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 Objections
Claims 8-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 discloses “a plurality of electric heaters adjacent to and do not contact the electric heating acceptor.” This should be -- a plurality of electric heaters adjacent to the electric heating acceptor but does not contact the electric heating acceptor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 material transporting module in claim 8. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: paragraph 10 it states “the material transporting module includes a material transporting device, two covers, and a motor.” For examination, the limitation will be interpreted as having at least –a motor and a material transporting device--.
A material transporting device in claim 8’s 112f interpretation of a material transporting module. The specifications cite paragraph 28, “a shape of the material transporting device 210 is not limited to a Z shape as shown in FIG. 1.” This lacks any particular structure and is unclear what is the device. For examination purposes, “material transporting device” will be interpreted as any structure capable of transporting material.
A material distributor in claim 15. The specifications do not cite any particular structure. For examination purposes, “material distributor” will be interpreted as any structure capable of distributing material.
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.
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 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 8-15 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.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 further recites the limitations material transporting device. The term “device” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the device transports material. The recitation that the shape may be z-shape in paragraph 28 is not sufficient structure for one of ordinary skill in the art to know the structure of the material transporting device.
A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of distributing. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 further recites the limitations material distributor. The term “distributor” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the distributor distributes material.
A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of distributing. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claims 9-14 rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 8-15 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 13 recites “the material feeding controller of each of the remaining electric heating material processing devices is connected to the material discharging controller of another one of the remaining electric heating material processing devices.” It is unclear what is “another one of the remaining electric heating material processing devices” and it is unclear which one of the material discharging controller applicants are referring to.
Claim limitation “material distributor” and “material transporting device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
“Material transporting device”. The structure of the particle separation device is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “material transporting device” will be interpreted as any structure capable of transporting material.
“Material distributor”. The structure of the particle separation device is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “material distributor” will be interpreted as any structure capable of distributing material.
Claims 9-12 and 14 rejected due to dependency
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Self (US 5710360 A) in view of Jung (US 8136706 B2), Clary (US 5260538 A), and Schellstede (US 5242245 A).
Claim 8. Self discloses an electric heating material processing device (thermal desorption system, title), comprising:
a material transporting module configured to transport a plurality of materials (auger 28 transports material 21, col 4, lines 40-42, Fig. 1A),
wherein the material transporting module has a material inlet (inlet 24, Fig. 1A) and a material outlet (processed solids exits the heater through the discharge port 38, col 7, lines 1-3);
a material feeding controller connected to the material inlet (first motor 22 advances the material into the inlet end 24, col 4, lines 30-40),
a gas vent disposed on an end of the material transporting module (vapor line 37 connects to an end of the auger at vapor port 40, col 6, lines 65-68),
wherein the gas vent is configured to discharge a volatile gas (contaminated vapors are discharged via the vapor line 37, col 6, lines 15-30); and
wherein the electric heating thermal desorption device is configured to perform a thermal desorption process on the materials (thermal desorption device, claim 1), and the electric heating thermal desorption device comprises:
a plurality of electric heaters adjacent to and do not contact the electric heating acceptor (coils 29 and 30, Fig. 1A).
Self does not disclose wherein the material feeding controller is configured to control a feeding quantity of the materials and a feeding speed of the materials when the materials enter the material transporting module;
Self discloses controlling the speed of the auger driver motor to control throughput of the material (claim 10). It is understood by the examiner that controlling the speed of the motor controls the throughput of material which inherently controls the feed quantity of the material passing through.
Jung discloses a transport feeder for transporting granular material (fig.2, abstract), wherein the feeder’s rotational speed can be controlled (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Self to incorporate the teachings of Self and Jung and also control the speed of the first motor. Doing so would have the benefit of controlling the throughput of the whole system (claim 10, Self).
Self in view of Jung does not disclose an electric heating thermal desorption device disposed on an outer surface of the material transporting module.
Clary discloses inductive heating of a reactor vessel (Fig. 1) wherein the susceptor (C, Fig. 1) is separate from the reactor’s walls (B) in order to improve uniform heating from the inductor coils (D, col 3, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Self in view of Jung to incorporate the teachings of Clary and have a separate susceptor surrounding the reactor’s vessel. Doing so would have the benefit of improving uniform heating (col 3 lines 1-10, Clary).
Self in view of Jung and Clary does not disclose a material discharging controller connected to the material outlet,
wherein the material discharging controller is configured to control a discharging quantity of the materials and a discharging speed of the materials when the materials leave the material transporting module.
Schellstede discloses a thermal desorption device (Fig. 1) wherein at the outlet, a rotary valve 86 controls the rate of discharge of the material (col 9, lines 30-35). It is understood by the examiner that if the valve can control the rate of material passing through it inherently controls the quantity of material that passes through.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Self in view of Jung and Clary to incorporate the teachings of Schellstede and have the rotary valves at the inlet and outlet to control the speed of material being fed or discharged at both the inlet and outlet. Doing so would have the benefit of controlling the amount of material exiting the conveyor (col 9, lines 30-35, Schellstede) which will affect the amount of time the material resides in the heater (abstract, Self).
Claim 9. Self in view of Jung, Clary, and Schellstede discloses the electric heating material processing device of claim 8, wherein the electric heating material processing device further comprises:
a feeding material thermometer disposed adjacent to the material feeding controller (thermocouple 39 by the inlet, Fig. 1A; combination would result in the thermocouple near the rotary valve which is close to the inlet),
wherein the feeding material thermometer is configured to measure a feeding temperature of the materials around the material feeding controller (thermocouple 39 are positioned to sample the temperature at the inlet of the susceptor tube, col 6, lines 15-30, Fig. 1A); and
a discharging material thermometer disposed adjacent to the material discharging controller (thermocouple 39 the outlet of the susceptor tube, Fig. 1A; combination would result in the thermocouple near the rotary valve which is at the outlet),
wherein the discharging material thermometer is configured to measure a discharging temperature of the materials around the material discharging controller (thermocouple 39 are positioned to sample the temperature at the outlet of the susceptor tube, col 6, lines 15-30, Fig. 1A).
Claim 10. Self in view of Jung, Clary, and Schellstede discloses the electric heating material processing device of claim 9, wherein the electric heating material processing device further comprises:
a central control system signally connected to the material transporting module, the material feeding controller, the material discharging controller, the electric heaters, the feeding material thermometer, and the discharging material thermometer (computer control circuit 33 receives signals from the thermocouples, controls the motor speeds, and outputs the power supplies 31 and 32, col 6, lines 5-10),
wherein the central control system is configured to control a plurality of material process parameters of the electric heating material processing device (computer control circuit controls the output power and variable speed motor, col 6 lines 25-30), and
the material process parameters comprises
a feeding speed parameter (combined prior art discloses controlling the inlet rotary valve),
a feeding temperature parameter (feeding temperature of the material fed into the second chamber can be controlled by controlling the power supplies 31 and 32, col 6 lines 25-30; where the broadest reasonable interpretation of “feeding temperature” includes the temperature of the material being fed from one coil section to the second coil section),
a transporting speed parameter (motor speed, col 6 lines 25-30),
a heating energy parameter (output power for power supplies 31 and 32),
a heating time parameter (residence time, claim 8),
a discharging speed parameter (discharging speed is controlled, col 9 lines 30-35, Schellstede), and
a discharging temperature parameter (control exit temperature, claim 8).
Claim 12. Self in view of Jung, Clary, and Schellstede discloses the electric heating material processing device of claim 8, wherein the electric heaters are electromagnetic induction heaters (induction tube furnace 26, col 4 lines 30-37).
Claim 15. Self in view of Clary, and Schellstede does not disclose a parallel electric heating material processing device, comprising:
a material tank configured to store a plurality of materials;
a material distributor connected to the material tank, and configured to extract the materials from the material tank;
a plurality of distributing pipes connected to the material distributor, wherein the distributing pipes are configured to distribute the materials; and
a plurality of the electric heating material processing devices as recited in claim 8,
wherein the material feeding controllers of the electric heating material processing devices are correspondingly connected to the distributing pipes.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate multiple thermal desorption devices and have them be fed from the same feed source since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentably significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that multiple thermal desorption devices operating in parallel will increase the total throughout.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Self in view of Jung, Clary, and Schellstede as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Satchwell (US 20030228196 A1).
Claim 11. Self in view of Jung, Clary, and Schellstede does not disclose the electric heating material processing device of claim 8, wherein the material transporting module has a first opening (inlet 24) and a second opening (outlet by exit port 38, Fig. 1A) respectively disposed at two ends of the material transporting module opposite to each other, and the material transporting module comprises:
a motor engaged with the material transporting device wherein the motor is configured to drive the material transporting device (motor 34 drives the auger 28, Fig. 1A).
Satchwell discloses that each of the screw conveyors have an inlet (10, Fig. 2) and outlet (discharge chute 54, Fig. 1) wherein a vacuum slide gate valve 53 is included to seal the screw housing (par. 68). Each discharge chute 54 connects to another inlet with a vacuum slide gate and therefore, the second opening or discharge chute has a gate that seals the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Self in view of Jung, Clary, and Schellstede to incorporate the teachings of Satchwell and have a gate at the inlet and outlet. Doing so would have the benefit of sealing the screw conveyor and preventing the escape of hot gases during the operation (par. 79, Satchwell).
Claim 13. Self in view of Clary, and Schellstede does not disclose a series electric heating material processing device, comprising:
a material tank configured to store a plurality of materials; and
a plurality of electric heating material processing devices as recited in claim 8, wherein the material feeding controller of a first one of the electric heating material processing devices is connected to the material tank, and
the material feeding controller of each of the remaining electric heating material processing devices is connected to the material discharging controller of another one of the remaining electric heating material processing devices.
Satchwell discloses a material tank configured to store a plurality of materials (inlet feed hopper 8 , Fig. 1); and
a plurality of electric heating material processing devices (screw conveyor 12, 22, and 32, Fig. 1) as recited in claim 8, wherein the material feeding controller of a first one of the electric heating material processing devices is connected to the material tank (screw conveyor 12 is connected to the inlet feed hopper 8, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Self in view of Clary, and Schellstede to incorporate the teachings of Satchwell and duplicate the combined prior art’s apparatus to have a series of thermal desorption devices. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the treatment by reduction more of the hydrocarbon concentration (par. 126-128, Satchwell). The combined prior art have a rotary valve at the inlet and outlet, and therefore, duplicating them to feed into each other in series will result in the rotary valve inlet and outlet being connected.
Claim 14. Self in view of Clary, Schellstede, and Satchwell discloses the series electric heating material processing device of claim 13, wherein each of the electric heating material processing devices further comprises:
a feeding material thermometer disposed adjacent to the material feeding controller (thermocouple 39 by the inlet, Fig. 1A; combination would result in the thermocouple near the rotary valve which is close to the inlet),
wherein the feeding material thermometer is configured to measure a feeding temperature of the materials around the material feeding controller (thermocouple 39 are positioned to sample the temperature at the inlet of the susceptor tube, col 6, lines 15-30, Fig. 1A); and
a discharging material thermometer disposed adjacent to the material discharging controller (thermocouple 39 at the outlet of the susceptor tube, Fig. 1A; combination would result in the thermocouple near the rotary valve which is at the outlet),
wherein the discharging material thermometer is configured to measure a discharging temperature of the materials around the material discharging controller (thermocouple 39 are positioned to sample the temperature at the outlet of the susceptor tube, col 6, lines 15-30, Fig. 1A),
wherein the series electric heating material processing device further comprises:
a
wherein the central control systems are configured to control a plurality of material process parameters of the electric heating material processing devices (computer control circuit 33 receives signals from the thermocouples, controls the motor speeds, and outputs the power supplies 31 and 32, col 6, lines 5-10).
Self in view of Clary, Schellstede, and Satchwell does not disclose a plurality of control systems for controlling the series of controllers and devices and the processing parameters.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the control system disclosed by Self such that the series of devices would be connected since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentably significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights