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 Species A directed towards Figure 1 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has acknowledged that claims 1-9, 16, and 17 are directed towards this embodiment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 in line 3 recites the acronym “OHPs” for the first time without listing out what is meant by this acronym. A review of the specific shows that OHPs stands for oscillating heat pipes and the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a condenser section of a plurality of oscillating heat pipes, OHPs, [[OHPs]] located between” for clarity purposes.
Claims 2-9 are objected to for being dependent from an objected to claim. 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 6 and 8 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.
Claim 6 recites “the wood or lumber” where the Examiner is unclear which wood or lumber is being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the phrase “the wood or lumber” will be treated as “[[the]] wood or lumber”.
Claim 8 recites “the wood or lumber” where the Examiner is unclear which wood or lumber is being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the phrase “the wood or lumber” will be treated as “[[the]] wood or lumber”.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0025153 (Mengat hereinafter) in view of US 2020/038385 (Alahyari hereinafter) and further in view of US 2021/0247115 (Wallet hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mengat teaches a biomass drying means that discloses a drying vessel that includes a condenser section located between an evaporator section and secured within a housing (Figure 4 with condenser section at 56 in a loop with the evaporators 58 and secured to the drying vessel or 62); a condensed liquid tank that is in fluid connection to an output for the drying vessel (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ends of 56 connected to the valves 66 will act to pool and drain liquid from the condensers), wherein the condensed liquid tank is in fluid connection to a first expansion valve and is in fluid connection to a second expansion valve (Expansion valves 66a [first] and 66b [second] in Figure 4); a first evaporator that has an input that is in fluid connection to an output of the first expansion valve (Evaporator 58a); a second evaporator that has an input that is in fluid connection to an output of the second expansion valve (Evaporator 58b); a compressor having an input that is in fluid connection to an output of the first evaporator (Compressor 64a); and a condenser section of the drying vessel to dry the items and generate an output of moisture (Condenser section made of 56).
Mengat is silent with respect to a condenser section of a plurality of OHPs located between an evaporator section of the plurality of OHPs and secured within a housing.
However, Alahyari teaches a heat exchanger that discloses the use of an oscillating heat pipe unit (¶ 27). The resultant combination would modify the heat exchanger of Mengat to be an OHP heat such that the condenser section of a plurality of OHPs located between the evaporator section of the plurality of OHPs and secured within a housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger of Mengat with the PHP style heat exchanger of Alahyari to increase heat exchanger stability per ¶ 2 of Alahyari.
Mengat is silent with respect to an ejector that receives a primary high-pressure vapor stream from an output of the compressor and receives a secondary low-pressure vapor stream from the output of the second evaporator and generates as output a high-temperature vapor that is provided as input to the condenser section.
However, Wallet teaches a refrigeration system (Figure 2) that discloses an ejector that receives a primary high-pressure vapor stream from an output of the compressor (Passage from compressor 122 via 142 to the inlet of ejector 132 at 134) and receives a secondary low-pressure vapor stream from the output of an evaporator (Inlet at 136 from evaporator 128 being equivalent to the second evaporator of Mengat) and generates as output a high-temperature vapor that is provided as input to the condenser section (Evident from Figure 2 as applied to Mengat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flow pathing of Mengat with the ejector of Wallet to combine flows while assisting in lubrication to the compressor.
Regarding claim 9, Mengat’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mengat, Alahyari, and Wallet would further disclose that the drying vessel having a condenser section of a plurality of OHPs secured within a housing provides an inner surface that can facilitate heat transfer and having a thin layer film of liquid that can be removed by capillary force (Resultant combination of the OHPs of Alahyari as used with the surface of the drying target of Mengat for liquid to form when heating to dry out said drying target).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0025153 (Mengat) in view of US 2020/038385 (Alahyari) in view of US 2021/0247115 (Wallet) and further in view of US 6151795 (Hoffman hereinafter)
Regarding claim 2, Mengat’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a moisture condenser for receiving the moisture output from the drying vessel and transferring condensed water to a water reservoir, wherein the water reservoir is in fluid connection with a vacuum pump for retrieving the water from the moisture condenser into the water reservoir.
However, Hoffman teaches a drying system (Figure 5) that discloses a moisture condenser for receiving the moisture output from the drying vessel and transferring condensed water to a water reservoir (Moisture condenser 114 per Column 7 Lines 6-14), wherein the water reservoir is in fluid connection with a vacuum pump for retrieving the water from the moisture condenser into the water reservoir (Pump 210 is pulling a vacuum from 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat system of Mengat with the moisture condenser collection of Hoffman to minimize the need for external fluids to be provided.
Regarding claim 3, Mengat’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Mengat and Hoffman would further disclose a pump for conveying cooling fluid from the moisture condenser to the second evaporator, then to the first evaporator, and finally return the cooling fluid to the moisture condenser (Hoffman in Figure 5 shows the compressor 92 for circulating the fluid between the heat pump components and therefore the same teachings would be applied to Mengat such that the compressor 92 would circulate the cooling fluid from the moisture condenser to the second evaporator, then to the first evaporator, and finally return the cooling fluid to the moisture condenser).
Claims 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0025153 (Mengat) in view of US 2020/038385 (Alahyari) in view of US 2021/0247115 (Wallet) and further in view of US 2008/0263890 (Picard hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Mengat’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the items to be dried include wood or lumber. Mengat does disclose the drying of a bio-mass.
However, Picard teaches a vacuum drying assembly that discloses the drying items as wood or lumber (Abstract and ¶ 1).
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 target of Mengat to be wood or lumber per Picard via a simple substitution to obtain the well-known and predictable result of drying a biological item.
Regarding claim 5, Mengat’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 where the combination of Mengat and Picard would further disclose that the wood or lumber does not crack due to the plurality of OHPs that provide a high level of temperature uniformity and thermal stress in the wood or lumber that reduces the drying process and prevents cracking (¶ 15, 168, and 172 show that the temperatures used are result effective variables to minimize the potential cracking of the wood).
Regarding claim 6, Mengat’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mengat, Alahyari, and Wallet are silent with respect that the drying vessel is utilized to heat up the wood or lumber, where thermal energies removed from the first evaporator and the second evaporator are used to condense the moisture generated from the drying vessel and form the pressure difference to pump moisture from the drying vessel to the moisture condenser creating a closed-loop that results in increased thermal efficiency.
However, Picard teaches a vacuum drying assembly that discloses the drying items as wood or lumber (Abstract and ¶ 1) with the heat exchanger sandwiching the wood therefore allowing the resultant combination to disclose where thermal energies removed from the first evaporator and the second evaporator are used to condense the moisture generated from the drying vessel (Evident from the heat cycle shown in Mengat Figure 4) and form the pressure difference to pump moisture from the drying vessel to the moisture condenser creating a closed-loop that results in increased thermal efficiency (Evident from Mengat Figure 4 with the teachings of Alahyari and Wallet).
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 target of Mengat to be wood or lumber per Picard via a simple substitution to obtain the well-known and predictable result of drying a biological item.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0025153 (Mengat) in view of US 2021/0247115 (Wallet).
Regarding claim 16, Mengat teaches a system and method of operation for drying a bio-mass (Figure 4) that discloses heating items in a drying vessel that includes a condenser secured within a housing (Figure 4 shows the bio-mass 67 being dried via the heat pump cycle including the condenser 56); providing liquid from the output of the condenser to a first expansion valve that provides a low-pressure vapor to a first evaporator (Fluid path from 56/56a through the valve 66a then to evaporator 58a); providing liquid from the output of the condenser to a second expansion valve that creates a low-pressure liquid as input into a second evaporator that is converted into a low- pressure vapor (Fluid path from 56/56b through the valve 66b then to evaporator 58b); providing low-pressure vapor from the first evaporator fluid into a compressor (Flows from 58a/58b to compressor section 64), creating a high-pressure vapor (Inherent operation).
Mengat is silent with respect to utilizing an ejector that receives the high-pressure vapor stream from an output of the compressor and receives a secondary low-pressure vapor stream from the output of the second evaporator and generates as output a high-temperature vapor that is provided as input to a condenser section of the drying vessel to dry the items and generate an output of water.
However, Wallet teaches a refrigeration system (Figure 2) that discloses an ejector that receives a primary high-pressure vapor stream from an output of the compressor (Passage from compressor 122 via 142 to the inlet of ejector 132 at 134) and receives a secondary low-pressure vapor stream from the output of an evaporator (Inlet at 136 from evaporator 128 being equivalent to the second evaporator of Mengat) and generates as output a high-temperature vapor that is provided as input to the condenser of the drying vessel to dry the items and generate an output of water (Evident from Figure 2 as applied to Mengat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flow pathing of Mengat with the ejector of Wallet to combine flows while assisting in lubrication to the compressor.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0025153 (Mengat) in view of US 2021/0247115 (Wallet) and further in view of US 6151795 (Hoffman).
Regarding claim 17, Mengat’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 but are silent with respect to utilizing a condensed liquid tank that is connected in fluid relationship to the drying vessel.
However, Hoffman teaches utilizing a condensed liquid tank that is connected in fluid relationship to the drying vessel (Tank 114 of Hoffman in Figure 5 per Column 7 Lines 6-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid collection of Mengat/Wallet with the teachings of Hoffman to allow for easy containment and disposal of excess water.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “wherein the thermal energy received from the first evaporator and the compressor power the ejector, which pumps additional thermal energy from the second evaporator, resulting in high energy efficiency to reduce CO2 emission from drying wood or lumber significantly and only utilizing electrical energy to drive the system.” The further addition of controlling CO2 emissions would require additional references that would not be obvious in view of the combination already presented in claim 1 above.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the vacuum pump is used only to remove the non- condensable gas only at the beginning when the lumber or wood is loaded into the drying vessel or some non-condensable gas from wood is produced during the operation of the drying vessel so that moisture flow from the drying vessel to the moisture condenser is by an evaporation- condensation closed loop that reduces power utilized by the vacuum pump.” The further modification the rejection of claim 2 above would necessitate the use of hindsight rationale as well as modifying already modifying references relative to the primary reference of US 2013/0025153 (Mengat). Therefore, for at least this reason, dependent claim 8 is objected to as allowable over the prior art of record.
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