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 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.
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 of at least one respective cleaning nozzle in claim 20.
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 5, 14 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.
For claim 5, claim limitation “mixing means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the mixing function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For claim 14, claim 14 is a method claim. Method claim shall be defined by active, positive steps. However, claim 14 fails to include any active steps and contains only structural limitation.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of mixing. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9-10, 15, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overGunji et al. (JPH1075719 A) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP2000249465 A).
For claims 1 and 21, Gunji et al. discloses a method of drying a residual product from a foodstuff production process (paragraph [0008]), the method comprising the steps of: receiving a residual product (paragraph [0034], example 10 discloses sake lees, paragraph [0008] discloses sake lees is a residual product from a foodstuff production processes) containing between 20-50% dry substance from a foodstuff production process producing a main foodstuff product (paragraphs [0017], [0034], example 10 discloses the sake lees having a water content of 78 wt. %, i.e., containing 22 wt.% dry substance); supplying the residual product to a mixer (paragraph [0017]); supplying the mixed product to a fluidized bed (paragraph [0017]); supplying heated air of between 60-150 degrees C to the fluidized bed (paragraph [0017] discloses hot air at 60°C); drying the mixed product in the fluidized bed using the supplied heated air by shaking the mixed product to be dried in the fluidized bed while supplying the heated air (paragraph [0017] discloses a vibrating fluidized bed dryer); cooling the dried product (paragraph [0017] discloses applying cold air to pellets); and extracting the dried product from the fluidized bed, wherein a portion of the dried product is supplied to the mixer to be mixed with received residual product (paragraph [0017] discloses 65 parts by weight (a portion) of dried pelletized product and 35 parts by weight of sake lees (paragraph [0034]) starting material are mixed to produce pellets as described above, i.e., wherein 65 parts by weight of the dried produce is supplied to the pellet mill (mixer) to be mixed with sake lees (received residual product)). Gunji et al. also discloses a foodstuff production process residual product drying system (example 10 in view of example 1 and paragraphs [0008], [0017], [0034]) comprising a pellet mill (mixer), a vibrating fluidized bed and means for supplying heated air to the fluidized bed, and the system is configured to performthe above method of examples 1 and 10). However, Gunji et al. does not explicit the residual product is received continuously from a foodstuff production process producing a main foodstuff product. Gunji et al. discloses in paragraph [0002] that due to its high water content, vegetable processed food residues are associated to the problem that mold is likely to occur and the distribution costs are high. Takahashi et al. teaches using a raw material conveyor 14 to continuously feed residues into drying tower 10. 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 method and system of Gunji et al. to choose a continuous drying process at a food production site over a discontinuous process, such as taught by Takahashi et al. in order to eliminate the need for waiting time and/or long way transportation, which are causing the known problems of growing of mold and distribution costs.
With regard to claim 4, Gunji et al. discloses wherein the dry substance level of the mixed product is measured, and wherein the supply of dried product and/or residual product is controlled based on the measured dry substance level (paragraph [0007] discloses mixing 60 to 80 parts by weight of dried product and 20 to 40 parts by weight of processed vegetable food residue having a moisture content of 75-90% by weight, this results vegetable processed food residue in the final pellet product (i.e. dried product) at a rate of at least 10 wt.% of dry substance, i.e. wherein the supply of both the dried product (60-80 parts) and of the residual product (20-40 parts) is controlled based on the measured dry substance level of the final product mixture, in order to ensure that it contains at least 10 wt.% of vegetable processed food residue).
With regard to claim 9, Gunji et al. discloses wherein the shaking of the mixed product is made by shaking at least a part of the fluidized bed on which the mixed product lies (paragraph [0017] discloses a vibrating fluidized bed dryer).
With regard to claim 10, Gunji et al. discloses wherein the dried product is further shaken in the fluidized bed during cooling (paragraph [0017]).
With regard to claim 15, Takahashi et al. discloses supplying heated air comprises the steps of receiving air and heating the received air with waste heat from the foodstuff production process before supplying the heated air to the fluidized bed (paragraph [0034]-[0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method of Gunji et al. to include supplying heated air comprises the steps of receiving air and heating the received air with waste heat from the foodstuff production process before supplying the heated air to the fluidized bed as taught by Takahashi et al. in order to save cost.
With regard to claim 17, Takahashi et al. discloses extracting air used for drying the product from the fluidized bed (Fig. 1, from line 18), and supplying the extracted air to a cyclone device 19 to separate particles of dried product from the extracted air (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 further modify the method of Gunji et al. to include a step of extracting air used for drying the product from the fluidized bed and supplying the extracted air to a cyclone device 19 to separate particles of dried product from the extracted air as taught by Takahashi et al. in order to separate the extracted air flow from the dried residue product.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (JPH1075719 A) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP2000249465 A) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Kitagawa (JP 2004101127 A).
The method of Gunji et al. as modified by Takahashi et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 2-3 except for wherein the mixer is supplied with 55-80% residual product and 20-45% dried product having at least 80% dry substance, mixed together to the mixed product in the mixer; wherein the mixer is supplied with residual product and dried product in a ratio such that the mixed product contains about 45-50% dry substance. Kitagawa discloses a mixer 15 is supplied with 55-80% residual product and 20-45% dried product having at least 80% dry substance (paragraphs[0026]-[0029] discloses 1000 kg/hr of raw material M (residual product) via screw conveyor 22 and 500 kg/hr of dry goods P (dried product) via screw conveyor 52, i.e. 1000/1500=67% residual product and 500/1500=33% dried product), mixed together to the mixed product in the mixer 12; wherein the mixer is supplied with residual product and dried product in a ratio such that the mixed product contains about 45-50% dry substance (paragraph [0028] discloses the rate of 500 kg/hr of the dried product P is changed according to the properties of the raw material M in order to reduce the moisture content of raw material M and prevent the formation of adhering lumps in the chamber 12 of the fluidized bed dryer 1 (paragraph [0004], [0027]). 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 method Gunji et al. to supply the mixer with 55-80% residual product and 20-45% dried product having at least 80% dry substance, mixed together to the mixed product in the mixer as taught by Kitagawa in order to obtain a dried product with desired moisture content. With regard to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix residual product and dried product in a ratio such that the mixed product contains about 45-50% dry substance because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration in order to obtain a desired final dried product which fails to patentably distinguish over Gunji et al. in view of Takahashi et al, and Kitagawa.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (JPH1075719 A) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP2000249465 A) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Daleffe et al. (Drying of Pastes in Vibro-Fluidized Beds).
The method of Gunji et al. as modified by Takahashi et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 6-7 except wherein the mixed product is shaken at a frequency of 2-5 Hz; wherein the shaking of the mixed product on the fluidized bed is made with a shaking distance of 5-30 mm. Daleffe et al. discloses the mixed product is shaken at a frequency of 2-5 Hz (Fig. 3, F=4.86 Hz); wherein the shaking of the mixed product on the fluidized bed is made with a shaking distance of 5-30 mm (fig. 3, A=0.021m, i.e. 21mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method of Gunji et al. to shake the mixed product at a frequency of 2-5 Hz; wherein the shaking of the mixed product on the fluidized bed is made with a shaking distance of 5-30 mm as taught by Daleffe et al. in order to obtain an optimum drying result.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (JPH1075719 A) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP2000249465 A) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Senadeera et al. (Methods for effective fluidization of particulate food materials).
The method of Gunji et al. as modified by Takahashi et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 8 except wherein the shaking of the mixed product on the fluidized bed is made in a direction having an angle of about 30-60 degrees to a plane of the fluidized bed. Senadeera et al. discloses the shaking of the mixed product on the fluidized bed is made in a direction having an angle of about 0-45 degrees to a plane of the fluidized bed (table 2, vibration vector angles of 0-45 degrees). As Senadeera et al. discloses a range overlaps the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gunji et al. to make the shaking of the mixed product on the fluidized bed in a direction having an angle of about 30-60 degrees to a plane of the fluidized bed as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Claims 11, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (JPH1075719 A) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP2000249465 A) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Kuhn (The art of drying iquid feeds, pastes and solids).
With regard to claims 11 and 22, the drying method and system of Gunji et al. as modified by Takahashi et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 11 and 22 except for supplying an amount of water to the residual product prior to supplying the residual product to the mixer; a water supplying system configured to supply an amount of water to the residual product prior to supplying the residual product to the mixer. Kuhn discloses supplying an amount of water to the residual product prior to supplying the residual product to the mixer; a water supplying system configured to supply an amount of water to the residual product prior to supplying the residual product to the mixer (page 70, paragraph 2 to page 71 paragraph 1, page 62, “rewet Agglomerator”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method and system of Gunji et al to include a water supplying system and to supply an mount of water to the residual product prior to supplying the residual product to the mixer as taught by Kuhn in order to improve the product’s flowability and reduces dust problems during powder handling and thus decrease machine maintenance and cleaning costs.
With regard to claim 14, Kuhn discloses the fluidized bed comprises a first section in which the heat air is distributed to heat the mixed product to be dried in the fluidized bed, and a second section in which cooling air is supplied to cool the dried product (page 105, paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method of Gunji et al. to divide fluidized bed to a first heating section and a second cooling section as taught by Kuhn in order to perform both heating and cooling in the fluidized bed to save cost.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (JPH1075719 A) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP2000249465 A) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Hutchison et al. (US 4,143,163).
The method of Gunji et al. as modified by Takahashi et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 16 except for extracting the dried product from the fluidized bed comprises a step of suppling the dried product to a finisher device in which the dried product is comminuted. Hutchison et al. teaches an additional step of comminuting the dried product to produce a finely divided, free flowing product (claim 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method of Gunji et al. to include a step of suppling the dried product to a finisher device in which the dried product is comminuted as taught by Hutchison et al in order to produce a finely divided, free flowing product.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (JPH1075719 A) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP2000249465 A) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Fisher (US 3,138,167).
The method of Gunji et al. as modified by Takahashi et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 20 except for a step of cleaning the mixer and the fluidized bed by means of at least one respective cleaning nozzle. Fisher teaches a concept of cleaning the mixer 26-29 and the fluidized bed 10-14 by means of at least one respective cleaning nozzle 61 (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 further modify the method of Gunji et al. to include a step of cleaning the mixer and the fluidized bed by means of at least one respective cleaning nozzle as taught by Fisher in order to clean the residues out of the mixer and fluidized bed to avoid contamination of the next product to be dried.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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 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
JY