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 .
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.
Claims 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 11, the absence of the term “and” preceding “a pulverizing impeller” makes the claim ambiguous as to whether or not the impeller is the last in a series of components of what the pulverizing device comprises.
In claim 12, the “-“ symbol between “sidewall” and “perpendicular” is grammatically confusing and should be deleted.
In each of claims 13-15, it is unclear whether the “plurality of pulverizing impellers” includes the initially recited “pulverizing impeller” introduced in independent claim 11.
Also in each of claims 13 and 14, “the inner sidewall” lacks antecedent basis, since each of claims 11 and 12 merely recite “a sidewall” and “the sidewall”, respectively.
In claim 17, it is unclear whether or not the “conveying pipe” in itself and its inlet and outlet” are positively recited structural components of the “solid-liquid separation equipment” or if instead the claim is merely reciting a connecting feature of the pulverizing inlet.
In claim 18, the absence of the term “and” preceding “a pulverizing impeller” makes the claim ambiguous as to whether or not the impeller is the last in a series of components of what the equipment further comprises.
In claim 21, it is unclear whether the “adjacent drying impellers” includes the initially recited “drying impeller” introduced in claim 18.
In claim 24, it is unclear whether the “multiple partition portions” and “one or more drying impellers” respectively include the initially recited “partition portion” introduced in claim 21, and
whether the “one or more drying impellers” refers back to and includes the “adjacent drying impellers” initially recited “drying impeller” introduced in claim 21 and/or the initially recited “drying impeller” introduced in claim 18.
In claim 27, recitation of “the pulverizing device and the drying device” being “independent from one another” contradicts and is inconsistent with initial recitation in independent claim 11 of “wherein the pulverizing device and the drying device are connected to one another”.
Claim Interpretation
Claim terminology “pulverizer impeller” as recited throughout claims 11-28 is interpreted as reading on pulverizer or grinder blades, in which in view of description of the Instant Specification, of “pulverizer impeller” as comprising “pulverizer blades” having either one or a plurality of blades as described at page 5, lines 27-29 and page 7, lines 8-19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0186664 (Lucas) in view of Hirayama et al patent 4,076,177 (Hirayama). Referenced paragraph numbers of the PGPUBS Document are identified by “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 11, Lucas discloses: A solid-liquid separation equipment ([0001 re reducing moisture content of wet slurry), comprising:
a pulverizing and drying device (grinder/dryer as in the Abstract, shown in figures 3, 16 and 27) comprising:
a pulverizing device 402 (figure 27 and [0110] and [0115] re dryer/grinder 402, initial processing section 420, defined by cylinder shell 414, discharge end wall 418, screen 424 and material dams 70 and 72); and
a drying device (figure 27 and [0115] re dryer/grinder 402, initial drying chamber 422, defined by cylinder shell 414, inlet end wall 410, screen 424 and material dams 70 and 72), wherein the pulverizing device and the drying device are connected to one another (both devices are encompassed within a common cylinder 414 and share common pulverizing or grinding drive shaft 408, thus are connected per figure 27 and [0115]);
wherein the pulverizing device comprises (all of below pulverizing device components being illustrated in figure 27 and described in [0110-0115]):
a pulverizing shell (cylinder 414);
a pulverizing inlet (product inlet 412);
a pulverizing main shaft (408);
a pulverizing impeller (any of a plurality of adjustable beater blades 50);
wherein the pulverizing main shaft and the pulverizing impeller are arranged in the pulverizing shell (figure 27);
wherein the pulverizing impeller is configured to rotate around the pulverizing main shaft [0113 and 0114 describing adjustable beater blades 50 included, i.e. integral with the drive shaft 408 which is rotatably engaged]) ;
wherein the pulverizing inlet is formed at an end of the pulverizing shell (figure 27, [0110]);
wherein a gap is defined between an outer peripheral end of the pulverizing impeller and a sidewall of the pulverizing shell (illustrated in figure 27 showing narrow gaps between each pulverizing blade or impeller 50 and the inner sidewall of the pulverizing shell, and also suggested by [0068 re scraper blade clearance between side and end walls of cylindrical end wall 44 and side wall 42 of housing]); and
wherein the pulverizing main shaft of the pulverizing shell is parallel to a horizontal direction, and the pulverizing inlet is located above the pulverizing main shaft in a vertical direction (figure 27 and [0110] concerning the pulverizing inlet including a hopper, thus located above the pulverizing main shaft .
Claim 11, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from Lucas by requiring that the end of the pulverizing shell where the pulverizing inlet is formed intersects with the pulverizing main shaft or an extension line of the pulverizing main shaft.
Hirayama teaches a pulverization device, which also includes a horizontal cylindrical housing or shell 49, enclosing a shaft 34, and pulverizing blades 50, in which an inlet section 38/48 extends downwardly to and also below pulverizing main shaft 34 as shown in figure 1 and discussed at column 5, lines 41-62. Hirayama teaches that the pulverization device, taken as a whole, is designed to be of relatively simplified construction which can be manufactured, installed and maintained at a lower cost (column 16, lines 47-52 regarding the device taught contrasted with column 4, lines 32-40 regarding prior art that is prior to Hirayama providing devices which are complicated in design and relatively difficult to manufacture and install).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the solid-liquid separation art to have modified the equipment of Lucas by configuring the inlet to extend such that it intersects with an extension line of the pulverizing main shaft, rather than extending into the cylinder shell at a position spaced from the inlet end as in Lucas, as taught by Hirayama, in order for the pulverization device, taken as a whole, to be designed to be of relatively simplified construction which can be manufactured, installed and maintained at a lower cost.
Lucas further discloses:
for claim 15, wherein a plurality of pulverizing impellers is provided in a direction of the pulverizing main shaft (figures 3 and 27);
wherein each of the plurality of pulverizing impellers comprises 2-8 pulverizing blades (suggested by [0081 re “any desired number of beater blades may be disposed…each sleeve 116 and any number of sleeves may be disposed along shaft 48, concerning beater blades 50);
wherein the pulverizing blades are arranged evenly (figures 3 and 27); and
wherein the pulverizing blades of one of the plurality of pulverizing impellers are evenly arranged around the pulverizing main shaft (also see [0066 re each of the beater blades 50 being positioned at a desired location or orientation with respect to the plane of the shaft or with respect to the axis of the shaft]);
for claim 16, wherein each pulverizing blade is configured to be in a shape of a strip, and an included angle between the pulverizing blade and an axis of the pulverizing main shaft is in a range of from about 0° up to about 10° (figures 3 and 27 and [0061 re the beater blades 50 being relatively flat] and [0066 re each of the beater blades 50 being positioned at a desired location or orientation with respect to the plane of the shaft or with respect to the axis of the shaft]); and,
for claim 17, wherein the pulverizing inlet of the pulverizing shell is connected with an outlet of a conveying pipe (suggested by [0067 re slurry to be dried being connected to a feed pump 12, illustrated in figure 1 as connecting to an upstream conveying pipe) ; and
wherein an inlet of the conveying pipe is arranged vertically higher than the outlet of the conveying pipe (figures 3 and 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 18-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 is distinguished and non-obvious over the above applied Lucas and Hirayama patents, as well as over Rumoki patent 5,426,866, deemed to constitute the closest prior art in combination with Lucas and Hirayama, as well as over all of the other prior art now made of record, in view of further recitation of wherein:
in a direction of the pulverizing main shaft, cross-sections of the pulverizing shell perpendicular to the pulverizing main shaft are variable, and
wherein a cross-sectional area of the sidewall perpendicular to the pulverizing main shaft gradually increases in size moving in a direction from the end with the pulverizing inlet and towards another end of the pulverizing shell.
Rumoki, like Lucas, teaches a horizontally extending cylindrical housing or shell for grinding, i.e. “pulverizing” and dewatering sludges comprising an axial shaft to move sludge through the cylindrical shell as the sludge is ground or pulverized by grinding members and beater vanes, however Lucas and Rumoki both lack any suggestion of the claimed guider protrusions.
Rumoki teaches away from such increasing in size of the sidewall cross-sectional area in a direction from an end with a pulverizing inlet, by instead teaching the shell having a cylindrical dewatering portion from a sludge inlet to a mid-section of the shell, and then gradually decreasing in size moving in a direction towards sludge outlets at a shell end opposite the sludge inlet.
Claims 13 and 14 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of their dependence on claim 12 which itself, is distinguished and non-obvious.
Claim 18 is distinguished and non-obvious over the above applied Lucas and Hirayama patents, as well as over Rumoki patent 5,426,866, deemed to constitute the closest prior art in combination with Lucas and Hirayama, as well as over all of the other prior art now made of record in view of further recitation of wherein:
the equipment further comprising: a drying shell with a shape of a cylinder;
an air inlet;
a discharge port;
a drying main shaft;
a drying impeller;
wherein the drying main shaft and the drying impeller are arranged in the drying shell; wherein the drying impeller is configured to rotate around the drying main shaft; wherein the drying shell includes a first end and a second end, wherein the air inlet is arranged closer to the first end than to the second end;
wherein the discharge port is arranged on a sidewall of the drying shell and
wherein the discharge port is arranged closer to the second end than to the first end.
Rumoki, like Lucas, teaches a horizontally extending cylindrical housing or shell for grinding, i.e. “pulverizing” and dewatering sludges comprising an axial shaft to move sludge through the cylindrical shell as the sludge is ground or pulverized by grinding members and beater vanes, however Lucas and Rumoki both lack any suggestion of the claimed configuration of first end of cylindrical drying shell and drying main shaft, which are additional to the pulverizing shell of the pulverizing device introduced in independent claim 11 and air inlet being arranged closer to first end than to second end of drying shell.
Rumoki teaches away from such additional equipment limitations of claim 18, by teaching both drying and grinding, i.e. pulverizing structure comprising a common cylindrical shell and common main shaft and by teaching air inlet being at the second end of such common cylindrical shell.
Claims 19-28 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of their respective dependence on allowable claim 18, which itself, is distinguished and non-obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , the respective translations of patent publications KR 101358885 and JP 2563079 teach combination sludge dryer and pulverizer systems or apparatus, in which pulverizer and drying components are separately housed in separate shells or casings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
04/13/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights