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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 is objected to due to the clarity issues of the reference numbers and corresponding reference lines. An example of this can be seen with the stacked reference numbers “16” and “a” with multiple lines extending from them. 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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means” in claim 7 and “means” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 are 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 1 has a plurality of antecedent basis issues that renders the claim indefinite and unclear to the Examiner. A marked up copy of claim 1 and how it is being interpreted will be provided below.
“A method for processing heat-sensitive materials in a vortex chamber, comprising a vertical supply of wet material into the vortex chamber, a plurality of [[the]] walls of which are made in a [[the]] form of a body of revolution with a vertical axis coinciding with an [[the]] axis of rotation of a rotor, which mechanically comminute an [[the]] incoming material and entrains it in a vortex flow of drying gas entering into the vortex chamber through an [[the]] inlet tangential channel, wherein the vortex flow first dries the material, and then removes it from the vortex chamber in the form of a gas suspension through a gas exhaust system, characterized in that the vortex chamber is configured to change its volume, wherein an upper end wall and a lower end wall [[walls]] of the chamber are made in a [[the]] form of bodies of revolution, and a side wall connecting said upper and lower end walls [[ends]] is in a [[the]] form of a side surface of a straight circular cylinder, wherein additional holes are made on an [[the]] outer surface of the side wall and/or on the lower end wall of the chamber for extracting the processed material.”
Claim 5 recites “the movement” in line one however the Examiner is unclear as to which movement the Applicant is referring back to. A review of the claims shows that the movement is referring back to the changing of the volume of the vortex chamber. For examination purposes, the term “the movement” will be treated as “a movement”.
Claim 6 “the movement” in line one however the Examiner is unclear as to which movement the Applicant is referring back to. A review of the claims shows that the movement is referring back to the changing of the volume of the vortex chamber. For examination purposes, the term “the movement” will be treated as “a movement”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6789756 (Beliavsky hereinafter) in view of EP 1520592 (Pericoli hereinafter) and further in view of US 5915814 (Crews hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Beliavsky teaches a vortex drying device that discloses a vortex chamber (Figures 1, 2, and 22 with working chambers 104 [Figures 1 and 2] and 2103 [Figure 21]), comprising a vertical supply of wet material into the vortex chamber (Supply inlet 116/2108), the walls of which are made in the form of a body of revolution with a vertical axis (Cylindrical shape of the working chamber), which mechanically comminute the incoming material and entrains it in a vortex flow of drying gas entering into the chamber through the inlet tangential channel (Column 19 Line 60through Column 20 Line 51 with the inlet at 2116 of Figure 21), wherein the vortex flow first dries the material (Evident from the airflow affecting the particulates entering the vortex chamber), and then removes it from the chamber in the form of a gas suspension through a gas exhaust system (Outlet for comminuted particles at 2112 of Figure 21), characterized in that the vortex chamber is configured to change its volume (Using inserts 2134/2136/2138/2140/2142 per Column 20 Lines 27-51), wherein upper end and lower end walls of the chamber are made in the form of bodies of revolution (Upper wall 2115/2104 and lower wall 2106 of Figure 21), and a side wall connecting said ends is in the form of a side surface of a straight circular cylinder (Side walls 2105).
Beliavsky is silent with respect that the walls of which are made in the form of a body of revolution with a vertical axis coinciding with the axis of rotation of a rotor.
However, Pericoli teaches a waste drying and treatment device that discloses the use of a rotor within a drying chamber (Figure 2 with rotor 2 and attached blades 3 within the equivalent vortex chamber 1). The resultant combination would place the rotor of Pericoli within the working chamber of Beliavsky.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the working chamber of Beliavsky with the rotor of Pericoli to assist in breaking up particulates.
Beliavsky is silent with respect that additional holes are made on the outer surface of the side wall and/or on the lower end wall of the chamber for extracting the processed material.
However, Crews teaches a particulate treatment device that discloses a vortex chamber (Figures 2-9 equivalent working chamber 150) and wherein additional holes are made on the outer surface of the side wall and/or on the lower end wall of the chamber for extracting the processed material (Figures 3 and 5 shows openings 152 in the equivalent side wall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the working [vortex] chamber of Beliavsky with the additional openings of Crews to assist in directing the airflow.
Regarding claim 7, Beliavsky’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Beliavsky, Pericoli, and Crews would further disclose that by means of additional holes located at different heights of the side wall of the vortex chamber, different fractions of the processed material are extractable from it (Evident from the plurality of holes 152 in 150 of Crews in Figures 3, 5, 6, and 8).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Beliavsky’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Beliavsky, Pericoli, and Crews would further disclose that by means of additional holes located on the lower end wall of the chamber, the heaviest particles of processed material and foreign inclusions can be removed from it (At least one hole located in 150 at the lower end to allow heavy objects to fall through to be collected by 170 in Figure 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Each of these claims are directed towards changing the one or both of the upper end wall and the lower end wall to alter the volume of the vortex chamber. The primary reference of Beliavsky shows the inserts 2134/2136/2138/2140/2142 in Figure 21 to modify the volume of the working [vortex] chamber however the changed levels are not the upper or lower walls. WO 2012/171597 (Huettlin) in Figure 5 shows a rotating upper wall at 132 however the height does not change. US 202699 (Brown) discloses a drying system with an altered lower wall however the ability to combine a fruit dryer and a vortex dryer is not obvious in the Examiner’s point of view. CN 105776808 (Zhou) teaches a sludge drying device however Zhou also fails to disclose a moveable upper end wall or a lower end wall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762