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 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: “drying apparatus”, “drying target loading device” in claim 1.
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.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because it recites “a plurality of horizontal bars having one ends” in line 5 and “a plurality of horizontal bars having one end” in line 10 of the claim, which are grammatically improper and are suggested to be revised as “a plurality of horizontal bars having one end
Claim 6 is objected to because it does not end with a period.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a temperature of 30o to 160o” without specifying what unit of temperature, e.g. Fahrenheit, Celsius, etc., is used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification discloses “the drying target may be preferably sterilized and heated at a temperature of 30o to 160°” in lines 10-12 on page 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101418260 B1 to Eom in view of KR 20140007681 A to Jeon.
In reference to independent claim 1, Eom discloses:
A drying apparatus (dryer 600) in which a drying target is loaded and dried by a wind and heat of a heat exchange unit (400), wherein the drying apparatus is divided into an upper machine room (A) and a lower drying room (B) by a partition plate (C), which is installed parallel to a ground inside a case (100) closed top and bottom surfaces (see Fig. 2),
an inner case (300), which is spaced apart from an inner surface of the case and has a plurality of through-holes (315), is installed inside the drying room (see Fig. 2), and
a drying target loading device (200) in which the drying target dried by the heat of the heat exchange unit is loaded is rotatably (rotatable via motor 210) installed in a cylindrical space formed by the inner case.
Eom is silent regarding the heating device being a lamp and the drying apparatus being cylindrical.
Jeon teaches a similar dryer (100) having a housing (10) forming an inner enclosure (20) including a drying chamber (11), which is heated by a UV lamp (70, 80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the heat exchanger of Eom with the UV lamp of Jeon as they are both known heaters and are equivalents.
Even though the drying apparatus is not cylindrical per se, it includes circular separating plates (226) (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the drying apparatus to be cylindrical as a matter of design choice to accompany the circular plates.
In reference to dependent claim 2, Eom further discloses: the drying target loading device includes: a rotation plate (226) having a disc shape and rotated by a rotational force of a motor (210) installed in the machine room (A); a plurality of horizontal bars (222) having one end coupled to the rotation plate and installed parallel to the ground (see Figs. 2 and 11); vertical bars (224) coupled to opposite ends of the horizontal bars and installed perpendicular to the ground (see Figs. 2 and 11), respectively; and a plurality of horizontal bars (222) having one end coupled to lower ends of the vertical bars (224), respectively, and opposite ends coupled to a rotation plate having a disc shape (see Figs. 2 and 11).
In reference to dependent claim 3, Eom further discloses: at least one fan (322) is installed on an upper portion of the partition plate (C), air discharged by the fan is sprayed to the drying target loading device through the through-holes (315) formed on one side of the inner case (300) (see Figs. 2, 3 and 11) and sucked through through-holes (412) formed on an opposite side of the inner case (300) (air having passed through drying space 250 is sucked into a dry air inflow control unit 480 positioned on the opposite side of the hot air supply chamber A via openings 412), and the air sucked through the through-holes formed on the opposite side of the inner case is discharged to the upper portion of the partition plate (see Fig. 1, the drying air introduced through the dry air inflow adjusting unit 480 by the blower 322 is transferred to the heater 330 by the blower 322).
In reference to dependent claim 4, Eom is silent regarding a pump installed on the upper portion of the partition plate to discharge the air sucked through the through-holes formed on the opposite side of the inner case to an outside. Jeon further teaches an exhaust fan (60) for conveying air to the outside (see Fig. 5).
In reference to dependent claim 5, Eom further discloses: the air sucked through the through-holes (412) formed on the opposite side of the inner case is re-introduced into the fan (see Fig. 1, the drying air introduced through the dry air inflow adjusting unit 480 by the blower 322 is transferred to the heater 330 by the blower 322).
In reference to dependent claim 6, Eom is silent regarding the horizontal and vertical bars form three pairs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added pairs of horizontal and vertical bars as needed in order to add stability to the circular separating plates as they rotate.
In reference to dependent claim 8, Eom further discloses: the vertical bars (224) have a plurality of incision portions (215) arranged in a vertical direction and having one side that is open, and a plurality of insertion portions configured as grooves (support) consecutively formed downward on inner sides of the incision portions (see Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Jeon further in view of KR 100426242 B1 to Kim et al. (Kim).
In reference to dependent claim 7, Eom and Jeon are silent regarding heating lamps are installed symmetrically about a center point of the inner case in the inner case.
Kim teaches a UV sterilizer for handling freeze-dried food therethrough including UV lamps (24) inside a drum body (20), the lamps formed within each drum (22a, 22b, 22c) (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed multiples of the UV lamp (70, 80) of Jeon symmetrically within the hot air distribution device (300) of Eom in order to evenly heat and dry the contents of the dryer.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Jeon further in view of Kim and KR 200484095 Y1 to Kang.
In reference to dependent claim 9, Eom, Jeon and Kim are silent regarding an inner surface of the inner case having a high reflectivity, and lights are emitted from the heating lamps in various directions and reflected on the inner surface of the inner case in various directions, the drying target arranged about the center point of a circle formed by the inner case is uniformly dried.
Kang teaches a similar drying device, the device used to dry shoes. The device having a reflector provided on an inner wall of the heat collecting part to reflect the heat generated in the heat generating part to the inside (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the inner walls reflective as taught by Kang in order in order to reflect heat and more effectively dry the contents of the dryer.
In reference to dependent claim 10, Kim already teaches that the UV lamps (24) are arranged symmetrically about the center of the inner case (see Fig. 3). As such, the symmetrical arrangement of the UV lamps would accomplish the intended constructive interference, light amplification to increase heating efficiency.
In reference to dependent claim 11, Eom, Jeon, Kim and Kang are silent regarding the target temperature range. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a temperature range that would suit the needs of the dryer and the contents being dried and sterilized as a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799