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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graff et al. (US 5,094,011) in view of Seebach (US 7,380,348). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Graff as teaching:
a drying installation for granular polymer material (see title and abstract), comprising:
a hopper 72, in which the granular polymer material is dried (column 5 line 54 through column 6 line 14),
a supply circuit for a process gas which is connected to the hopper and which is configured to supply a process gas to the hopper in order to dry the granular polymer material (column 5 lines 19-40). Seebach also discloses the claim 7 feature wherein the supply circuit comprises a heating unit which is configured to heat the process gas (column 4 lines 13-28) and the claim 8 feature wherein the supply circuit is a closed circuit (column 4 lines 29-35). Graff discloses the claimed invention, except for the independently claimed feature wherein the supply circuit comprises an impeller turbofan which is able to rotate the impeller at a speed of at least 7000 rpm and which is provided to move the process gas along the supply circuit towards the hopper. Seebach teaches those features at column 13 line 63 through column 14 line 16. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings Graff with the teachings of Seeback for the purpose of faster flow and less congestion. Furthermore, Graff in view of Seebach discloses the claimed feature, except for the claims 3-6 features of varying rotation speed, max RPM, head configuration, or maximum flow. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features, since variable speed, higher RPM, variable head, or maximum flow would result in improved drying time with less energy and more efficient results.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8 of copending Application No. 18/274,126 (reference application) and as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 12, 14, of copending Application No. 17/927,434 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the current application claimed turbofan impeller speed of 7000 rpm, since those copending claims would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Graff in view of Seebach obviousness
Applicants propose that the claimed “turbofan” should have a special meaning but nothing in the claims or specification distinguish that meaning from what is disclosed in the prior art of record. In fact, primary reference Seebach discloses “flow will eventually continually increase as a consequence of this factor to several times the speed of sound under maximum load generated at about 6-7000 pm on an eight bladed impeller” while applicant claims a “turbofan which is able to ratee at a speed of at least 7000 rpm.” Seebach and the claimed flow are the same structure using the same parameters with the same function. Seebach anticipates applicants claimed turbofan.
Applicants further propose that different speeds distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, but those argued speeds are not claimed such that the arguments can give the independent claim patentable weight.
Applicants argued that the Seebach disclosed 7000 rpm does not disclosed the independent claimed “at least 7000 rpm.” Both Seebach and independently claimed speed are the same such that Seeback anticipates the independently claimed speed.
Applicants assert that the prior art rejecting the claimed invention are different technical fields such that the rejection should be withdrawn. However, the structure and function of the claimed invention is obviated as rejected above because the prior art meets the structure and function of the claimed invention, regardless of the technical field. For example if applicants recite a turbofan to move gas then the disclosed blower 30 of primary reference Graff to move air along a batch of dried granulates (column 5 line 54 through column 6 line 14 of Graff, especially column 5 line 67 through column 6 line 2).
Furthermore, Graff in view of Seebach is not cited to teach every element of the claimed invention, but rather that it would have been obvious to combine those references to obviate the claimed invention, as rejected above.
In response to applicants’ argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Graff in view of Seebach does not support the reasons for obviousness as stated above in the rejection, however neither does the independently claimed invention recite those reasons) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants’ arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Finally applicants argued that reduction of energy required to move process gas and energy reduction with throughput are not disclosed in the prior art. Those features are claimed and cannot be give patentable weight.
Double patent rejection
The double patent rejection is not argued and therefore maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 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.
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
