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 .
Status
Claims(s) 1-14, is/are filed on 10/11/2023 are currently pending. Claim(s) 10-14 is/are withdrawn without traverse, 1-9 is/are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 4 recites the limitation ‘a whistle inlet.’ It is unclear as to what structure makes an inlet a whistle inlet. The specification discusses details of inlet whistle block and inlet whistle plate but no clear definition is provided of a whistle inlet. For interpretation, a whistle inlet is any inlet and entry point.
Claim(s) 7 recites the limitation ‘the solids material inlet and an upper section solvent inlet are positioned to initially rinse the solids material in the feed portion of the housing, the feed portion of the housing being positioned above the immersion portion of the housing’ it is unclear what is required structurally to meet this limitation. For interpretation, any position of both inlets would be correct.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 20180291307 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
1239
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches an extractor, comprising: a housing (12) having a solids material inlet (14), a solvent inlet (20), a solids material outlet (18), and a solvent/miscella outlet (22), the housing including a feed portion (the region of housing (12) adjacent feed inlet (14) constitutes the "feed portion") configured to receive a solids material and an immersion portion (interior of housing (12) containing pool of solvent (24) constitutes the "immersion portion") configured to maintain a liquid pool in which the solids material is immersible during operation of the extractor [0012-0017];
a conveyor assembly (conveyors (26A, 26B, 26C) collectively form a "conveyor assembly) extending from the feed portion to the immersion portion, the conveyor assembly configured to transmit the solids material from the feed portion to the immersion portion within the extractor housing [0016-0020];
a plurality of recycle stages (each "sub-pool" constitutes a "recycle stage") [0020] within the immersion portion, wherein each stage is optionally separated by a divider (each bed deck (28) constitutes a "divider" under BRI), and wherein each stage has a solvent and/or miscella recycle inlet (a place of entry of miscella at the top of each recycling stage as inlet is nothing more than a place of entry) positioned to direct a flow of solvent and/or miscella upwardly into the immersion portion wherein the solvent and/or miscella intermixes with the solids material (Anderson explicitly teaches that the solvent flows upwardly around the ends of bed decks (28) as it moves countercurrently, and that this flow intermixes with solids material in each stage); optionally a further solvent and/or miscella recycle outlet (bottom outlet portion of miscella of each recycle stage) [0016-0022].
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches wherein the housing includes an upwardly angled section (see the portion from point 20 to point 18 – fig. 1) located between the immersion portion of the housing and the solids material outlet and configured to allow solvent drainage from the solids material [0013-0020].
Regarding claim 5, Anderson teaches wherein the solvent and/or miscella recycle outlet is configured as a suction outlet (suction is intended use – any outlet would work – the outlet at the bottom of 26C would read on this) in fluid communication with the immersion portion of the housing [0022].
Regarding claim 6, Anderson teaches wherein the conveyor assembly is configured to move the solids materials in a countercurrent direction relative to a solvent flow (see fig. 1 – miscella flows to the left and solids move to the right) [0016-0024].
Regarding claim 7, Anderson teaches wherein the solids material inlet (14) and an upper section solvent inlet (20) are positioned to initially rinse the solids material in the feed portion of the housing, the feed portion of the housing being positioned above the immersion portion of the housing (intended use) [0016-0024].
Regarding claim 8, Anderson teaches wherein the divider includes a stage separation baffle (bed deck 28 forms a baffle plate – fig. 1) [0016-0024].
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches wherein the extractor has from three to six stages (three stages – see fig. 1) [0019].
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Hengel (US 3597163 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
596
1077
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Van Hengel teaches an extractor, comprising: a housing (closed housing formed from 22 to 26) having a solids material inlet (22), a solvent inlet (40), a solids material outlet (26), and a solvent/miscella outlet (46), the housing including a feed portion (top portion near 22) configured to receive a solids material and an immersion portion (bottom portion of the housing) configured to maintain a liquid pool in which the solids material is immersible during operation of the extractor; a conveyor assembly (12, 14, 16, 18, 20) extending from the feed portion to the immersion portion, the conveyor assembly configured to transmit the solids material from the feed portion to the immersion portion within the extractor housing; a plurality of recycle stages (i.e. stages formed by 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) within the immersion portion, wherein each stage is optionally separated by a divider (12.2,14.2, 16.2, …), and wherein each stage has a solvent and/or miscella recycle inlet (inlet of 32, 34, 36, …) positioned to direct a flow of solvent and/or miscella upwardly into the immersion portion wherein the solvent and/or miscella intermixes with the solids material (intended use); and optionally, a further solvent and/or miscella recycle outlet (30.1, 32.1, 34.2…) (C3/20-C5/35).
Regarding claim 2, Van Hengel teaches wherein the housing includes an upwardly angled section (see the angled section above 20.7) located between the immersion portion of the housing and the solids material outlet and configured to allow solvent drainage from the solids material.
Regarding claim 4, Van Hengel teaches wherein the solvent and/or miscella recycle inlets comprises a whistle inlet (32.4-32.6, 34.4-34.6, etc) and a distribution manifold (piping of 32.4-32.6, etc).
Regarding claim 5, Van Hengel teaches wherein the solvent and/or miscella recycle outlet is configured as an overflow weir and/or a suction outlet in fluid communication with the immersion portion of the housing (both are provided – overflow system and pump 30.3 for suction).
Regarding claim 6, Van Hengel teaches wherein the conveyor assembly is configured to move the solids materials in a countercurrent direction relative to a solvent flow (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Van Hengel teaches wherein the solids material inlet and an upper section solvent inlet are positioned to initially rinse the solids material in the feed portion of the housing, the feed portion of the housing being positioned above the immersion portion of the housing (intended use – see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Van Hengel teaches wherein the divider includes a stage separation baffle (i.e. baffle of 12.2, 14.2, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Van Hengel teaches wherein the extractor has from three to six stages (5 stages – fig. 1).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20180291307 A1) in view of US 4751060 A (Kratochwill).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson does not teaches wherein the conveyor assembly includes a chain with flights driven by an internal drive sprocket, and wherein the chain is guided by an idler sprocket and a guide rail. However, this design is implicit as it Anderson states it is a Model IV extractor. Kratochwill teaches chain (38) with staves/flights (40), drive sprockets (30) as internal drive sprockets, second sprocket (30) as idler sprocket, side walls (34, 36) guiding the chain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the conveyors of Anderson using the chain-with-staves (flights) and sprocket arrangement of Kratochwill, because Anderson expressly identifies the extractor as a Model IV extractor from Crown Iron Works, and— also assigned to Crown Iron Works — provides the detailed chain/stave/sprocket conveyor construction used in such extractors, the combination yielding predictable results in operating the extractor. Furthermore, guide rails for chain conveyors are well-known mechanical components used to support and direct conveyor chains, and it would have been obvious to include a guide rail to prevent chain sag and ensure proper tracking.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20180291307 A1) in view of Van Hengel (US 3597163 A).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson may not teach wherein the solvent and/or miscella recycle inlets comprises a whistle inlet and a distribution manifold. However, Van Hengel teaches a similar counter current extraction system that moves solids through multiple inclined conveyor stages, and below each stage sits a reservoir that collects liquid that has percolated down through the solids bed each stage has its own dedicated pump that draws liquid from that reservoir and pushes it back up through a branched pipe system (piping of 32) with whistle inlets (i.e. 32.4, 32.5, 32.6) to be sprayed over the top of the solids on that same stage's conveyor — creating a closed recirculation loop within each individual stage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add Van Hengel's per-stage recirculation to Anderson's immersion extractor because Anderson already has discrete sub-pools separated by bed decks but relies only on passive solvent flow between them, and Van Hengel teaches that actively pumping solvent back up through the solids within each stage dramatically increases solvent-solid contact and extraction efficiency. Both references are in the same field of conveyor-based multi-stage solvent extraction, and adding a pump and return line to each of Anderson's existing sub-pools is a straightforward mechanical modification yielding the predictable result of improved per-stage extraction performance.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777