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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference sign 30b claimed in claim 5. 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. 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 § 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 8-10 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 8 recites “maintaining the granular polymer material with a low level of crystallinity in an agitated state and, at the same time, introducing into the granular polymer material a first gas flow having a first temperature so as to increase the level of crystallinity of the granular polymer material up to a value greater than a predefined threshold value below which the granular polymer material is not suitable for being subjected to drying”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. According to specification, a polymer is defined as having a ”low level of crystallinity” when the level of crystallinity thereof is less than the threshold value (specification, page 5, lines 23-25). It is unclear how the granular polymer material can be maintained with a lower level of crystallinity and, at the same time, its level of crystallinity is increased up to a value greater than the threshold.
Since claims 9-10 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piva (WO 2018/193396) in view of Osada et al. (JP 2005028683A).
Regarding claims 1-2, Piva discloses an installation (1) for crystallizing and drying granular polymer material with a low level of crystallinity (Fig. 1) comprising: at least one crystallization hopper (10) which is connected to a crystallization line (11), via which there is introduced into the at least one crystallization hopper (10) a first gas flow which is heated to a first temperature (page 4, line 16, first temperature between 100°C and 150°C; page 11, line 19, first temperature preferably between 120°C and 130°C) which is suitable for increasing the level of crystallinity of the granular polymer material; at least one heating hopper (20) which is arranged downstream of the at least one crystallization hopper (10) and which is provided with a heating unit (21) which is provided to heat the crystallized granular polymer material to a second temperature which is greater than the first temperature (page 12, lines 3-6), at least one drying hopper (30) which is arranged downstream of the at least one heating hopper (20) and which is connected to a depressurization circuit (31) which is provided to obtain in the drying hopper a predefined level of pressure reduction and to dry the granular polymer material, at least one supply hopper (40) which is arranged downstream of the drying hopper and upstream of a transformation machine (100) for the granular polymer material. However, Piva does not discloses an agitation member which is associated with the at least one crystallization hopper and which is provided to maintain the granular material in an agitated state inside the at least one crystallization hopper; and the agitation member comprises a bladed shaft which rotates inside the at least one crystallization hopper. Osada et al. teaches an agitation member 22, 26 which is associated with the at least one crystallization hopper 12 and which is provided to maintain the granular material in an agitated state inside the at least one crystallization hopper 12 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0026]). The agitation member 22, 26 comprises a bladed 26 shaft 22 which rotates inside the at least one crystallization hopper 12 (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation of Piva to include an agitation member with braded shaft which is associated with the at least one crystallization hopper and rotates inside the at least one crystallization hopper and which is provided to maintain the granular material in an agitated state inside the at least one crystallization hopper as taught by Osada et al. in order to uniformly treat the granular polymer material.
Regarding claim 3, Piva discloses wherein the crystallization line (11) is supplied with air which is taken from the environment and which does not come from the at least one crystallization hopper (10) (page 6, lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 4, Piva discloses wherein the heating unit (21) comprises a recirculation circuit (22), through which a second gas flow is first introduced into the at least one heating hopper (20), then is recovered at the discharge from the at least one heating hopper (20) and is finally recirculated in the same at least one heating hopper (20) after being heated to the second temperature (Fig. 1, page 12, lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 5, Piva discloses wherein there are provided upstream and downstream of the drying hopper (30) a charging unit (36a, 36b, 36c) and a discharging unit (37a, 37b, 37c) of the drying hopper (30), respectively, each of the charging unit and discharging unit (36a-c, 37a-c) comprising a respective tank (36a; 37a) which is intercepted upstream and downstream by respective closure valves (36b, 36c; 37b, 37c) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Piva discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Piva further discloses the filling unit of the drying hopper 30 comprises a small tank 36a and the discharge unit of the hopper comprises a small tank 37a (page 13, lines 8, 11) and high vacuum levels, equal to an absolute pressure of around 10 mbar can be achieved by the tanks 36a and 37a upstream and downstream of the drying hopper 30 (page 13, lines 15-18). The drying and feed hoppers 30, 40 may have a volume of between 500 and 1000 litres (page 11, lines 2-3). However, Piva does not expressly disclose the ratio between the volume of each of the tanks (36a; 37a) and the volume of the drying hopper (30) is between 0.02 and 0.1. The current application discloses the charging unit and the discharging unit form elements for maintaining the pressure which are capable of maintaining the degree of reduced pressure reached inside the drying hopper. As a result of this feature, it is possible to obtain very high levels of reduced pressure, reaching an absolute pressure less than 30mbar, for example, an absolute pressure of approximately 10 mbar (current application, specification, page 12, lines 10-15). The drying and supply hoppers 30, 40 may have a volume between 500 and 1000 litres (current application, specification, page 16, line 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Piva to have a ratio between the volume of each of the tanks (36a; 37a) and the volume of the drying hopper (30) between 0.02 and 0.1, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 930,225 SPQ 232 (19834). In the instant case, the device of Piva would not operate different with the claimed ratio and since the ratio between the volume of each of the tanks and the volume of the drying hopper is intended to obtain very high vacuum levels, equal to absolute pressure of around 10 mbar, the device of Piva would function appropriately having the claimed ratio. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “preferably” be within the claimed ranges (specification, page 12, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 7, Piva discloses wherein the charging unit and discharging unit form elements for maintaining a pressure of the drying hopper (30) (page 12, line 24 to page 13, line 2).
Regarding claim 8, the step of “maintaining the granular polymer material with a low level of crystallinity in an agitated state and, at the same time, introducing into the granular polymer material a first gas flow having a first temperature so as to increase the level of crystallinity of the granular polymer material up to a value greater than a predefined threshold value below which the granular polymer material is not suitable for being subjected to drying” is not clear (see 112 rejection above). Piva discloses the remaining steps: heating the crystallized granular polymer material to a second temperature which is greater than the first temperature (page 12, lines 3-6); drying the crystallized and heated granular polymer material by applying a predefined level of reduced pressure (page 12, line 24 to page 13, line 2); transferring the dried granular polymer material into a supply hopper (40) which is provided upstream of a transformation machine (100) of the granular polymer material (Fig. 1, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Piva discloses wherein the granular polymer material is based on PET (page 10, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 10, Piva discloses wherein the granular polymer material, during or after the drying step, is subjected to a post-heating step (page 8, lines 9-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762