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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (CN 108404445 A).
Claim 13 is interpreted as a multiple dependent claim, whose broadest reasonable interpretation incorporates the dependency upon the apparatus of claim 1. Other possible dependencies will be addressed separately if they incorporate a different ground of rejection..
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Li teaches a system and method for solid-liquid extraction, which includes a boiler (8) for holding a solvent, an extraction chamber (2) for holding material from which compound is to be extracted by the solvent, a condenser (1) for condensing the solvent, and a fluid connection between the boiler and extraction chamber for allowing passage of vaporized and condensed solvent between the boiler and the extraction chamber (condensate falls along the wall, solvent vapor rises through the center) [0020, Fig. 1, 0025]. The process is carried out by loading the apparatus with solvent and with material for extraction, heating the solvent in the boiler to form a vapor, passing through the extraction chamber, condensing, and returning to the extraction chamber and then to the boiler [0025]. The material for extraction is supported within an extraction tank (3) which is used to hold solvent during the extraction, and which sits on top of a sieve plate (6) which includes holes for filtrate (62) to fall and for vapor (61) to rise [0023]; this provides an advantage in that rising vapor may mix with the solvent in the extraction tank to disturb the solid-liquid mixture, increasing the contact surface and enhancing mass transfer [0026]. The system and process taught by Li therefore anticipate the instant invention of claims 1 and 13, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 14, as above the filtrate may fall down via holes in the sieve (6) and return to the boiler (8) via the walls of the device.
With respect to claims 11 and 18, the fluid connection is an aperture or conduit between the boiler and the extraction chamber [Fig. 1] i.e. where the two pieces are connected together, and serves to facilitate flow of both vapor and condensate i.e. in opposite directions using the same passage [0025].
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.
Claims 3-5 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al in view of Ma et al (CN 207734645 U).
With respect to claims 3-5, Li teaches as above but is silent to provision of a throttle which is designed to allow controlling of the rate at which vapor and solvent pass between the boiler and the extraction chamber.
However, Ma teaches a similar solid-liquid extraction device including similar boiler (1), extraction chamber (8), and condenser (12) [Fig. 2] and teaches providing a valve (2) to control the use of the device e.g. to control the filling level of the extraction chamber. The valve may be closed for filling and then partially opened to ensure that the device is always in an extraction state with low-concentration solvent present in the chamber [0013]; when the solvent level is sufficiently high to ensure complete infiltration of the sample, the valve may be opened at least partially and adjusted to control the rate of condensate dripping back to the boiler to reach a dynamic balance in the system [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a similar valve on the device of Li to gain the benefit of allowing for throttling of the flow of vapor and condensate for the same reason as suggested by Ma, i.e. to obtain a dynamic balance in the system and ensure continuous refresh of the solvent while ensuring sufficient levels to infiltrate the sample.
With respect to claims 13, 14, and 18, for interpretations of claim 13 which depend from claims 3-5, see the discussion of claims 3-5 above; the incorporation of such features would have been obvious in view of Ma.
With respect to claims 15-17, as above Ma suggests incorporating a throttle in the form of an adjustable valve, such that it can be closed for filling and then opened and adjusted to reach a dynamic balance in the system and ensure constant solvent refresh at low concentration for good mass transfer and the like, and this may be initially triggered based on a desired filling level to ensure full infiltration of the sample. As such, controlling the rate to maintain this desired filling level and to maintain a dynamic balance i.e. tend towards a constant rate would at minimum have been obvious modifications to incorporate into the process of Li.
Claims 6-9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al in view of Ma et al, further in view of Zhang et al (CN 203886227U).
With respect to claim 6, Li and Ma teaches as above, and in view of Ma providing a throttle valve which is adjustable and capable of being controlled to maintain a desired level and/or to achieve a dynamic balance in the system would have been obvious. Li and Ma are silent to the specific use of a controller which may modulate the valve to this end.
However, Zhang teaches a similar extraction system which features a boiler (4), extraction chamber (10), and condenser (3) [Fig. 1] and which includes a suitable valve (12) for controlling e.g. flow of condensate back to the boiler, and teaches that the valve may be controlled by a “drive system” (6) which may receive signals from a sensor (20) such as a level sensor in order to facilitate such control of the valve and of other components of the system [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Li to include a controller and associated sensors such as the “drive system” taught by Zhang in order to gain the benefit of allowing for automation of the control suggested by Ma. See additionally MPEP 2144.04 III; automation of an otherwise manual activity represents an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, as see the discussion of claims 3-5 above and the teachings of Ma; control of the system to maintain a liquid level at a desired e.g. infiltration depth would have been obvious, and further to this Zhang explicitly teaches liquid level sensors (20) capable of facilitating this.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, see the discussion of claims 3-5 above and the teachings of Ma; control of the system to maintain a dynamic balance between vapor and condensate is already suggested by Ma. Zhang is silent to the specific provision of a flowrate sensor but, because Ma explicitly teaches attempting to achieve a dynamic balance through adjustment of the valve, providing a suitable sensor for measuring this progress would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; similarly, providing a controller configuration to achieve this balance i.e. to tend towards a constant level would have been obvious as being suggested by Ma.
With respect to claims 13-18, for interpretations of claim 13 which depend from claims 6-9, see the discussion of claims 6-9 above; the incorporation of such features would have been obvious in view of Ma and Zhang.
Claims 12, 13, 14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al in view of Davis (US PGPub 2010/0191007 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Li teaches as above but is silent to a connector for connecting to a source of reduced pressure, with the device configured such that the connection facilitates reduction of pressure to reduce a boiling temperature within the boiler.
However, Davis teaches an apparatus and method of extracting substances from samples without employing degrading temperatures [Abs]; the system includes a means for reducing pressure to facilitate a low temperature vacuum boil of the solvent for facilitating the extraction [Abs]. The low temperature ensures that temperature-sensitive substances being extracted are not degraded [0012]. The pressure may be lowered by way of a pump such as a recovery pump [0014]. The choice of solvent will affect the requirements for pressure and temperature, but in general solvents may be selected that, under the pressure conditions achievable by the device, are capable of boiling at approximately room temperature [0029, 0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a similar connection for a similar pump or related vacuum source into the system of Li i.e. to facilitate reducing pressure in the system (including the extraction chamber and boiler, which are directly fluidically connected) in order to gain the benefit of reducing the temperature required to boil the solvent to generate vapor, thereby allowing for extractions involving substances with are temperature sensitive as suggested by Davis.
With respect to claims 13, 14, and 18, for interpretations of claim 13 which depend from claim 12, see the discussion of claim 12 above; the incorporation of such features would have been obvious in view of Davis.
With respect to claims 19-21, see the discussion of claim 12 above. Reducing pressure in the system using a suitable pump or the like would have been obvious in view of Davis, to allow for low-temperature boiling and extraction of temperature sensitive materials. As discussed by Davis, appropriate solvent selection may allow for the use of solvents and pressure combinations which facilitate boiling at room temperature or lower, such that boiling and operation at or below ambient temperature would at least have been obvious in view of this guidance.
Claims 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al in view of Davis and Ma et al, or in view of Davis and Ma et al, further in view of Zhang et al.
With respect to claims 15-17, for interpretations of claim 13 (and, therefore, its dependent claims 15-17) which depend from claim 12, see the discussion of claim 12 above; the incorporation of such features would have been obvious in view of Davis. As discussed above, the features of claims 15-17 would have been obvious in view of Ma.
With respect to claims 19-21, for interpretations of claim 13 (and, therefore, its dependent claims 19-21) which depend from claims 3-5, see the discussion of claims 3-5 above; the incorporation of such features would have been obvious in view of Ma. For interpretations of claim 13 (and 19-21) which depend from claims 6-9, see the discussion of claims 6-9 above; such features would have been obvious in view of Ma and Zhang. As discussed above, the features of claims 19-21 would have been obvious in view of Davis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777