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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heating unit” in claims 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-5, 8 and 11-20 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 4 recites “the variable heating sources” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the plurality of variable heating sources”. NOTE: claim 5 has the same limitation and requires the same change.
Claim 8 recites “a source of gypsum”. However gypsum is a material to be worked upon in the limitation of claim 6, and therefore gypsum is part of intended function. It’s not clear as to if the source of gypsum from claim 8 is actual gypsum material, or is it a container that holds gypsum that is to be worked upon by the system.
Claim 11 recites “at least one variable heater” in two places. It’s not clear as to if they refer to the same “at least one variable heater”.
Claim 12 recites “the heating unit includes a plurality of variable heaters”. It’s not clear as to if “a plurality of variable heaters” in claim 12 includes “at least one variable heater” from claim 11, or if “a plurality of variable heaters” in claim 12 are different heaters in addition to “at least one variable heater” from claim 11.
Claim 14 recites “the firing rate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “firing rate”.
Claim 15 recites “the variable heaters” in line 2. 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiao (CN 217809205. See attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jiao teaches a system “for manufacturing calcined gypsum” (This is intended use), the system comprising:
a calcination unit (furnace 1, fig 1), the calcination unit including a calcining chamber (space inside furnace 1) and a heating unit (heating oil pipes 2) associated with the calcining chamber, the calcining chamber including an inlet (opening that the top of furnace for receiving material) for receiving a supply of gypsum (abstract, “gypsum calcining furnace”) therethrough and into the calcining chamber and an outlet (opening at the bottom of furnace 1 for material to drop into collection box 7) for discharging the supply of gypsum from the calcining chamber;
a calciner temperature control device, the calciner temperature control device including a temperature sensor (8) and a controller (page 3, third paragraph, “the gypsum calciner is controlled by PID”. A controller is inherently provided to allow PID control) in operable arrangement with the temperature sensor and the heating unit (see page 3, third paragraph), wherein:
the temperature sensor is positioned to detect at least one of the temperature within the calcining chamber and the temperature at a discharge portion adjacent and downstream of the outlet (the sensor is located in the calcining chamber), the temperature sensor configured to generate a temperature signal indicative of the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (temperature sensor inherently provide a temperature signal), and the controller is configured to adjust a thermal energy output rate of the heating unit based upon a comparison of the temperature signal and a target set point temperature (page 3, third paragraph, “the temperature of the gypsum calciner is controlled by PID, and the temperature in the furnace body can be accurately controlled at 180 degrees centigrade.” A controller is inherently provided to compare measured temperature with a target temperature, which would be 180 degree C).
Regarding claim 4, Jiao teaches the controller is configured to adjust the thermal energy output rate of the heating unit by adjusting each one of the plurality of variable heating sources (see claim 1 explanation. Control is inherently provided and the heating coil is controlled to achieve target temperature).
Regarding claim 5, Jiao teaches the controller is configured to independently adjust each one of the plurality of variable heating sources (Page 4 lines 11-12, “the hot oil pipe set by grouping can independently control the continuous β gypsum production line for heating”).
Regarding claim 11, Jiao teaches a method for manufacturing calcined gypsum, the method comprising:
feeding (through opening at top of furnace 1, fig 1) a supply of gypsum (abstract, “gypsum calcining furnace”) at a feed rate into a calcining chamber (space inside furnace 1) of a calcination unit, the calcination unit including a heating unit (heating oil pipes 2) having at least one variable heater (page 5 line 20, “three groups of heating oil pipes 2”) associated with the calcining chamber; monitoring (using temperature sensors 8) temperature within the calcining chamber using a temperature sensor positioned to detect at least one of the temperature within the calcining chamber and the temperature at a discharge portion adjacent and downstream of an outlet of the calcining chamber (the sensor is located in the calcining chamber), the temperature sensor configured to generate a temperature signal indicative of the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (temperature sensor inherently provide a temperature signal); transmitting the temperature signal to a controller (page 3, third paragraph, “the gypsum calciner is controlled by PID”. A controller is inherently provided to allow PID control) in operable arrangement with the temperature sensor and the heating unit; operating (controller is inherently operated) the controller to adjust a thermal energy output rate of the heating unit by adjusting at least one variable heater of the heating unit based upon a comparison of the temperature signal and a target set point temperature (page 3, third paragraph, “the temperature of the gypsum calciner is controlled by PID, and the temperature in the furnace body can be accurately controlled at 180 degrees centigrade.” A controller is inherently provided to compare measured temperature with a target temperature, which would be 180 degree C).
Regarding claim 15, Jiao teaches adjusting the thermal energy output rate of the heating unit comprises adjusting each one of the variable heaters (Page 4 lines 11-12, “the hot oil pipe set by grouping can independently control the continuous β gypsum production line for heating”).
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao (CN 217809205) in view of Lettkeman (US 8343273).
Regarding claim 2, Jiao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and the heating unit includes a plurality of variable heating sources (page 5 line 20, “three groups of heating oil pipes 2”), but fails to teach the calcination unit comprises a refractoryless kettle.
Lettkeman teaches a refractoryless kettle (col 2 lines 34-35, “An exemplary process for manufacturing kettle stucco will now be described, although methods of calcining, other than kettle, are known in the art. For example, calcination is also achieved in a flash calciner or a refractoryless kettle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao as taught by Lettkeman by using refractoryless kettle for the system in order to achieve desired calcination result.
Regarding claim 12, Jiao teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and the heating unit includes a plurality of variable heating sources, but fails to teach the calcination unit comprises a refractoryless kettle.
Lettkeman teaches a refractoryless kettle (col 2 lines 34-35, “An exemplary process for manufacturing kettle stucco will now be described, although methods of calcining, other than kettle, are known in the art. For example, calcination is also achieved in a flash calciner or a refractoryless kettle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao as taught by Lettkeman by using refractoryless kettle for the system in order to achieve desired calcination result.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao (CN 217809205).
Regarding claim 10, Jiao teaches all elements of the claims except that the target set point temperature within the calcining chamber is less than or equal to 330F (Jiao teaches 180C, which is about 356F). However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Jiao to the target temperature set at desired temperature point since the present application does not show that the particular temperature point solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration. Also one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the heat generated by the heating coil can be controlled by running heating fluid at a lower temperature through the coil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-7 are 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.
Claims 8-9, 13-14, 16-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571)272-6785. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights