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
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “A system for the removal” should be amended to –A system for removal—(delete “the”).
Claim 2: “a system for the removal” should be amended to –a system for removal—(delete “the”).
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 1-5 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.
The term “high” in claims 1-5 (“high sugar”) is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the context of the claims and corresponding specification what concentration of sugar in the substance would be within the scope of “high.”
The term “close” in claim 1 (“close clearance”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what distance is encompassed by recitation of “close” or what structural implications it has for the vacuum isolation device.
Regarding claim 2, the moisture content recited (“5% or less”) is unclear because it lacks corresponding units, i.e., is the percentage by weight, volume, molar, etc.?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the final product" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 Koenig et al (US 2018/0187275).
Regarding claim 1, Koenig discloses a system 120 for removal of water vapor in a high sugar concentrate substance (e.g., syrups and molasses) comprising (see Figs. 1 & 2; [0002]; [0009]; [0015]; [0019]):
a preheater (zone 140) (see [0022]);
a heater (zone 142) in fluid communication with the preheater (see [0022]);
a plurality of evaporator chambers 146 in fluid connection with the heater (see [0022], which explicitly discloses additional heating zones, thus encompassing more than the three heating zones depicted in Figs. 1 & 2A);
a plurality of augers (adjustable-pitch paddles 128) within the heater and evaporator chambers (see Fig. 2B; [0020]); and
a vacuum isolation device in fluid connection with the heater and evaporator chambers, the vacuum isolation device providing and maintaining vacuum pressure within each of the preheater, the heater, and the evaporator chambers (see [0023]; [0040]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig in view of Leschke (EP 244 079).
Regarding claim 2, Koenig discloses a method of operating a system for removal of water vapor in a high sugar concentrate substance (e.g., syrups and molasses), the method comprising (see Figs. 1 & 2; [0002]; [0009]; [0015]; [0019]):
introducing a sample of high sugar concentrate substance to a preheater (zone 140) (see [0019]; [0022]; [0037])
heating the sample substance to a predetermined temperature and for a predetermined consistency (see [0019]);
first moving the sample to a first evaporation chamber (zone 142) (see [0022]; [0038]);
second moving the sample to a second evaporation chamber (zone 146) (see [0022]);
applying a continuous flow vacuum pressure to the first and second evaporation chambers (see [0017]; [0040]); and
monitoring the moisture content of the sample, wherein a final product has a moisture content of 5 wt.% or less (see [0042]).
With respect to the claim limitation “initiating the system with a set of predetermined instructions”, it is noted that Koenig discloses controlling the temperature within each zone (see [0023]), which implies some form of communication to the system to operate at the desired temperature settings.
Furthermore, reference is drawn to Leschke, which is directed to controlling an evaporation system. Leschke discloses controlling the evaporation process by determining a boiling point of a mixture and controlling heat input in response in order to produce a final mixture with a predetermined composition (see p. 5, lines 1-7; p. 6, lines 34-58; p. 8, lines 29-33, the program begins with an initialization block). Thus, Leschke is considered to teach the claim step of initiating an evaporation system with a set of predetermined instructions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Koenig by implementing the process control technique of Leschke, in order to provide the capability of closely controlling the composition of the final product.
Regarding claim 3, Koenig discloses wherein the preheater is a shell and tube heat exchanger (see [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Koenig in view of Leschke discloses wherein the set of predetermined instructions include parameters for temperature and pressure (see Koenig: [0023]; Leschke: p. 9, lines 5-22).
Regarding claim 5, Koenig discloses wherein the heating step is comprised of applying steam via a steam jacket (see [0021]-[0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772