DETAILED ACTION
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.
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:
Product removal device for removing frozen particles from an end of the product transfer surface, as recited in claims 1, 9.
Inlet product distribution device for receiving the frozen particles from the drying chamber inlet and arranges the frozen particles into a substantially even layer on the top product transfer surface, as recited in claim 9.
a belt product distribution device, wherein each belt product distribution device arranges the frozen particles into a substantially even layer on a lower product transfer surface, as recited in claim 9.
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.
The corresponding structure(s) described in the specification are:
Product removal device [Wingdings font/0xE0] scraper blade (para. 53)
Inlet product distribution device [Wingdings font/0xE0] array of vertical plates (para. 52)
Belt product distribution device [Wingdings font/0xE0] a guide plate (418)
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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A).
Regarding claim 1, Colton discloses a freeze drying vessel for a freeze drying system having a freezing vessel that generates frozen product particles by freezing drops of fluid product, comprising:
a freeze drying chamber (12+13) having a drying chamber inlet that receives the frozen particles, a vacuum port (53) through which the drying chamber is evacuated to a first vacuum pressure and a drying chamber outlet;
a plurality of moveable product transfer belts (73, 74) wherein each belt is moved by a rotating driven drum (76, 78) (col. 7, lines 12-15) that is horizontally spaced apart from an idler drum (75, 77) to form a plurality of horizontal product transfer surfaces (14) that transport the frozen particles wherein each product transfer surface is arranged vertically in the drying chamber and moves in an opposite horizontal direction than a lower product transfer surface and wherein the product transfer surfaces include top and bottom product transfer surfaces wherein the top product transfer surface receives the frozen particles from the drying chamber inlet (see Fig. 1); and
at least one heating element (80+82) located adjacent each product transfer surface, wherein the at least one heating element heats the frozen particles to promote sublimation of the frozen particles to form freeze dried product in powder form that flows downward from the bottom product transfer surface and is discharged through the drying chamber outlet (86, 87) (col. 3, lines 63-72 and col. 9, lines 7-17).
Colton fails to disclose:
at least one product removal device located adjacent each driven drum, wherein the at least one product removal device removes frozen particles from an end of each product transfer surface, respectively, to enable the removed frozen particles to flow downward to a lower product transfer surface.
However, Smith teaches a freeze drying device, comprising:
at least one product removal device (Fig. 1, scrapper blade 38) located adjacent each driven drum (18), wherein the at least one product removal device removes frozen particles from an end of each product transfer surface, respectively, to enable the removed frozen particles to flow downward to a hopper (42) (col. 5, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton to include at least one product removal device located adjacent each driven drum (with the modification, it would be located adjacent drum 76 of Colton), wherein the at least one product removal device removes frozen particles from an end of each product transfer surface, respectively, to enable the removed frozen particles to flow downward to a lower product transfe-r surface. The motivation to combine is to remove any product stuck on the belt and direct it onto the lower conveyor.
Regarding claim 3, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 1, wherein at least one product transfer surface is located between upper and lower heating elements (with the modification, it would be located between the two heating elements 80 of Colton).
Regarding claim 6, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 1, wherein the at least one product removal device includes a scraper blade element (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 1, wherein an intermediate chamber (Colton; 34, 35) is located between the freezing vessel (Colton, 10) and the freeze drying vessel (13) wherein the intermediate chamber includes first and second valves wherein the first valve (36, 37) is opened to receive the frozen particles from the freezing vessel into the intermediate chamber and wherein the first valve is subsequently closed to evacuate the intermediate chamber to the first vacuum pressure wherein the second valve (42, 43) is subsequently opened to enable the frozen particles to drop by gravity from the intermediate chamber through the drying chamber inlet and into the drying chamber (the first and second valves are capable of opening and closing according to the claim).
Regarding claim 19, modified Colton discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) a method of moving and heating freeze dried product in a freeze drying vessel for a freeze drying system having a freezing vessel that generates frozen product particles by freezing drops of fluid product, comprising: providing a freeze drying chamber having a drying chamber inlet that receives the frozen particles, a vacuum port through which the drying chamber is evacuated to a first vacuum pressure and a drying chamber outlet; moving a plurality of moveable product transfer belts having a plurality of horizontal product transfer surfaces that transport the frozen particles wherein each product transfer surface is arranged vertically in the drying chamber and moves in an opposite horizontal direction than a lower product transfer surface and wherein the product transfer surfaces include top and bottom product transfer surfaces wherein the top product transfer surface receives the frozen particles from the drying chamber inlet; removing frozen particles from an end of each product transfer surface, respectively, to enable the removed frozen particles to flow downward to a lower product transfer surface; and heating the frozen particles to promote sublimation of the frozen particles to form freeze dried product in powder form that flows downward from the bottom product transfer surface and is discharged through the drying chamber outlet.
Regarding claim 20, modified Colton discloses the method according to claim 19, further including providing an inlet product distribution device (Colton, 79) located between the drying chamber inlet and the top product transfer surface wherein the inlet product distribution device receives the frozen particles from the drying chamber inlet and arranges the frozen particles into a substantially even layer on the top product transfer surface.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tambasco (US 20180274168 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 1, except further including a belt tensioner that is spaced vertically downward from each product transfer surface.
However, Tambasco teaches a belt tensioner (32, 34, 36) spaced vertically downward from each product transfer surface (Fig. 1), and is configured to keep the belt on the conveyor tight onto the rollers (para. 21).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton to include a belt tensioner that is spaced vertically downward from each product transfer surface. The motivation to combine is so that the belt can be tightened periodically, since it is known that belts lose their tension over time. And so that an operator can easily remove and replace the belt if it becomes damaged.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yang (CN 109592286 A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 1, except wherein each driven drum is magnetically coupled to a chamber drive system located outside of the drying chamber to rotate an associated driven drum.
However, Yang teaches wherein each driven drum (Fig. 1, roller 19) is magnetically coupled to a chamber drive system (3) located outside of the chamber (1) to rotate an associated driven drum.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton wherein each driven drum is magnetically coupled to a chamber drive system located outside of the drying chamber to rotate an associated driven drum. The motivation to combine is to provide a drive system for driving the driven drum.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Go (TW 201023266 A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 1, except wherein each driven drum is attached to an external drive system via an associated drive shaft that extends through a wall of the drying chamber and further including an axial seal system to seal each drive shaft to maintain an aseptic environment within the drying chamber.
However, Go teaches the technique wherein each driven drum (Fig. 20, 510) is attached to an external drive system (Fig. 20, 512) via an associated drive shaft (Fig. 20, 508) that extends through a wall of the chamber and further including an axial seal system to seal each drive shaft to maintain an aseptic environment within the chamber (pg. 9, top paragraph discusses a sealing member).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton wherein each driven drum is attached to an external drive system via an associated drive shaft that extends through a wall of the drying chamber and further including an axial seal system to seal each drive shaft to maintain an aseptic environment within the drying chamber. The motivation to combine is to provide a drive system can rotate the driven drum while maintaining the vacuum pressure inside the drying chamber.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang (US 20080155853 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 1, except wherein the freezing vessel includes at least one tube and the at least one tube defines a freezing chamber for forming the frozen particles, wherein a sterile liquid nitrogen vapor contacts an outside of each tube to cool each tube and the sterile liquid nitrogen vapor also contacts drops of liquid product or semi-frozen particles when exiting each tube.
However, Wang teaches a freeze drying vessel, wherein the freezing vessel includes at least one tube (Fig. 1; two tubes: 112 and 116) and the at least one tube defines a freezing chamber for forming the frozen particles, wherein a sterile liquid nitrogen vapor contacts an outside of each tube to cool each tube and the sterile liquid nitrogen vapor also contacts drops of liquid product or semi-frozen particles when exiting each tube (nitrogen vapors contact the walls of the tubes, and enter through the porous walls to make contact with the particles) (paras. 18, 21, 22).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to replace Colton’s freezing vessel with one having at least one tube and the at least one tube defines a freezing chamber for forming the frozen particles, wherein a sterile liquid nitrogen vapor contacts an outside of each tube to cool each tube and the sterile liquid nitrogen vapor also contacts drops of liquid product or semi-frozen particles when exiting each tube. The advantage of Wang’s freeze drying vessel is that the atomizer (102) can create small particles, and the chamber can uniformly freeze dry these small particles without clumping. Colton’s freezing vessel does not have an atomizer and the particles are susceptible to clumping while descending the freezing vessel.
Claim(s) 9-11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), and Tambasco (US 20180274168 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Colton discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) a freeze drying vessel for a freeze drying system having a freezing vessel that generates frozen product particles by freezing drops of fluid product, comprising:
a freeze drying chamber having a drying chamber inlet that receives the frozen particles, a vacuum port through which the drying chamber is evacuated to a first vacuum pressure and a drying chamber outlet;
a plurality of moveable product transfer belts wherein each belt is moved by a rotating driven drum that is horizontally spaced apart from an idler drum to form a plurality of horizontal product transfer surfaces that transport the frozen particles wherein each product transfer surface is arranged vertically in the drying chamber and moves in an opposite horizontal direction than a lower product transfer surface and wherein the product transfer surfaces include top and bottom product transfer surfaces;
an inlet product distribution device (Colton, 79) located between the drying chamber inlet and the top product transfer surface wherein the inlet product distribution device receives the frozen particles from the drying chamber inlet and arranges the frozen particles into a substantially even layer on the top product transfer surface;
at least one product removal device located adjacent each driven drum, wherein the at least one product removal device removes frozen particles from an end of each product transfer surface, respectively, to enable the removed frozen particles to flow downward to a lower product transfer surface; and
at least one heating element located adjacent each product transfer surface, wherein the at least one heating element heats the frozen particles to promote sublimation of the frozen particles to form freeze dried product in powder form that flows downward from the bottom product transfer surface and is discharged through the drying chamber outlet.
Colton fails to disclose:
a belt product distribution device associated with the at least one product removal device, wherein each belt product distribution device arranges the frozen particles into a substantially even layer on a lower product transfer surface.
Tambasco teaches a conveyor heating device comprising
a belt product distribution device (Fig. 1, 54), wherein each belt product distribution device arranges the material into a substantially even layer on a product transfer surface (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton to include a belt product distribution device associated with the at least one product removal device, wherein each belt product distribution device arranges the frozen particles into a substantially even layer on a lower product transfer surface. With the modification, the belt product distribution device would be placed below the drum (Colton, 76), so that the incoming particles are spread evenly on top of the lower conveyor.
The motivation to combine is to promote consistent sublimation. By providing a uniform layer on the product transfer surface, the product can be consistently heated and moisture is uniformly removed from the product.
Regarding claim 10, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 9, except further including a belt tensioner that is spaced vertically downward from each product transfer surface.
However, Tambasco teaches a belt tensioner (32, 34, 36) spaced vertically downward from each product transfer surface (Fig. 1), and is configured to keep the belt on the conveyor tight onto the rollers (para. 21).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton to include a belt tensioner that is spaced vertically downward from each product transfer surface. The motivation to combine is so that the belt can be tightened periodically, since it is known that belts lose their tension over time. And so that an operator can easily remove and replace the belt if it becomes damaged.
Regarding claim 11, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 9, wherein at least one product transfer surface is located between upper and lower heating elements (with the modification, it would be located between the two heating elements 80 of Colton).
Regarding claim 14, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 9, wherein the at least one product removal device includes a scraper blade element (see Smith in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 9, wherein an intermediate chamber is located between the freezing vessel and the freeze drying vessel wherein the intermediate chamber includes first and second valves wherein the first valve is opened to receive the frozen particles from the freezing vessel into the intermediate chamber and wherein the first valve is subsequently closed to evacuate the intermediate chamber to the first vacuum pressure wherein the second valve is subsequently opened to enable the frozen particles to drop by gravity from the intermediate chamber through the drying chamber inlet and into the drying chamber (see rejection of claim 8).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), and Tambasco (US 20180274168 A1), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Yang (CN 109592286 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 9, except wherein each driven drum is magnetically coupled to a chamber drive system located outside of the drying chamber to rotate an associated driven drum.
However, Yang teaches wherein each driven drum (Fig. 1, roller 19) is magnetically coupled to a chamber drive system (3) located outside of the chamber (1) to rotate an associated driven drum.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton wherein each driven drum is magnetically coupled to a chamber drive system located outside of the drying chamber to rotate an associated driven drum. The motivation to combine is to provide a drive system for driving the driven drum.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), and Tambasco (US 20180274168 A1), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Wang (US 20080155853 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 9, except wherein the freezing vessel includes at least one tube and the at least one tube defines a freezing chamber for forming the frozen particles, wherein a sterile liquid nitrogen vapor contacts an outside of each tube to cool each tube and the sterile liquid nitrogen vapor also contacts drops of liquid product or semi-frozen particles when exiting each tube. However, see Wang and the modification made for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colton (US 2751687 A) in view of Smith (US 3266169 A), and Tambasco (US 20180274168 A1), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Novikov (RU 2472595 C1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Colton discloses the freeze drying vessel according to claim 9, except wherein the inlet product distribution device includes a vibratory element that vibrates the frozen particles to provide a substantially even layer of frozen particles on the top product transfer surface.
However, Novikov teaches a belt conveyor comprising an inlet product distribution device having a vibratory element (2a, 2b) that vibrates the particles to provide a substantially even layer of particles on the top product transfer surface (see Fig. 2 and pg. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Colton wherein the inlet product distribution device includes a vibratory element that vibrates the frozen particles to provide a substantially even layer of frozen particles on the top product transfer surface. With the modification, the roller (Colton, 79) and/or the outlet end of the container (Colton, 12) can be configured to vibrate. The motivation to combine is so that the particles are kept loosened and do not clog the outlet end of the container (Colton, 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights