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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation of “the pressure loss section”, to which, claim 10 depends from claim 7 which establishes a pressure loss portion. To obviate the objection , the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the pressure loss section of claim 10 to the pressure loss portion, as antecedent basis can be found in claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “air preparation apparatus” in claims 2 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specifications as filed states the air preparation device is a “a weather protection, a filter, flow-influencing components such as louvres, dehumidifiers, heat exchangers, frost-protection devices, or diverting devices”, as stated on Page 7 of the Specifications as filed 12/11/2023.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “material preparation device” in claims 5, 11, & 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specifications as filed states the material preparation device is a “in particular a dryer”, as stated on Page 6 of the Specifications as filed 12/11/2023.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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: “air preparation device” in claims 3 & 9.
The Specifications as filed only state the element of the “air preparation device” is “At least one fluid or air preparation device for the more precise adjustment and adaption of the process medium can be disposed after the fan, in particular so as to be able to adjust different temperatures or temperature variations in the course of a material preparation process”, as described on Page 6 of the Specifications filed 12/11/2023, of which the Examiner is interpreting as being some sort of manual adjustment knob for control of the device.
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 § 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 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penfold et al (EP2093428), hereinafter referred to as Penfold.
Regarding claim 1, Penfold (EP2093428) shows a method for controlling a conveyed mass flow of fluid or air in a system through which fluid or air flows, wherein the system comprises
an inlet (5, Fig. 1),
at least one fan (11, Fig. 1) which in a flow direction is disposed downstream of the inlet (Fig. 1), wherein the at least one fan comprises a drive (¶0029 – the speed of the motor can be adjusted, via the drive that controls the rotation of the fan);
an outlet (Fig. 1, see Annotated Figure 1 – the outlet is located at the exit end of the pressure loss portion 12) for fluid or air conveyed by the at least one fan (Fig. 1);
a pressure loss portion (12, Fig. 1 – a pressure loss takes place between the fan 11 and the outlet, so that this region can be referred to as the pressure loss portion) between the at least one fan and the outlet (Fig. 1), and
at least one sensor (13/15, Fig. 1) coupled to at least one calculation module (¶0027 / 0028 - microprocessor) and at least one control device (¶0021 – electronic control means), wherein the drive of the at least one fan is controlled based on sensor values (¶0026/0029),
a first pressure sensor (13, Fig. 1) in the flow direction is disposed ahead of the at least one fan (Fig. 1), and a second pressure sensor (15, Fig. 1) in the flow direction is disposed after the pressure loss portion (see Annotated Figure 1), and
wherein in the method the at least one fan in terms of rotating speed is controlled based on at measured pressure difference between the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor (¶0026 / 0029).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 6, Penfold shows further comprising determining a rotating speed of the drive (¶0028) required for adapting a mass of fluid or air from a curve family (¶0028) which is stored in the at least one calculation module (¶0028).
Claims 2 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penfold et al (EP2093428), hereinafter referred to as Penfold, in view of Totten et al (US 2012/279081), hereinafter referred to as Totten.
Regarding claim 2, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the first pressure sensor.
However, Penfold lacks showing further comprising preparing the fluid or the air by at least one fluid or air preparation apparatus ahead of the first pressure sensor.
Totten (US 2012/279081), an airflow system with a fan, is in the same field of endeavor as Penfold, which is an airflow system with a fan.
Totten teaches further comprising preparing the fluid or the air by at least one fluid or air preparation apparatus (7, Fig. 1) ahead of the first pressure sensor (15, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the air preparation apparatus of Totten, which would provide a means to make it possible to control the quantities of supplied process gas and discharged gas from the combining device for combining the tobacco and process gas, and can be adjusted in accordance with the drying degree of the tobacco (¶0010).
Regarding claim 5, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the pressure loss portion of the system.
However, Penfold lacks showing further comprising directing the fluid or the air in the pressure loss portion of the system through a material preparation device.
Totten teaches further comprising directing the fluid or the air in the pressure loss portion (Fig. 1 – the pressure loss portion is the portion where the material supply port is, as the pressure loss occurs at the opening of the material supply port) of the system through a material preparation device (9, Fig. 1, ¶0042 – the material preparation device is a device that separated the gas from the tobacco).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the material preparation device of Totten, which would provide a means to make it possible to control the quantities of supplied process gas and discharged gas from the combining device for combining the tobacco and process gas, and can be adjusted in accordance with the drying degree of the tobacco (¶0010).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penfold et al (EP2093428), hereinafter referred to as Penfold, in view of Totten et al (US 2012/279081), hereinafter referred to as Totten, in further view of Mecozzi (US 8,814,639).
Regarding claim 3, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the at least one fan.
However, Penfold lacks showing further comprising preparing the fluid or the air by at least one fluid or air preparation device after the at least one fan.
Mecozzi (US 8,814,639), a control device for a fan in a system, is in the same field of endeavor as Penfold which is a control device for a fan in a system.
Mecozzi teaches further comprising preparing the fluid or the air by at least one fluid or air preparation device (320, Fig. 5) after the at least one fan (338/304, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the air preparation device of Mecozzi, which would provide a means that would address how to control an array of fans to operate at lower flows and lower power levels that would otherwise be possible (Col. 1, Lines 35-39).
Regarding claim 4, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the at least one fan, supplying the prepared air to the pressure loss portion.
However, Penfold lacks showing wherein the at least one fan in the system comprises a plurality of fans, and wherein the method further comprising preparing differently prepared fluid or differently prepared air from the plurality of fans; and suppling the differently prepared fluid or the differently prepared air to the pressure loss portion.
Mecozzi teaches wherein the at least one fan in the system comprises a plurality of fans (338, Fig. 5), and wherein the method further comprising preparing differently prepared fluid or differently prepared air from the plurality of fans (Fig. 5 – each of the fans 304 prepares its own differently prepared air); and suppling the differently prepared fluid or the differently prepared air to the pressure loss portion (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of fans of Mecozzi, which would provide a means that would address how to control an array of fans to operate at lower flows and lower power levels that would otherwise be possible (Col. 1, Lines 35-39).
PNG
media_image2.png
381
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claims 7 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penfold et al (EP2093428), hereinafter referred to as Penfold.
Regarding claim 7, Penfold (EP2093428) shows a system through which fluid or air flows, comprising:
an inlet (5, Fig. 1)
at least one fan (11, Fig. 1) which in a flow direction is disposed downstream of the inlet (Fig. 1), wherein the at least one fan has a drive (¶0029 – the speed of the motor can be adjusted, via the drive that controls the rotation of the fan 11);
an outlet (Fig. 1, see Annotated Figure 1 – the outlet is located at the exit end of the pressure loss portion 12) for fluid or air conveyed by the at least one fan (Fig. 1);
a pressure loss portion (12, Fig. 1 – a pressure loss takes place between the fan 11 and the outlet, so that this region can be referred to as the pressure loss portion) between the at least one fan and the outlet (Fig. 1); and
at least one sensor (13/15, Fig. 1) coupled to at least one calculation module (¶0027 / 0028 - microprocessor) and at least one control device (¶0021 – electronic control means), wherein the drive of the at least one fan is controlled based on sensor values (¶0026 / 0029);
a first pressure sensor (13, Fig. 1) in the flow direction is disposed ahead of the at least one fan (Fig. 1); and
a second pressure sensor (15, Fig. 1) in the flow direction is disposed after the pressure loss portion (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor are coupled to the control device (¶0026-0027 – the first pressure sensor 13 and the second pressure sensor 15 are coupled to the control device, via the pressure differential device), and wherein the control device, controls the drive by changing a rotating speed of the at least one fan based on a pressure difference calculated from measured pressure sensor values of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor (¶0021 / 0026-0029 – via the control device, which is operative to control the speed of the fan-impeller and thus the volume flow rate of air through the fan-impeller, the drive is changed by a rotating speed of the at least one fan based on a pressure difference calculated from measured pressure sensor values of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Penfold shows wherein the second pressure sensor is positioned directly at the end of the pressure loss portion (see Annotated Figure 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penfold et al (EP2093428), hereinafter referred to as Penfold, in further view of Mecozzi (US 8,814,639).
Regarding claim 10, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 including the pressure loss section, and the first pressure sensor.
However, Penfold lacks showing further comprising a branch line leading to a second fan which conveys fluid or air into the pressure loss section, wherein the branch line is in the flow direction after the first pressure sensor.
Mecozzi teaches further comprising a branch line (see Annotated Figure 2) leading to a second fan (see Annotated Figure 2) which conveys fluid or air into the pressure loss section (see Annotated Figure 2), wherein the branch line is in the flow direction after the first pressure sensor (332, Fig. 5, see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of fans and the branch line of Mecozzi, which would provide a means that would address how to control an array of fans to operate at lower flows and lower power levels that would otherwise be possible (Col. 1, Lines 35-39).
Claims 8, 11, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penfold et al (EP2093428), hereinafter referred to as Penfold, in view of Totten et al (US 2012/279081), hereinafter referred to as Totten.
Regarding claim 8, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 including the first pressure sensor.
However, Penfold lacks showing further comprising at least one fluid or air preparation apparatus in the flow direction disposed ahead of the first pressure sensor.
Totten (US 2012/279081), an airflow system with a fan, is in the same field of endeavor as Penfold, which is an airflow system with a fan.
Totten teaches further comprising at least one fluid or air preparation apparatus (7, Fig. 1) in the flow direction disposed ahead of the first pressure sensor (15, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the air preparation apparatus of Totten, which would provide a means to make it possible to control the quantities of supplied process gas and discharged gas from the combining device for combining the tobacco and process gas, and can be adjusted in accordance with the drying degree of the tobacco (¶0010).
Regarding claim 11, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 including the pressure loss portion.
However, Penfold lacks showing further comprising a material preparation device which has a material supply port is disposed in the pressure loss portion.
Totten teaches further comprising a material preparation device (9, Fig. 1, ¶0042 – the material preparation device is a device that separated the gas from the tobacco) which has a material supply port (10, Fig. 1 – element 10 is a tobacco discharge device, or material supply port, by means of which the tobacco can be discharged and supplied from the device 9) is disposed in the pressure loss portion (Fig. 1 – the pressure loss portion is the portion where the material supply port is, as the pressure loss occurs at the opening of the material supply port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the material preparation device of Totten, which would provide a means to make it possible to control the quantities of supplied process gas and discharged gas from the combining device for combining the tobacco and process gas, and can be adjusted in accordance with the drying degree of the tobacco (¶0010).
Regarding claim 13, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 except wherein the material preparation device is a dryer.
Totten teaches wherein the material preparation device is a dryer (¶0010 /0042 – the device is a dryer used for drying tobacco).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the device of Totten, which would provide a means to make it possible to control the quantities of supplied process gas and discharged gas from the combining device for combining the tobacco and process gas, and can be adjusted in accordance with the drying degree of the tobacco (¶0010).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penfold et al (EP2093428), hereinafter referred to as Penfold, in view of Wennerstrom (WO2019086471).
Regarding claim 9, Penfold shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 including after the at least one fan (Fig. 1).
However, Penfold lacks showing further comprising at least one fluid or air preparation device in the flow direction is disposed after the at least one fan.
Wennerstrom (WO2019086471), an air vent with a fan, is in the same field of endeavor as Penfold which is an air vent with a fan.
Wennerstrom teaches further comprising at least one fluid or air preparation device (131, Fig. 1 – the air preparation device is a flow influencing component of a grille, as it influences which direction the air can be discharged) in the flow direction is disposed after the at least one fan (152, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Penfold to incorporate the teachings of the air preparation device of Wennerstrom, which would provide a low cost solution to create a more laminar flow transition after the air has been moved into the pressure loss portion by the fan (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762