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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A corresponding to claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 04/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-29 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of each of claims 2-17 each recite “The device according to claim” which should read “The device for drying particulate material according to claim” for increased clarity purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “at least on baffle plate” which should be “at least [[on]] one baffle plate”.
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 and 6 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 5 states “comprising n devices for removing” where the Examiner is unclear which devices are being referred back to or if these are new devices. A review of the specification shows that the “devices for removing” are referring back to the “devices for removing air” in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “comprising n devices for removing” will be treated as “comprising n devices for removing air”.
Claim 5 states “the air has a humidity Hi, said humidity Hi, being greater than the humidity Hi+1 of the air” which has improper antecedent basis for Hi+1 and for examination purposes the phrase “the air has a humidity Hi, said humidity Hi, being greater than the humidity Hi+1 of the air” will be treated as “the air has a humidity Hi, said humidity Hi, being greater than a [[the]] humidity Hi+1 of the air”.
Claim 6 is rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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 1-4, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/075500 (Holz hereinafter) in view of DE 4016100 (Verzicht hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Holz teaches an apparatus for bulk drying that discloses at least one air-permeable conveyor belt (Figures 1-3 with belt 16), at least one air supply for supplying air to a space above the at least one conveyor belt (Air supply from 8 in Figures 1 and 3 as well as air from 5/6), a plurality of devices for removing air from a space below the at least one conveyor belt (Ventilation devices 4 in Figures 1 and 3), said devices for removing air being arranged sequentially along the at least one conveyor belt (Evident from Figures 1 and 3), and at least one air exhaust for releasing air into the environment (Exhaust at 25 in Figure 1).
Holz is silent with respect to a plurality of filter devices for filtering the air removed by the devices for removing air, wherein said filter devices are arranged downstream of the devices for removing air, and at least one air exhaust for releasing filtered air into the environment which is arranged downstream of the filter devices.
However, Verzicht teaches a device for drying material that discloses a filter device for filtering the air removed by a device for removing air (Figure 2 showing filter 19 at the atmospheric exhaust from the ventilation unit 18). The resultant combination would apply a filter to each atmospheric exhaust 25 of Holz such that there is a plurality of filter devices for filtering air removed by the devices for removing air, wherein said filter devices are arranged downstream of the devices for removing air (Evident from Figure 2 of Verzicht), and at least one air exhaust for releasing filtered air into the environment which is arranged downstream of the filter devices (Outlet of 25 in Holz and the outlet from 19 in Figure 2 of Verzicht).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation units of Holz with the filters of Verzicht to prevent harmful gases or particulates from entering the atmosphere.
Regarding claim 2, Holz’ modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz and Verzicht would further disclose that the number of the plurality of devices for removing air exceeds the number of filter devices by a factor of at least 1.5, wherein at least once, the air of 2 or more devices for removing air is grouped and enters one filter device (The resultant combination of Holz and Verzict shows 2 filters on the external lines 25 of Holz and at least 4 total ventilation devices 4 of Holz).
Regarding claim 3, Holz’ modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Holz and Verzicht would further disclose that the number of the plurality of devices for removing air exceeds the number of filter devices by a factor of 2,3 or 4, wherein each time the air of 2, 3 or 4 devices for removing air is grouped and enters one filter device (The resultant combination of Holz and Verizcht shows 2 filters on the external lines 25 of Holz and at least 4 total ventilation devices 4 of Holz).
Regarding claim 4, Holz’ modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Holz and Verzicht would further disclose that the device comprises 2 to 40 devices for removing air (Holz Figures 1 and 3 show at least 4 devices for removing air) .
Regarding claim 7, Holz’ modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz and Verzicht would further disclose that each of the devices for removing air is designed to remove an equal amount of air per time period (Holz shows the devices for removing air [4] as all being the same and therefore are seen as moving equal parts of air).
Regarding claim 8, Holz’ modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz and Verzicht would further disclose more air supplies for supplying air than devices for removing air (Holz discloses “In the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 1, each of the drying regions 1, 2 has a corresponding ventilation device 4, wherein it would also be conceivable to associate a common ventilation device 4 with a plurality of drying regions 1, 2.”)
Regarding claim 9, Holz’ modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz and Verzicht would further disclose that the at least one air supply comprises a device for heating air comprising a heat exchanger, gas burners, electrical air heaters, or combinations thereof (Holz discloses the heat exchangers 10).
Regarding claim 12, Holz’ modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz and Verzicht would further disclose that the devices for removing air are fans (Fans 4 of Holz).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/075500 (Holz) in view of DE 4016100 (Verzicht) and further in view of US 2995829 (Allen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to two conveyor belts, said conveyor belts being aligned above each other, wherein the particulate material is provided on a first conveyor belt, aligned over a second conveyor belt, and after having reached the end of the first conveyor belt is transferred by gravity to the second conveyor belt below the first conveyor belt.
However, Allen teaches a device for drying material that discloses two conveyor belts (Figure 2 shows the zig-zagging belts for drying materials), said conveyor belts being aligned above each other (Evident of Figure 2), wherein the particulate material is provided on a first conveyor belt, aligned over a second conveyor belt, and after having reached the end of the first conveyor belt is transferred by gravity to the second conveyor belt below the first conveyor belt (Clearly shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying assembly of Holz with a second conveyor belt as taught by Allen to allow for more drying to occur while jostling the material during the belt change.
Regarding claim 11, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Holz, Verzicht, and Allen would further disclose that the first and second conveyor belts have opposite conveying directions (Turnback conveyors of Allen as shown in Figure 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/075500 (Holz) in view of DE 4016100 (Verzicht) and further in view of US 3611584 (Henson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that each filter device comprises at least one air inlet, at least one baffle plate, and at least one filter medium for removing dust-like material, said filter medium being allocated downstream of the baffle plate.
However, Henson teaches an air exhaust that features a filter (75 in Figure 2) with at least one air inlet (Inlet on end 79), at least one baffle plate (Baffle at 79), and at least one filter medium for removing dust-like material (Actual filter body 75), said filter medium being allocated downstream of the baffle plate (Evident of Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter assembly of Holz and Verzicht with the filter assembly of Henson to further prevent debris from leaving the processing assembly.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/075500 (Holz) in view of DE 4016100 (Verzicht) and further in view of US 2019/0134584 (Boerner hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that each filter device comprises at least one filter medium and at least one means for restoring the filter medium, comprising a device for providing a punch of compressed air to the filter medium.
However, Boerner teaches an exhaust filter maintenance system that discloses at least one filter medium and at least one means for restoring the filter medium, comprising a device for providing a punch of compressed air to the filter medium (¶ 30 details the filter cleaning system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter assembly of Holz and Verzicht with the filter cleaning system of Boerner to ensure that the filter is always clean.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/075500 (Holz) in view of DE 4016100 (Verzicht) and further in view of US 2011/0159795 (Sprague hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the at least one filter device comprises a filter medium made of a hydrophobic material.
However, Sprague teaches an exhaust system from an air handler that discloses a filter medium made of a hydrophobic material (¶ 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter material of Holz with the hydrophobic material taught by Sprague to ensure that the filter does not absorb water and become clogged.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/075500 (Holz) in view of DE 4016100 (Verzicht) and further in view of US 2013/0288346 (Tuohey hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the at least one filter device comprises a heating device preventing the formation of condensates.
However, Tuohey teaches an exhaust system for a processing assembly that discloses a filter device comprising a heating device preventing the formation of condensates (¶ 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter unit of Holz with the heater of Tuohey to ensure that condensates are not formed and keeping a clear filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 14 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.
Claim 5 introduces significant control language with specific variable limitations. The ability to read on these limitations would require at least one and more than likely two or more references modifying each other in such a manner that would not have been obvious to the Examiner. Therefore dependent claim 5 and further dependent claim 6 are objected to as allowable over the prior art.
Claim 14 introduces a myriad of filter specifications that would require at least one if not more references to teach said specifications. If those references were applied there would be a heavy reliance on modifying already modifying references which would be improper. Therefore, claim 14 is objected to as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights