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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young (US 2,971,265). Young discloses an apparatus comprising a fan (70) for generating an air flow; a heating unit (72 and a surrounding region) in fluid communication with the fan for heating the air flow; and at least one drying drum (22) in fluid communication with the heating unit for drying material via heated air flow, wherein the heating unit is configured to be driven electrically (see col. 3, lines 1-2). As explained in the MPEP section 2115, which is titled “MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS” (block capitalization in original), the material intended to be acted upon during an intended operation does not further limit the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Young (US 2,971,265) in view of Groenendijk (GB 614,578). The apparatus and method of Young were discussed above:
Regarding claim 2, Young does not discloses duplicating the drying drum. Groenendijk teaches providing two drying chambers (8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have duplicated the drum of Young to dry two different materials or simply to dry more material.
Regarding claim 3, Groenendijk further teaches placing two drying chambers (8) in parallel flow, both receiving airflow from heating unit (4), which is electric (see page 2 line 129). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have duplicated the drums of Young and placed them in parallel flow both receiving air from the heating unit to dry two different materials without the expense of having two heating units.
Regarding claim 5, Young does not disclose a heat recovery unit for preheating air fed to the heating unit. Groenendijk teaches a heat recovery unit (9) for preheating air fed to a heating unit (4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a heat recovery unit as taught by Groenendijk to save energy.
Regarding claim 6, Young does not explicitly disclose a control unit for controlling the heating unit. Groenendijk teaches a control unit (see page 2, lines 74-77) for controlling the heating unit. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a control unit as taught by Groenendijk to achieve a desired temperature.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Young (US 2,971,265) in view of Ammann (US 1,189,772). The apparatus of Young was discussed above. Young does not disclose a dust extraction unit. Ammann teaches dust extraction unit (67) for an analogous drying apparatus. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a dust extraction unit as taught by Ammann to prevent dust from escaping into the environment.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Young (US 2,971,265) in view of Seymour (US 1,381,243). The apparatus of Young was discussed above:
Regarding claim 6, Young does not explicitly disclose a control unit for controlling the heating unit. Seymour teaches a control unit (41, 42) for controlling the heating unit. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a control unit for the heat unit because, as explained by Seymour on page 2, lines 17-37, some drying situations call for more heat than other situations.
Regarding claim 7, Young does not explicitly disclose switchgear for supplying the heating until with electrical energy. Seymour teaches switchgear (41,42) to supply a heating unit with electrical energy. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided switchgear to control the degree of heating, as explained by Seymour on page 2, lines 17- 37.
Regarding claim 8, Young does not explicitly disclose a transformer. Seymour teaches transformer (42). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a transformer to control the degree of heating, as explained by Seymour on page 2, lines 17-37.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Young (US 2,971,265) in view of Groenendijk (GB 614,578) and Ammann (US 1,189,772). Young discloses an apparatus comprising a fan (70) for generating an air flow; a heating unit (72 and a surrounding region) in fluid communication with the fan for heating the air flow; and at least one drying drum (22) in fluid communication with the heating unit for drying material via heated air flow, wherein the heating unit is configured to be driven electrically (see col. 3, lines 1-2). While Young further discloses a discharge pipe (88) for discharging airflow, the apparatus of Young is not disclosed to be part of an asphalt mixing facility. Groenendijk teaches the need for a highly analogous apparatus at an asphalt mixing facility (see page 2, lines 1-24). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have located the apparatus of Young at an asphalt mixing facility because, as taught by Groenendijk, there is a need to heat particulate material with hot air at an asphalt mixing facility. Young does not disclose a dust extraction unit. Ammann teaches dust extraction unit (67) for an analogous drying apparatus. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a dust extraction unit as taught by Ammann to prevent dust from escaping into the environment.
Claims 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Young (US 2,971,265) in view of Ammann (US 1,189,772):
Regarding claim 10, Young discloses a method for drying material (see col. 1, lines 15-20), the method comprising feeding air (see col. 3, lines 3-8) into a heating unit (72 and a surrounding region); heating air in the heating unit via electrical energy (see col. 3, lines 1-2); and feeding heated air into at least one drying drum (22). Young does not disclose a dust extraction unit. Ammann teaches dust extraction unit (67) for an analogous drying apparatus. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a dust extraction unit as taught by Ammann to prevent dust from escaping into the environment.
Regarding claim 12, the air flow rate is not quantified. However, as held in In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have scaled the process to dry a desired amount of material.
Regarding claim 13, the air flow rate is not quantified. However, as held in In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have scaled the process to dry a desired amount of material.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Young (US 2,971,265) in view of Ammann (US 1,189,772) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Grunzweig (US 982,950). Heating air to a temperature of 600 degrees C is not disclosed. Grunzweig teaches heating air to 600 degrees C (see line 30-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have heated air to 600 degrees C so as to treat a give material, such as cork, as taught by Grunzweig.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Young (US 2,971,265) in view of Ammann (US 1,189,772) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Groenendijk (GB 614,578). Young does not disclose preheating air fed to the heating unit by a heat recovery unit. Groenendijk teaches preheating air fed to a heating unit (4) by a heat recover unit (9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have preheated air fed to the heating unit by a heat recovery unit as taught by Groenendijk to save energy.
Response to Arguments
Contrary to applicant’s remarks concerning claim 1, as explained in the MPEP section 2115, which is titled “MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS” (block capitalization in original), the material intended to be acted upon during an intended operation does not further limit the claim.
Concerning claim 10, while applicant amended the claim to require a dust extraction unit, and therefore the claimed is no long anticipated, Ammann teaches providing a dust extraction unit.
Contrary to applicant’s remarks, the references all pertain to heating particulate materials and therefore it is proper to combine their teachings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights