, comprising a heat sink (Fig. 1, 102) disposed adjacent to an external surface (exterior wall) of the solar tower for trapping additional radiant heat to be released into the solar tower after sunset to prolong drying time (col. 6, lines 48-60 and col. 7, lines 42-45).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weir to include a heat sink disposed adjacent to an external surface of the solar tower for trapping additional radiant heat to be released into the solar tower after sunset to prolong drying time. The motivation to combine is so that the drying operation can proceed in the daytime and nighttime, as taught by Raudales, resulting in improved operational flexibility.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112
The rejection of claim 12 for being indefinite has been withdrawn.
35 USC 103
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 8-10, 12, 13 of the Remarks:
Applicant asserts that neither Weir, Millar, nor Strong disclose the following limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
307
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The combination of Weir, Strong, and Millar discloses the dehydration by upwards travel and constant air circulation. Applicant did not specifically point out why the combination fails to disclose the claimed features. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 13 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
274
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
There is nothing in Strong that criticizes, discourages, or discredits the claimed limitations at issue. Moreover, the hot air inside the chamber (Strong, 40) naturally rises to the top of the chamber, and the blower 52 would push the hot air throughout the lower portion of the chamber.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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