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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/2025 with respect to the amended language of lines 2-7 of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that Kurt teaches these limitations (p. 17, second paragraph from the bottom). In addition, the limitation that the energy for drying is derived solely from a relative humidity deficit is rejected under 35 USC 112 (see below).
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the cover existing to exclude rain have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the cover of Kurt also excludes rainwater.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the major axis of the dryer being positioned perpendicular to an atmospheric wind have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that any orientation of a dryer will be perpendicular to an atmospheric wind at some point since wind is known to swirl from time to time. Examiner notes that [0058] of applicant’s specification discloses orienting the major axis of the dryer to a prevailing atmospheric wind which would distinguish the invention from the prior art of record as a prevailing wind limits the orientation to a single direction.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art using air heated by trapping solar energy as opposed to using the relative humidity of atmospheric ambient air are persuasive in part. Examiner can appreciate the difference between solar concentrated air and untreated atmospheric ambient air. However, the distinction must be recited in the claim language. The term “ambient” refers to the air surrounding something (according to the online dictionaries for Merriam Webster and the American Heritage dictionary) and is not further defined by applicant’s specification. Thus the air of a solar drier heated by the sun is ambient to the material to be dried since it surrounds the material. Examiner suggests that applicant recite atmospheric ambient air when wanting to distinguish untreated air from the atmosphere from conditioned drying air such a solar dryer. Examiner notes that reciting reliance on atmospheric ambient air would distinguish applicant’s invention over the prior art of record which use solar concentrated air.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the combination of Kurt and Pan would render the drying systems nonfunctional have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this case Pan is modifying Kurt. Applicant failed to explain why the combination of Kurt and Pan would render the drying system of Kurt nonfunctional.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to back-mixing material have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that Kurt teaches this limitation on p.17.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to neither Kurt or Pan disclosing a drying tool that can be used throughout the drying process have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Kurt discloses such a tool (fig. 2.14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 9 recite “wherein energy utilized for drying the material is derived solely from a relative humidity deficit of the ambient air.” However, there is no such disclosure provided in the originally filed specification. In addition, energy to mix the material in a dry state with material in the liquid state is required and not derived from a relative humidity deficit in the ambient air. Examiner notes that applicant’s specification does recite “[T]he energy utilized for drying the material is principally derived from the relative humidity deficit that exists in ambient air,” which allows for some energy to be drawn for powering the mixing motors and fan motors as noted in applicant’s specification paragraph [0044].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt (Evaluation of Solar Sludge Drying Alternatives on Costs and Area Requirements, applicant provided) in view of Pan (CN 102381826A, applicant provided).
As for claims 13-15 and 17, Kurt discloses a material drying system comprising: a drying bed for holding a material to be dried, the drying bed having a base (fig. 2.8, peripheral edge illustrated on right side) with a major axis and a minor axis, the major axis of the base of the drying bed being positioned perpendicular to an atmospheric wind (fig. 2.16, flow of ambient air through the dryer illustrated traveling perpendicular to the major axis. It is noted that wind swirls such that at some point the major axis will be normal to a flow of wind); a cover placed over the drying bed and configured to substantially prevent a second material from falling on the material held in the drying bed and permit a flow of an ambient air through the material drying system (fig. 2.16, ambient air illustrated moving from left to right under cover/roof), the cover to exclude rainwater (fig. 2.26 roof illustrated would exclude rainwater); a handling tool disposed adjacent the drying bed, the handling tool configured to back- mix the material in a dry state into a material that is in at least one of a liquid state, a semi-solid state, and a sticky state such that the material may self-maintain shape and surface texture (p. 17, second paragraph from the bottom), mix the material that is in contact with the ambient air flowing through the material drying system (figs. 2.14, 2.12 and paragraph 2.5.2.2.2, p. 25); and a fan disposed adjacent at least one of the drying bed and the cover, the fan configured to facilitate the flow of the ambient air through the material drying system (fig. 3.8, illustrates ventilators).
Kurt discloses the claimed invention except for a sticky state such that the material may self-maintain shape and surface texture; a handling tool disposed configured to maximize a surface area of the material that is in contact with the ambient air flowing through the material drying system; wherein the material is arranged in a row, the row having one of a generally triangular cross-sectional shape and a semi-circle cross- sectional shape; wherein the material includes a textured surface to maximize a surface area of the material; wherein at least a portion of the material is self-supporting to facilitate maintaining the material in a desired shape. Pan teaches a sticky state such that the material may self-maintain shape and surface texture (fig. 5); a handling tool disposed configured to maximize a surface area of the material that is in contact with the ambient air flowing through the material drying system (fig. 5); wherein the material is arranged in a row, the row having one of a generally triangular cross-sectional shape and a semi-circle cross- sectional shape (fig. 5, semi-circular); wherein the material includes a textured surface to maximize a surface area of the material (fig. 5); wherein at least a portion of the material is self-supporting to facilitate maintaining the material in a desired shape (fig. 5) in order to increase surface area so as to accelerate drying. Kurt would benefit equally from increasing surface area so as to accelerate drying. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Kurt with a sticky state such that the material may self-maintain shape and surface texture; a handling tool disposed configured to maximize a surface area of the material that is in contact with the ambient air flowing through the material drying system; wherein the material is arranged in a row, the row having one of a generally triangular cross-sectional shape and a semi-circle cross- sectional shape; wherein the material includes a textured surface to maximize a surface area of the material; wherein at least a portion of the material is self-supporting to facilitate maintaining the material in a desired shape as taught by Pan in order to increase surface area so as to accelerate drying.
As for claim 16, Kurt discloses at least a portion of the material adjacent a top surface of the material held in the drying bed is in a granular form and porous to maximize a surface area of the material in contact with the ambient air flowing through the material drying system (p. 17, first paragraph, adding dry sludge to the mix as disclosed in applicant’s specification paragraph [0068]).
As for claim 18, Kurt discloses the base includes a peripheral edge and a wall disposed adjacent the peripheral edge (fig. 2.8, peripheral edge illustrated on right side), the wall being air permeable and the flow of the ambient air is directed to flow through the wall and at least one of across and through the material held in the drying bed (fig. 2.16).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt in view of Pan as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Permuy Dobarro (US 2015/0075024).
Kurt discloses the claimed invention except for the base of the drying bed is air permeable and the flow of the ambient air is directed to flow through the base and the material held in the drying bed. Permuy Dobarro teaches the base of the drying bed is air permeable and the flow of the ambient air is directed to flow through the base and the material held in the drying bed (fig. 3, [0008]) in order to accelerate the drying process. Kurt would benefit equally from accelerating the drying process. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Kurt with the base of the drying bed is air permeable and the flow of the ambient air is directed to flow through the base and the material held in the drying bed as taught by Permuy Dobarro in order to accelerate the drying process.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt in view of Pan as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Ileleji (US 2018/0231308).
Kurt discloses the claimed invention except for a control system, the control system including a controller and a sensor, the controller in communication with the sensor and at least one of the handling tool and the fan, the sensor in communication with the controller and configured to sense a condition of at least one of the ambient air and the material and communicate the condition to the controller, wherein the controller receives the condition and controls a function of at least one of the handling tool and the fan in a response to the condition in order to facilitate the drying of the material. Ileleji teaches a control system, the control system including a controller and a sensor, the controller in communication with the sensor and at least one of the handling tool and the fan ([0015], fan), the sensor in communication with the controller and configured to sense a condition of at least one of the ambient air and the material and communicate the condition to the controller ([0015], condition of the ambient air), wherein the controller receives the condition and controls a function of at least one of the handling tool and the fan in a response to the condition in order to facilitate the drying of the material ([0015], fan) in order to control the rate of drying. Kurt would benefit equally from controlling the rate of drying. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Kurt with a control system, the control system including a controller and a sensor, the controller in communication with the sensor and at least one of the handling tool and the fan, the sensor in communication with the controller and configured to sense a condition of at least one of the ambient air and the material and communicate the condition to the controller, wherein the controller receives the condition and controls a function of at least one of the handling tool and the fan in a response to the condition in order to facilitate the drying of the material as taught by Ileleji in order to control the rate of drying.
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 JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762