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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, “configured to generates” should read --configured to generate--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-7 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.
Claims 3-5 recite the specific gravity units to be “sg”. It is unclear what unit of measurement “sg” is, since it is not defined, and specific gravity is meant to be a ratio and does not ordinarily have a unit of measurement. As such the claims are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “a stirring operation unit” in line 5. It is unclear whether “a stirring operation unit” of claim 6 is the same or different “stirring operation unit” as recited in claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “a stirring vibration unit” in line 2. It is unclear whether “a stirring vibration unit” of claim 7 is the same or different “stirring vibration unit” as recited in claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “an ultrasonic wave generator” in line 3. It is unclear whether “an ultrasonic wave generator” of claim 7 is the same or different “ultrasonic wave generator” as recited in claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 repeats the limitations of claim 1 without adding any additional new limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 101719134B1) (with cited paragraph numbers referring to machine translation) in view of Naoe (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0265120), Marhasin (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0260106) and Kuhn et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,556,467).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a urea water manufacturing device (title; figures 1-3), which comprises:
a pure water supply unit, which comprises a pure water supply line (figure 1, ultrapure water supply pipe 101; figures 2 and 3, ultrapure water supply pipe 412) connected with a stirring tank (figure 1, stirring container 100; figures 2 and 3, mixing tank 400) and that supplies pure water into the stirring tank ([0012]);
a urea supply unit, which comprises a urea supply line connected with the stirring tank and that supplies urea into the stirring tank (figures 2 and 3, urea solution discharge pipe 411; [0012]); and
a stirring unit, in which the pure water and the urea supplied into the stirring tank are stirred (figure 1, stirrer 200, motor 211, rotating shaft 212, blades 213, stirring pump 223; figures 2 and 3, vortex generator 422; [0036]; [0041]; [0050]-[0051]) in a predetermined stirring vibration atmosphere ([0044]; [0084]);
wherein the stirring unit includes:
a stirring operation unit configured to generates rotational power of the stirring unit (figure 1, motor 211; figures 2 and 3, motor 421; [0036]; [0050]-[0051]); and
a stirring vibration unit configured to form the stirring vibration atmosphere for stirring the pure water and the urea within the stirring unit ([0044]; [0084]).
However, Kang does not explicitly disclose the stirring vibration unit includes ultrasonic wave generators configured to generate vibration waves, and wherein a first vibration wave frequency generated by the ultrasonic wave generators during manufacturing the urea water is lower than a second vibration wave frequency generated by the ultrasonic wave generators during self-cleaning.
Naoe both teaches another stirrer device for dispersing a solution (figure 1, dispersion device 10). Naoe teaches stirring vibration unit includes ultrasonic wave generators configured to generate vibration waves having a first and second wave frequency (figure 1, ultrasonic oscillators 14; [0053]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the ultrasonic wave generators of Naoe on the stirring unit of Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach stirrers for dispersing a solution. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide ultrasonic wave generators as part of the stirring unit because the ultrasonic oscillator is sued together with the stirring device to provide high dispersion performance (Naoe [0028]).
It is noted that the claim is directed to a device and the manner in which the device is operated does not impart any additional structural limitations to the device. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The combination of references teaches/obviates a stirring operation unit and a stirring vibration unit comprising ultrasonic wave generators and "wherein a vibration wave frequency generated by the ultrasonic wave generators during manufacturing the urea water and a vibration wave frequency generated by the ultrasonic wave generators during self-cleaning are different from each other" is the manner in which the device is operated. In the instant case, the combination of references teach/obviate ultrasonic wave generators and the ultrasonic wave generators of are capable of being operated such that a vibration wave frequency generated during manufacturing the urea water and a vibration wave frequency generated during self-cleaning are different from each other. Regardless, Marhasin and Kuhn et al. further teach, in the area of ultrasonic generators for stirring or dispersing solvents, to control the frequency and intensity of the variable ultrasonic generators in response to desired process conditions, with one process to be for mixing a slurry and one process for cleaning (Marhasin [0045], [0091], [0102]; Kuhn et al. column 1, lines 13-30).
Regarding claim 2, Kang as modified further discloses a specific gravity detection unit, which detects specific gravity of urea water produced by mixing of pure water and urea being stirred inside the stirring tank and generates a corresponding specific gravity detection signal thereof (figure 3, specific gravity meter 443; [0056]-[0060]);
a control unit, which analyzes the specific gravity detection signal that is generated in and supplied from the specific gravity detection unit, compares the detected specific gravity of the urea water with a predetermined discharge range of specific gravity, and generates a corresponding feedback control signal thereof so that the detected specific gravity of the urea water is included in the predetermined discharge range of specific gravity, thereby controlling the specific gravity of urea water produced inside the stirring tank (figure 3, controller 444; [0056]-[0060]); and
a urea water discharge unit, which comprises a urea water discharge line connected with the stirring tank and that discharges the urea water produced inside the stirring tank to the outside of the stirring tank through the urea water discharge line (figures 3 and 4, diluted urea solution discharge pipe 501).
Regarding claim 3, Kang as modified further discloses wherein the specific gravity of urea water discharge is in a range of 1.305 sg to 1.315 sg (figure 3, controller 444 and diluted urea in discharge pipe 501; [0056]-[0060]; [0086]). The claims are directed to a device, and therefore the material or article worked upon does not further limit the apparatus claims. See MPEP §2115. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Therefore, the urea water discharge, which is the material worked upon, and its material properties does not impart any additional structural limitations to the device. The apparatus of Kang is capable to operate as recited.
Regarding claim 4, Kang as modified further discloses wherein when the detected specific gravity of the urea water exceeds 1.315 sg, the control unit supplies a pure water supply feedback control signal to the pure water supply unit and thereby further supplies pure water into the stirring tank (figure 3, controller 444 and diluted urea in discharge pipe 501; [0056]-[0060]; [0086]). The claims are directed to a device, and therefore the material or article worked upon does not further limit the apparatus claims. See MPEP §2115. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Therefore, the urea water discharge, which is the material worked upon, and its material properties does not impart any additional structural limitations to the device. The apparatus of Kang is capable to operate as recited.
Regarding claim 5, Kang as modified further discloses wherein when the detected specific gravity of the urea water is lower than 1.305 sg, the control unit supplies a urea supply feedback control signal to the urea supply unit and thereby further supplies urea into the stirring tank (figure 3, controller 444 and diluted urea in discharge pipe 501; [0056]-[0060]; [0086]). The claims are directed to a device, and therefore the material or article worked upon does not further limit the apparatus claims. See MPEP §2115. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Therefore, the urea water discharge, which is the material worked upon, and its material properties does not impart any additional structural limitations to the device. The apparatus of Kang is capable to operate as recited.
Regarding claim 6, Kang as modified further discloses wherein the stirring unit comprises:
a stirrer, which rotates as an external force is transmitted thereto and thereby stirs pure water and urea (figure 1, stirrer 200, motor 211, rotating shaft 212, blades 213, stirring pump 223; figures 2 and 3, vortex generator 422; [0036]; [0041]; [0050]-[0051]) in a predetermined stirring vibration atmosphere ([0044]); and
a stirring operation unit, which generates rotational power of the stirrer (figure 1, motor 211; figures 2 and 3, motor 421; [0036]; [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Kang as modified further discloses wherein the stirring unit further comprises a stirring vibration unit, which comprises an ultrasonic wave generator that generates vibration waves, and forms a stirring vibration atmosphere for stirring of the pure water and the urea inside the stirring tank (Naoe figure 1, ultrasonic oscillators 14; [0028]; [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Kang as modified further discloses wherein the pure water supply unit comprises:
a pure water filtration unit, which is provided on the inlet side of the pure water supply line and filters the water supplied from the outside into pure water (figure 2, ultrapure water generator 413);
a pure water supply control unit, which is provided in the pure water supply line to control the supply amount of pure water filtered through the pure water filtration unit (figure 1, ball valve 122; figure 3, flow meter 434 and controller 435; [0033]; [0034]; [0052]);
an injection unit, which is provided at the outlet side of the pure water supply line and injects pure water (figures 2 and 3, 412; [0029]-[0032]); and
a temperature control unit, which is provided between the pure water filtration unit and the pure water supply control unit in the pure water supply line and controls the temperature of pure water to a predetermined supply temperature ([0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Kang as modified further discloses wherein the urea supply unit comprises:
a urea storage unit, which stores urea supplied to the stirring tank (figures 1-3, #310);
a particle forming unit, which forms the urea stored in the urea storage unit in particles (figures 1-2, #300; [0044]; [0049]); and
a urea supply control unit, which supplies an accurate amount of the particulated urea into the stirring unit (figure 3, valve 432 and controller 435).
Regarding claim 10, Kang as modified further discloses wherein the device further comprises a filtration unit, which is provided in the urea water discharge line and filters impurities being discharged through the urea water discharge line (figure 3, purification filter 503 in discharge line 501; [0013]; [0062]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Naoe, Marhasin and Kuhn et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR101703959B1) (with cited paragraph numbers referring to machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Kang as modified discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, does not further discloses wherein the device further comprises a cleaning unit, which comprises a cleaning line connected with the pure water supply line and the urea water discharge line, and that selectively removes the urea water that remains in the stirring tank or the urea water discharge line using the pure water supplied from the pure water supply line.
Park teaches another apparatus for manufacturing urea solution (title). Park teaches wherein the device further comprises a cleaning unit, which comprises a cleaning line connected with the pure water supply line and the urea water discharge line, and that selectively removes the urea water that remains in the stirring tank or the urea water discharge line using the pure water supplied from the pure water supply line (figure 1, cleaning part 170; figure 3, entrance 111 for operator to clean vessel 110; [0022]-[0023]; [0034]; [0050]; [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the cleaning unit of Park on the device of Kang One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach apparatus for manufacturing urea solution. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a cleaning unit because it easily removes impurities in the tank (Park [0022]-[0023]; [0034]; [0050]; [0101]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights