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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-11 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. In this case, claims 6-11 are multiple dependent claims that all depend from claim 3, which is also a multiple dependent claim. It is noted that, by depending on “any one of the preceding claims,” claims 7-11 also depend from multiple dependent claim 6, claims 8-11 also depend from multiple dependent claims 6 and 7, and so on. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 6-11 have not been further treated on the merits.
The Examiner suggests that any claim that depends from “any one of the preceding claims” be canceled or amended to depend from a single claim.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 contains the trademark/trade name “Kalrez” in line 2. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a perfluoroelastomer seal and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
It is noted that claims 8-10 also contain trade names and would be rejected under 35 USC 112(b) if considered on the merits.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenmund et al. (US 4081381, hereinafter Rosenmund).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenmund discloses a crystallizer filter washer dryer device comprising:
a vessel (figure 1, housing 1) defining a process chamber, the vessel comprising vessel walls (wall 2), a vessel opening (at top of wall 2), a vessel lid (cover 3) operable to releasably seal the vessel opening (column 2, lines 39-40), and a vessel base (floor 4);
a filter plate (filter 26) laterally disposed on the vessel base wherein the filter plate is operable to retain a crystalline fraction of a slurry comprising the crystalline fraction and a liquid fraction (column 4, lines 25-27);
an agitator assembly comprising:
an impeller (device 20) and agitator shaft (shafts 17, 18, and 19), wherein the impeller is laterally disposed within the vessel above the filter plate, wherein the agitator shaft is attached at agitator shaft distal end to the impeller in the process chamber of the vessel and extends through a mixing port in the vessel (see figure 1) in rotatable and axially slideable relation (column 4, lines 5-10); and
a motor (motor 15) attached to an agitator shaft distal end of the agitator shaft and operable to rotate the agitator shaft about its longitudinal axis; and
a drain port (opening 9) in the vessel base for outflowing the liquid fraction of the slurry filtered through the filter plate.
Regarding claim 5, Rosenmund discloses the impeller has no predetermined direction of rotation (see figure 1, device 20) and is vertically movable to raise and lower the impeller (column 4, lines 5-10).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenmund et al. (US 4081381, hereinafter Rosenmund).
Regarding claim 2, Rosenmund discloses the vessel lid being releasably sealed to the vessel walls (column 2, lines 39-40, “cover 3 is removable and bolted onto flanges 7 so as to make a pressure-tight seal with the wall 2”). Although Rosenmund does not explicitly disclose the vessel base also being releasably sealed, given that the lid is releasably sealed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the base of Rosenmund releasably sealed to the vessel walls for the purpose of simplifying cleaning and/or repair of the device. Further, it has been held that, when it is desirable to make structures separable and such separation would not provide any unexpected result, it is obvious to make structures separable. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, making the base of Rosenmund removable would be desirable for the purpose of simplifying cleaning and/or repair and would provide no unexpected results, and thus is considered to be obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenmund et al. (US 4081381, hereinafter Rosenmund) in view of Buchanan (US PGPub 2008/0087592, hereinafter Buchanan).
Regarding claim 3, Rosenmund discloses the vessel walls comprising a sealing rim at the vessel opening (column 2, lines 39-40, “cover 3 is removable and bolted onto flanges 7 so as to make a pressure-tight seal with the wall 2”), but is silent to a gasket as recited. Buchanan teaches a vessel that includes a body and a lid (figure 1) wherein the walls of the body include a sealing rim and the vessel lid is releasably sealed by a gasket interposed between the vessel opening and the sealing rim of the vessel walls (paragraph 0053). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Rosenmund with a gasket, as in Buchanan, for the purpose of ensuring a tight seal between the parts of the vessel.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenmund et al. (US 4081381, hereinafter Rosenmund) in view of Buchanan (US PGPub 2008/0087592, hereinafter Buchanan), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Brun et al. (US 4467080, hereinafter Brun).
Regarding claim 4, Rosenmund is silent to a gasket. Buchanan teaches a gasket, and further teaches sealing rings with PTFE (paragraph 0099). Brun also teaches the use of a PTFE gasket to seal adjacent sections of a device that contains fluid (column 10, line 32). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have used a PTFE coated gasket in the device of Rosenmund for the purpose of ensuring a tight seal between the parts of the vessel, and because PTFE gaskets are known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses vessels with impellers and filter plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774