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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 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 1 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the reinforcing member” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Since claims 2-7 and 9-13 depend upon an indefinite claim, either directly or indirectly, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claims 3, 4, 5 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the periphery ,” “the inflow, ” “the reinforcing member,” and/or “the part” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 6 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the radial direction” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 7 is construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the cross-section area” and “the end” (plural occurrences) lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 10 is construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the number” and “the periphery” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 12 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the cooling medium” lacks a positive antecedent basis. 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 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (US 8,601,714) in view of Kitamura et al. (US 8,966,783) . The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Morrison as teaching: a drying (see title and abstract) apparatus, comprising: a drying tower 10 , having an air outlet through which hot air is blown into the drying tower to contact and dry an material (column 3 line 54 through column 4 line 9 and figures 1, 22) ; and a cooling mechanism, disposed on the drying tower, for cooling an inner wall of the drying tower (column 4 lines 41-50 and figures 1, 22) ; wherein the cooling mechanism comprises reinforcing members and a cooling member disposed on an outer wall of the drying tower, and each the reinforcing member is at least partially connected between the cooling member and the outer wall of the drying tower (column 4 line 51 through column 5 line 12) . Morrison also discloses the claim 2 feature wherein the cooling mechanism further comprises a power source, the cooling member has a cooling channel, and the power source is used for driving a cooling medium to flow in the cooling channel (column 1 lines 25-40 inherently because power is necessary to run a blower), the claim 3 feature wherein the cooling member is annularly disposed on the periphery of the drying tower, and the cooling channel is formed between the cooling member and the outer wall of the drying tower (figures 1, 22), the claim 4 feature wherein the cooling mechanism further comprises a flow equalizer annularly disposed on the periphery of the drying tower, the inflow end of the cooling channel communicates with the flow equalizer, and the power source is used for driving the cooling medium in the flow equalizer to flow into the cooling channel (column 1 line 63 through column 2 line ), the column 5 feature wherein the reinforcing member is annularly disposed on the periphery of the drying tower, and the part of the reinforcing member located in the cooling channel is provided with a circulating port, the circulating port being used for the cooling medium of the cooling channel to circulate (figures 1, 22), the claim 6 feature wherein one end of the reinforcing member away from the drying tower in the radial direction of the drying tower penetrates out of the cooling member (figures 1, 22), the claim 7 feature wherein the drying tower comprises a first part and a second part having an air outlet, the cross-sectional area S in the second part gradually decreases from the end of the second part close to the first part to the end of the second part having the air outlet, and the cooling member is disposed on the first part and extends on the outer wall of the drying tower to be adjacent to the air outlet to the second part (column 3 line 25-44), the claim 9 feature wherein the cooling mechanism further comprises a discharge member disposed on the drying tower, and the discharge member has discharge ports communicating with the cooling channel (figures 1, 22), the claim 10 feature wherein the number of the discharge ports is at least two, and the discharge ports are all disposed at intervals around the periphery of the drying tower , the claim 12 feature wherein the drying apparatus further comprises a heat exchanger, and the heat exchanger communicates with one end of the cooling member for the cooling medium to flow in (inherent to Morrison because heat exchange necessarily flows when heat and cold contact each other in that structure) . Morrison discloses the claimed invention, except for the recited atomized feature. Kitamura, another drying apparatus, discloses atomized feature at column 6 line 64 at column 7 line 11. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Morrison with the teachings of Kitamura for the purpose of drying materials from an atomized state. Furthermore, Morrison in view of Kitamura discloses the claimed invention, except for the claims 10 and 11 features of intervals and sleeving mode. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the teachings of Morrison in view of Kitamura would perform the invention as claimed regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed of specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 13 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action may teach one or more claim features but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection. References A, N, O, P, cited with this action , are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, Q, cited with this action teach dryer apparatus. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4875 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 ( mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Craig Schneider can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272 3607 . 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. Wednesday, March 18, 2026 /STEPHEN M GRAVINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753