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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-35 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what structure is required by the claim. The claim recites “a granular material conveyance unit including at least one of a first conveyance unit…a second conveyance unit…and a third conveyance unit” in lines 2-10. The claim then goes on to describe specific features of the first conveyance unit. The claim does not explicitly require a first conveyance unit, as it only requires “at least one of” a first, second, and third conveyance units, but then the remainder of the claim appears to indicate that a first conveyance unit is required. The claim needs to be clarified as to what conveyance units are required.
Further, the claim recites a series of method steps starting with “the granular material introduced into the inlet…” in line 21. It is not clear what structures of the device are required by these method steps. For example, the steps recite a first vertical pipe that uses suction and pressure to move granular material, but it is not clear if this is required structure or how it is related to the first conveyance unit. There is no structure recited to produce the suction force or pressurizing force recited, and so it is not clear what requirements these forces place on the device. The first vertical pipe is recited as a structure of the conveyance unit in claim 2, but it is not clear in claim 1 whether or not it is a structure of the conveyance unit.
Claim 1 requires significant revision to clarify the structures required by the device.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a first metering module configured to suck and store the granular material discharged from the first input module or the granular material of the first vertical pipe using process gas or compressed air so that the granular material discharged from the first input module is conveyed according to the suction conveyance method using a suction force and meter and discharge the granular material in a first metered amount using a rotary valve method.” It is not clear what granular material is being moved. The claim recites “the granular material discharged from the first input module or the granular material of the first vertical pipe” but this appears to be the same granular material that moves from the first input module to the first vertical pipe.
Further, the cited passage recites “a rotary valve method,” but it is not clear if this requires the structure of a rotary valve or if this is some sort of method requirement placed within the apparatus claim.
Claim 2 requires significant revision to clarify what is required by the claim.
Various other claims also recite the “rotary valve method,” and it is not clear in any of these claims if a rotary valve is required by the claim.
Claims 2-4 recite “a suction force” and “the suction force” at various points in the claim. These terms do not clearly relate to one another, and so it is not clear if multiple suction forces are being generated or just one. The term “pressurizing force” has a similar issue in claims 2-4.
It is noted that claim 4 recites a control unit configured to perform various functions. This would be a clearer way to recited the method steps set forth in claim 1 so that they are required by the apparatus claim.
Claim 6 has a similar issue to claim 1 where it is not clear what conveyance units are required and what structure is required by the method recitations at the end of the claim.
Claims 7-9 have similar issues to claims 2-4, as do claims 10-12 and 13-15.
Claim 17 recites requirements for a third input module, but depends from claim 1, which does not require a first or second input modules. Thus, it is unclear how many input modules are required by claim 17.
Claim 19 recites “the pressure conveyance method using a pressurizing force” with respect to moving binder from the binder input module. However, claim 1, from which claim 19 depends via intervening claim 18, recites that the pressure conveyance method is used for conveying the remaining granular material. Is it thus not clear what the pressure conveyance method is used for in the claims, nor is it clear what structure is represented by this method.
Claim 30 recites “a first conveyance amount” and “a second conveyance amount”, but requires all the limitations of claim 1. Is it not clear if these conveyance amounts are the same as those recited in claim 1. Claim 30 also recites “a first vertical pipe”, and it is not clear if this is the same first vertical pipe as recited in claim 1.
Claim 31 has similar issues to those of claim 30.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected because it depends from or otherwise requires the limitations of an indefinite claim.
The claims are largely unclear and require significant revision for clarity. While the Examiner has attempted to point out all of the clarity issues with the claims, it is ultimately the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the claims are clear and definite. It is noted that revisions to indefinite claims may also require revisions to claims that depend therefrom (for example for consistency of language or antecedent basis), even if those dependent claims are not specifically rejected for being indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses systems for transferring powder materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 at 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 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights