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 .
Drawings/Specification
PNG
media_image1.png
471
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 shows a micro-flow pipeline 31, coiled, as if sitting on top of the “object stage 32.” It is unclear from the drawing and [0029] of the specification whether 31 is perched on top of 32 or embedded within 32.
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.
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: “ultrasonic processing system configured for conducting ultrasonic-assisted,“ “flow subsystem is configured for mixing cellulase solution and plant raw material suspension and conveying mixed cellulase solution,” and “a reactor control system configured to …” in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 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 limitation “a reactor control system configured for detecting … concentration of plant phenols…” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to show how the concentration is determined, and what type of sensor or analyzer is employed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 5, and 7are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of CN 1952046 A and WO 2009/071294 A2.
PNG
media_image2.png
314
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN teaches an ultrasonic reactor system having ultrasonic transducers (4-1 and 4-2) inside, and reactor inlets and outlets as claimed. See the figures. The system also has a flow system as claimed (figure 2), and a control system. It has a jacket with inlet and outlet in which hot fluid can be circulated to control or maintain the temperature.
It is noted that claim 1 has only three structural items: the ultrasonic processor, the flow system and the controller. The details of the enzymatic hydrolysis, mixing cellulose solutions, raw materials, etc., are intended use or material worked upon, and are not patentable in the apparatus claims.
CN fails to teach that the control system is configured to determine the concentration of the reactants, hot fluid circulation in the jacket,and a plurality of reactors connected in series.
WO teaches (see fig. 5) plurality of ultrasonic reactors connected in series as claimed. Each reactor (US) has inlets and outlets as claimed and are inter-connected as claimed. The system has a control unit CU 65. See the flow system in fig. 8 and others. Fig. 8 is also capable of temperature control (see figure 8 caption.)
WO fails to teach determining concentration, and the heating jackets with associated heating system and controls.
PNG
media_image3.png
583
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the concentration determination, see MPEP 2144.04, automatic vs. manual activity: broadly providing an automatic mans to replace a manual activity is … not sufficient distinguish over a prior art.
Regarding the heating jacket in WO and the associated heater provisions, as seen in CN, having a heating jacket in a reactor for maintaining its temperature is well-known and is not a patentable element. Having a heating source such as electrical for the jacket fluid is also implied or prima facie obvious. It would also have been obvious to link the heating jacket circuit of multiple units to the same heating system.
Location of the temperature sensor is not a patentable invention, unless otherwise shown. See MPEP 2144.04: rearrangement of parts.
Plural units in the CN reference is series would have been obvious over the teaching of WO to increase the capacity, or processing more than one streams as taught by WO.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of these references to arrive at the claimed invention. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is pram facie obvious – MPEP 2143, examples of rationales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 8 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, after overcoming any 112(b) issues.
These claims recite additional limitations in detail which are specific to the intended use of the system and not taught by any references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777