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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention should be precluded by rule 37 CFR 1.475(b)(4), “A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process”. This is not found persuasive because the claimed “installation” of claims 7-15 are not found to be “an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process”, because it is noted that features of the process, such as temperature, pressure, salt concentration, first phase of process, second phase of process, solid residue extraction in powdered form, are all limitations not specifically claimed in claim 7, such as would be possible if the “installation” comprised a controller with these limitations. Therefore, these features would need to be expressly recited in order to be configured for carrying out the said process. MPEP 1850 (III)(A) elaborates “Also an apparatus or means shall be considered to be specifically designed for carrying out a claimed process if the contribution over the prior art of the apparatus or means corresponds to the contribution the process makes over the prior art. Consequently, it would not be sufficient that the apparatus or means is merely capable of being used in carrying out the claimed process.” Therefore being merely capable of being used to carry out the process does not make it have a significant contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/8/2025.
If at any point during prosecution claims 1-6 are found to have “contribution over the prior art” applicant should ensure claims 7-15 are amended to comprise the same limitations to allow for unity to be achieved.
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 1-6 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 claims 1-6, in claim 1, paragraph starting “a second phase” the recitation concludes “, the process comprises” which appears to be an unfinished statement, or duplicate language with preamble and therefore is unclear and clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuno et al (JP 2007/303712, with references made to ESPACENET Machine Translation provided by applicant on 10/21/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuno teaches drying apparatus 1 is provided with a substantially cylindrical container 3, a stirring rotor 5 arranged in rotation with respect to the container 3, an electric motor 7 driving the stirring rotor 5, and a load cell (metering unit) 9 carrying the container 3 and the electric motor 7. The container 3 is arranged in such a way that the direction of its axis L1 becomes transverse and in the upper part of this container 3 there is provided an input opening 11 for feeding sludge containing moisture into the container 3, and a bag filter 13 connected to a vacuum device (not shown) and a discharge opening 15 for discharging dried sludge from the vessel 3 is provided in the lower part of the vessel 3; the bag filter 13 is configured to discharge moisture evaporated from the slurry from the vessel 3, and to recover and return fine powder generated and raised from the slurry into the vessel 3 and a jacket (not shown) is provided on the whole periphery of the container 3, and a thermal medium such as high-temperature water vapor can be circulated in the jacket so that by circulating a thermal medium within the jacket, heating within the vessel 3 can be performed; the stirring rotor 5 is constituted by a rotating shaft 17 penetrating in the direction of the axis L1 of the container 3 and supported by the shaft at both ends of the container 3, and a plurality of stirring blades 19 protruding from the rotating shaft 17 to a radially outer side thereof; a plurality of stirring blades 19 agitate the sludge fed into the container 3 as the rotating shaft 17 rotates; the stirring rotor 5 is configured to circulate a thermal medium, such as high-temperature water vapor, inside the rotating shaft 17 and the stirring blades 19, and by circulating the thermal medium inside the stirring rotor 5, the vessel 3 can be heated, the heating unit which heats the sludge fed into the vessel 3 is constituted by the jacket, the stirring rotor 5 and the thermal medium circulating inside them; the load cell 9 is configured to measure the total weight of the vessel 3 containing the stirring rotor 5, the motor 7, and control unit (not shown) is provided in the drying apparatus 1, which stops the rotation of the stirring rotor 5 and the circulation of the thermal medium inside the jacket and inside the stirring rotor 5 according to the above-mentioned total weight measured by the load cell 9 (Fig 1, [0010-0013]). In drying the sludge, the container 3 is depressurized beforehand by means of a vacuum device connected to the bag filter 13 and the stirring rotor 5 is rotated; then, a sludge dosing process is performed in which sludge containing moisture is dosed from the dosing opening 11 into the container 3. Note that before and after the sludge input process, the total weight before and after the input of the sludge is measured by the load cell 9, and the control unit calculates the weight of the sludge based on the total weight before and after the input [0006]. Next, a drying treatment step in which moisture is evaporated to dry the sludge is performed, in this drying process, heat medium is circulated within the jacket and within the stirring rotor 5 to heat the sludge within the vessel 3, evaporating the moisture of the sludge, the evaporated moisture is discharged from the container 3 via a bag filter 13; in the drying treatment process, the total weight is continuously measured by the load cell 9, based on which the control unit calculates the weight of the sludge during drying, and based on the weight of the sludge before drying as well as during drying, the moisture contained in the sludge, the control unit determines if the calculated moisture is on par with a minimal moisture that does not cause the micro-powder contained in the sludge to fly as dust, then , when the calculated moisture is more than the minimum moisture, the drying process is continued, and the moisture contained in the sludge during drying is calculated again, then, in case the calculated moisture is equal to the minimum moisture, the control unit stops the rotation of the stirring rotor 5 and the circulation of the thermal medium inside the jacket or inside the stirring rotor 5, and ends the drying process, the drying of the sludge is completed by performing a sludge discharge process in which the dried sludge is discharged from the vessel 3 via the discharge port 15 (Fig 1, [0006,0013-0020]).
However while Yasuno has taught high pressure steam and vacuum in the system, Yasuno is silent to the ranges claimed, and Yasuno does not explicitly teach the first phase and second phases of the method as claimed.
Yasuno generally teaches reduced pressure and elevated temperatures, and while not teaching the precise ranges as claimed, temperature and pressure are known results optimizable variables, which would be obvious to the skilled artisan to determine optimum ranges through routine experimentation without unexpected results. Yasuno has substantially taught the operation of determining whether to continue drying or end drying during drying by measuring vessel weight change by means of a load cell to determine sludge moisture drying condition, on this basis, the drying unit is specifically configured to comprise a first stage: the weight of the cavity decreases during the first phase, when the weight of the cavity reaches a lower threshold or the rate of change in the weight of the cavity is less than a first predetermined value, continuing to replenish fill the cavity until the cavity weight reaches an upper threshold for drying second stage the weight of the cavity decreases during the second phase, when the rate of change of weight is less than a second predetermined value, the final drying extraction of the solid residue is also an adjustment setting that can easily be made by a person skilled in the art in dependence upon the amount of sludge to be dried, which can be adjusted as desired and does not lead to unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuno teaches all limitations as set forth above, and further as set forth above, when the weight of the cavity reaches a lower threshold or the rate of change in the weight of the cavity is less than a first predetermined value, continuing to replenish fill the cavity until the cavity weight reaches an upper threshold for drying second stage the weight of the cavity decreases during the second phase, when the rate of change of weight is less than a second predetermined value, the final drying extraction of the solid residue is also an adjustment setting that can easily be made by a person skilled in the art in dependence upon the amount of sludge to be dried, which can be adjusted as desired and does not lead to unexpected results, therefore operating the filling valve to refill the chamber as claimed would be obvious execution of Yasuno to the skilled artisan without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3-4, Yasuno teaches all limitations as set forth above, and further determine optimum dryness and particle size of recovered solids would be routine optimization of parameters of the process of Yasuno to make the product particles to be of a desired character without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuno et al (JP 2007/303712, with references made to ESPACENET Machine Translation provided by applicant on 10/21/2025) as applied above and further in combination with Carl et al (US 2013/0153397).
Regarding claims 5-6, Yasuno teaches all limitations as set forth above, however does not teach condensing the vapor from the dryer into a tank of water.
Carl teaches a system suitable for implementing a method for drying a fluid containing salts (distillation, paragraphs [0002] and [0005]-[0025]), the system comprising (the numbers between parentheses correspond to the reference signs of figure 1 of D2, described in paragraphs [0028]-[0036]): an enclosure (11), having an inlet (39) for fluid to be dried and a fill valve (35), an outlet (53) for discharging solid residue, a steam outlet (13), a vacuum pump (19) configured to produce a partial vacuum in the enclosure (11), a condenser (17), a pipe (27 /29) and a condensate tank (31) that has water level therein, and a weighing system (55) configured to measure the weight of the fluid in the enclosure (paragraph [0034]); and teaches that the fill valve (35) is open or closed according to low or high threshold levels of fluid in the enclosure; i.e. a control system (see [0036]).
Both Yasuno and Carl substantially teach evaporating system for drying solids, while Yasuno is not concerned with recovery the evaporated vapor, as substantially taught by Carl, the vapor may be condensed and recovered, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yasuno to include condenser and storage tank with water as taught by Carl motivated to recovery evaporated water.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baird (US 3,891,495) teaches drier system. Kobayashi (US 5,011,571) teaches method for drying. Vuong (US 2010/0089740) teaches zero liquid discharge drying. Pardo (US 2012/0304488) teaches a drying system. Sparrow (US 9,266,747) concentration swap descaling system for desalination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772