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 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 1-13 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “the water vapor sucked from the inlet is moved to the outlet” It is not clear which inlet and outlet the Applicant refer to, it can be the inlet / the outlet of the first pump or the inlet / outlet of the storage tank.
Claim 1 recites “the storage tank having an inlet”. According to specification, the storage tank is 126a, however, the Applicant does not describe what is the inlet of the storage tank. The Office interprets the storage inlet is the inlet where the pump inlet 121a enters the storage tank. The art rejection is made based on the above interpretation.
In Reference to Claims 2-13
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their virtue dependency to Claim 1.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,427,084 to Rhodes in view of US Patent 4,148,731 to Brigante.
In Reference to Claim 1
Rhodes discloses a vacuum freeze-dryer for freeze-drying a sample in a pressure state of below the triple point of water, the vacuum freeze-dryer comprising: a freeze-drying chamber (Fig. 3A, 40) that is sealed and in which the sample is arranged; a first pump (Fig. 3A, 25) comprising an inlet (Fig. 3A, there is an inlet to the vane pump in the zoom in section of Fig. 3A) connected to the freeze-drying chamber and configured to suck water vapor vaporized from the sample, an outlet (Fig. 3A, 54) configured to discharge the water vapor sucked, a storage tank (Fig. 3A, annotated by the examiner) having an inlet (Fig. 3A, annotated by the examiner) and an outlet formed therein and accommodating oil for maintaining seal during when the water vapor sucked from the inlet is moved to the outlet; an apparatus for separating moisture (Fig. 3A, 13) from oil connected to the first pump and separating moisture from the oil in the first pump
Rhodes does not teach a second pump.
Brigante teaches a second pump (Fig. 1, 16a) connected to the apparatus for separating moisture from oil and generating a negative pressure in the apparatus for separating moisture from oil.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Brigante into the design of Rhodes. Doing so, would result in a pump positioned between separator to move working media in between. Both inventions of Rhodes and Brigante having separator filtering working media. Brigante teaches a pump at the outlet of the separator can facilitate the movement of working media (Col. 4, Line 50-55)
PNG
media_image1.png
505
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2
Rhodes discloses the freeze-drying chamber comprises a rotation member for rotating the sample. (As showed in Fig. 3A, a rotatory vane pump)
In Reference to Claim 3
Rhodes discloses the apparatus for separating moisture from oil comprises a first suction portion (Fig. 3A, annotated by the examiner) connected to the outlet of the first pump.
In Reference to Claim 4
Rhodes discloses the apparatus for separating moisture (Fig. 3A, 13) from oil comprises a second suction portion connected to the storage tank of the first pump (Fig. 3A, 25).
In Reference to Claim 5
Rhodes discloses the apparatus for separating moisture from oil comprises a filter (Fig. 3A 13).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rhodes and Brigante as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 3,899,398 to Cole.
In Reference to Claim 11
The combination of Rhodes and Brigante as applied to Claim 1 teaches a second pump connected to the separator.
The combination of Rhodes and Briganet as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the type of the pump.
Cole teaches a piston pump (10) moves material between separator (10) and separator (26)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Cole into the combination of Rhodes and Brigante as applied of Claim 1. Doing so, would result in a piston pump being used in the combination of Rhodes and Brigante as applied to Claim 1, since Cole teaches a method of working material between separators with predictable result of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/3/26
Prosecution Insights