DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “vacuum” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1-8, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf (DE 102017103956) in view of Ralf (DE 102017102281).
Regarding claim 1, Ralf discloses an impact reactor (Fig. 1-10) for comminuting material to be comminuted (intended use), comprising a cylindrical casing (2); a bottom (3); and a cover (15), wherein the casing, the bottom, and the cover enclose an impact reactor chamber (4), wherein a rotor (7) is arranged in the impact reactor chamber, wherein the rotor is provided with impact elements (8), wherein at least one feed opening (5) is provided for feeding material to be comminuted into the impact reactor chamber, and wherein at least one removal opening (6, 16) is provided for removing comminuted material and/or gaseous comminuted products from the impact reactor chamber, and wherein the at least one feed opening and/or the at least one removal opening are closable (6 has the flap, 16 has the lid 15 to close).
Ralf is silent to wherein one or more devices that project into the impact reactor chamber are attached to the casing.
Ralf 281’ teaches a similar impact reactor (Fig. 1-3e) comprising one or more devices (15 “a plurality of segment-like guide elements”) that project into the impact reactor chamber are attached to a casing (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add to the impact reactor of Ralf with one or more devices that project into the impact reactor chamber as taught by Ralf 281’ in order to better guide the material within the impact reactor chamber.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein a classifier (16 has separator/ classifier 19) is associated with the at least one removal opening.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, the impact reactor chamber is supplied with a vacuum (16 is a suction opening. Inherently, there is a device that sucks i.e. a vacuum) via the at least one removal opening.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein a deflector wheel (19 is a classifier in the form of a “deflector”) is associated with at least one removal opening.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one removal opening includes several removal openings (6, 16 and because there is two classifiers 19, the openings are three total).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein a screen (19) and a removal flap (“flap”) are associated with at least one removal opening.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein a screen, a classifier (19 is a classifier/deflector) and/or a deflector wheel is associated with a removal opening (16) of the at least one removal opening.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein a first feed opening (5) of the at least one feed opening comprises an airlock (5 is closable meaning it is airlock).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein a further feed opening (9) is provided for introduction of auxiliary substances (liquid nitrogen).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein at least the casing is temperature-controllable (inside 4 is different temperature because liquid nitrogen is provided inside 4 by 10. Therefore, the casing is able to control temperature.).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 1, wherein the one or more devices (15, Ralf DE 281’) that project into the impact reactor chamber are located between impact elements of the rotor and interior surfaces of sidewalls of the casing. (see Fig. 3c-e)
Claim 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ralf as applied to claims above, and further in view of Ralf (WO 2012107526).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 8,
Ralf teaches that the feed opening (5) is closable a.k.a. airlock.
However, Ralf fails to disclose wherein the airlock is designed as a rotary feeder.
Ralf WO 526’ teaches a similar impact reactor comprising a feed opening that is an airlock (5) which comprises a rotary feeder, slide, flaps, screw conveyor, and etc. (As can further be seen from the illustration in FIGS. 1 and 2, a lock 5 with a lock chamber 5a which can be closed by means of slides or flaps is arranged on the upper side of the cylindrical basic body 6, via which the pieces of wood 2 are inserted from above into the interior 8 of the impact reactor 4 can be introduced without creating a free access between the environment 34 and the interior 8 of the baffle reactor 4. The lock 5 is shown only as an example in the drawings and may also be a rotary valve with horizontally or vertically extending rotary axle that perform the roughly pre-shredded moisture-containing material from above into the interior 8 of the baffle reactor 4. In order to reduce the entry of ambient air together with the material as much as possible, an extraction of air can be provided immediately before the entry of the material 2 in the interior 8. For this purpose, in the case of the lock 5 shown, the lock chamber, and in the case of the rotary valve, not shown, preferably the lock chamber, in which the material is located directly in front of the entrance into the interior 8, hermetically sealed for a predetermined period of time and subjected to negative pressure. It is also possible to supply the moist material by means of a rotating screw conveyor, which opens directly into the otherwise closed interior 8, which is particularly advantageous in the case of a continuous feed. As shown in FIGS. 1 to 4, two ejection boxes 28 are preferably arranged on the outside of the cylindrical basic body 6, each of which has an ejection opening 26, which is partially closed by a sieve 24, with the interior 8 of the impingement reactor 4 are in communication.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the airlock of Ralf with the known airlocks for example a rotary feeder, slide, flaps, screw conveyor, and etc as taught by Ralf WO 526’ to provide sufficient structure that allows material into the impact reactor preventing material outflow through the feed opening.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ralf teaches the impact reactor according to claim 8,
Ralf teaches that the feed opening (5) is closable a.k.a. airlock.
However, Ralf fails to disclose wherein the airlock is a pinch valve assembly.
Ralf WO 526’ teaches a similar impact reactor comprising a feed opening that is an airlock (5) which comprises a rotary feeder, slide, flaps, screw conveyor, and etc. (As can further be seen from the illustration in FIGS. 1 and 2, a lock 5 with a lock chamber 5a which can be closed by means of slides or flaps is arranged on the upper side of the cylindrical basic body 6, via which the pieces of wood 2 are inserted from above into the interior 8 of the impact reactor 4 can be introduced without creating a free access between the environment 34 and the interior 8 of the baffle reactor 4. The lock 5 is shown only as an example in the drawings and may also be a rotary valve with horizontally or vertically extending rotary axle that perform the roughly pre-shredded moisture-containing material from above into the interior 8 of the baffle reactor 4. In order to reduce the entry of ambient air together with the material as much as possible, an extraction of air can be provided immediately before the entry of the material 2 in the interior 8. For this purpose, in the case of the lock 5 shown, the lock chamber, and in the case of the rotary valve, not shown, preferably the lock chamber, in which the material is located directly in front of the entrance into the interior 8, hermetically sealed for a predetermined period of time and subjected to negative pressure. It is also possible to supply the moist material by means of a rotating screw conveyor, which opens directly into the otherwise closed interior 8, which is particularly advantageous in the case of a continuous feed. As shown in FIGS. 1 to 4, two ejection boxes 28 are preferably arranged on the outside of the cylindrical basic body 6, each of which has an ejection opening 26, which is partially closed by a sieve 24, with the interior 8 of the impingement reactor 4 are in communication.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the airlock of Ralf with the known airlocks for example a rotary feeder, slide, flaps, screw conveyor, and etc as taught by Ralf WO 526’ to provide sufficient structure that allows material into the impact reactor preventing material outflow through the feed opening. Examiner notes that pinch valve is a well- known airlocks that would be used as an alternative to the above airlocks as taught by Ralf WO 526’ therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the pinch valve as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 9 rejection.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ralf teaches that the feed opening (5) is closable a.k.a. airlock.
However, modified Ralf fails to disclose wherein the airlock is a roller assembly.
Ralf WO 526’ teaches a similar impact reactor comprising a feed opening that is an airlock (5) which comprises a rotary feeder, slide, flaps, screw conveyor, and etc. (As can further be seen from the illustration in FIGS. 1 and 2, a lock 5 with a lock chamber 5a which can be closed by means of slides or flaps is arranged on the upper side of the cylindrical basic body 6, via which the pieces of wood 2 are inserted from above into the interior 8 of the impact reactor 4 can be introduced without creating a free access between the environment 34 and the interior 8 of the baffle reactor 4. The lock 5 is shown only as an example in the drawings and may also be a rotary valve with horizontally or vertically extending rotary axle that perform the roughly pre-shredded moisture-containing material from above into the interior 8 of the baffle reactor 4. In order to reduce the entry of ambient air together with the material as much as possible, an extraction of air can be provided immediately before the entry of the material 2 in the interior 8. For this purpose, in the case of the lock 5 shown, the lock chamber, and in the case of the rotary valve, not shown, preferably the lock chamber, in which the material is located directly in front of the entrance into the interior 8, hermetically sealed for a predetermined period of time and subjected to negative pressure. It is also possible to supply the moist material by means of a rotating screw conveyor, which opens directly into the otherwise closed interior 8, which is particularly advantageous in the case of a continuous feed. As shown in FIGS. 1 to 4, two ejection boxes 28 are preferably arranged on the outside of the cylindrical basic body 6, each of which has an ejection opening 26, which is partially closed by a sieve 24, with the interior 8 of the impingement reactor 4 are in communication.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the airlock of Ralf with the known airlocks for example a rotary feeder, slide, flaps, screw conveyor, and etc as taught by Ralf WO 526’ to provide sufficient structure that allows material into the impact reactor preventing material outflow through the feed opening. Examiner notes that a roller assembly is a well- known airlocks that would be used as an alternative to the above airlocks as taught by Ralf WO 526’ therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the roller assembly as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018037053 teaches a similar impact reactor.
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 BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. 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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3725