DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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:
A draining element …configured to retain a cake…
A discharge restricting device… configured to control a cake flow.
A plurality of adjustment elements configured to set a clearance…
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 § 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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (US 20020096062) in view of Roland (CA 2851289).
Regarding claim 1, Johnston discloses a twin-screw press (Fig. 1-5) for extracting vegetable oils, comprising: a press cage, including; a feeding section (21) located in a proximal zone of the press cage; a cake discharge section (23) located in a distal zone of the press cage; a medial section (where 22 is ) located between the feeding section and the cake discharge section; a draining element (22, 14) located in the medial section and configured to retain a cake comprising vegetable solids and drain vegetable oil; a first screw and a second screw (two screws shown in Fig. 3), and arranged inside the press cage, each screw, including (all elements shown in Fig. 3): a shaft arranged inside the press cage; a flighting arranged on the shaft; a distal end mounted in a bearing housing (inherently there is a bearing and bearing housing since the press cage is stationary and the shaft is rotationally mounted on the press cage without any leak at two ends of the bearing where it meets the press cage); a proximal end mounted in a bearing housing; wherein at least one end of each screw is configured to be connected to a power transmission unit (the belt between 17 and 18 shown in Fig. 2); wherein, in the medial section, an outer diameter of the first screw overlaps an outer diameter of the second screw in an intermeshing arrangement; (see Fig. 1, 3 ,5: flights are intermeshed); and a discharge-restricting device (restraining cone 5 restrains the discharge) connected to the cake discharge section and configured to control a cake flow.
Johnston fails to disclose wherein the shaft of each screw is conical and convergent towards the discharge section of the press cage and wherein each screw has a pitch that decreases towards the discharge section of the press cage.
Roland teaches a similar screw press (fig. 1) comprising a screw (4) comprising a shaft that is conical and convergent towards the discharge section of the press cage (see Fig. 1); wherein each screw has a pitch that decreases towards the discharge section of the press cage. (see Fig. 1).
Both Johnston and Roland is concerned with dewatering material using the screw press, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shaft of each screw of Johnston to be conical and convergent towards the discharge section of the press cage and the screw of Johnston to have a pitch that decreases towards the discharge section of the press cage as taught by Roland in order to provide better dewatering. (“The conveying gap 7 formed by the shaft 4, the screw flight 5 and the casing shell 6 changes its geometry along the shaft axis in the direction of the outlet casing 3 in a way that is beneficial to dewatering. In most cases, the volume available is reduced along the length of the shaft axis in order to force dewatering of the suspension.”, Roland)
Regarding claim 2, modified Johnston teaches the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the power transmission unit is connected to a gearbox (18) selected from the group consisting of a single-output shaft gearbox, a double-output shaft gearbox, and a multiple-output shaft gearbox. ([0025] “twin output gear box”)
Regarding claim 3, modified Johnston teaches the twin-screw press of Claim 2, wherein a coupling element (20) connects the gearbox to the shaft of the screws.
Regarding claim 5, modified Johnston teaches the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the flighting of the first screw has a left-hand orientation and the flighting of the second screw has a right-hand orientation, and wherein the screws are coupled in a counterrotating and intermeshing arrangement [0024].
Regarding claim 7, modified Johnston teaches the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the flighting of each screw is discontinuous and forms gaps (7) between flighting sections, and wherein the press cage further includes a resistor element (9) including a plurality of resistor teeth (9) configured to fit the gaps of the flighting of each screw.
Regarding claim 9, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the distal end and the proximal end of each screw are mounted on bearing housings. (inherently there is a bearing and bearing housing since the press cage is stationary and the shaft is rotationally mounted on the press cage without any leak at two ends of the bearing where it meets the press cage)
Johnston fails to disclose each distal bearing housing including thrust bearings.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bearings of Johnston to be a thrust bearings since using a known bearing type would have been "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. (see MPEP 2143 Section I (E)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Johnston teaches the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the draining element includes a slotted screen (14) made from a wedgewire sheet, a perforated screen, a wire mesh, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13, modified Johnston teaches the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the bearing housings are fixed to a frame of the twin-screw press (inherently the bearing housing would be between the frame of the press and the rotatable screw).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Roland further in view of Recycling inside (NPL: Increasing Screw Press Moisture Removal)
Regarding claim 8, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 1.
Johnston fails to disclose wherein the press cage further includes a plurality of adjustment elements configured to set a clearance distance between the flighting of the screws and the draining element, and wherein the adjustment elements are longitudinal shims placed along the draining element.
Recycling inside teaches that one of the ways to tighten up the screw-to-screen clearance is by removing any shims which may have been used to position the screen out, further away from the screw (“There are two common ways to tighten up the screw-to-screen clearance. The easiest is to remove any shims which may have been used to position the screenout, further away from the screw.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the press cage of Johnston to have removable shims between the screws and the draining element i.e. screen in order to provide adjusting mechanism to tighten up the clearance when the screw is worn. Therefore, the shims would be placed along the draining element. Examiner also notes that shims are elongated longitudinally therefore the shims are longitudinal shims.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Roland further in view of Jiang (CN 113002045)
Regarding claim 11, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the discharge-restricting device includes: at least a linear actuator having two rods (Fig. 2 : two 11s); a single conical plunger (5), wherein the plunger is connected to two rods (11s shown in Fig. 2), plunger having a conical face (5 is a cone having a conical face) configured to be inserted into an outlet of the cake discharge section; wherein the conical plunger applies a resistance force to the cake that exits through the outlet of the cake discharge section (moving 11 would apply resistance force by 5).
Johnston fails to disclose a pair of conical plungers (5), each conical plunger connected to a rod.
Jiang teaches a similar twin-screw press comprising a pair of conical plungers (711 see Fig. 14), each conical plunger connected to a rod (each driving mechanism 8 has a rod).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the single conical plunger with a pair of conical plunger of Jiang in order to effectively block the two discharging outlet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pg. 8-9 of 17 that Johnston fails to disclose “wherein, in the medial section, an outer diameter of the first screw overlaps an outer diameter of the second screw in an intermeshing arrangement”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to figures 1, 3, 5. The screws (flight parts that make up the outer diameter) are intermeshed with each other.
Applicant argues in Pg. 13 of 17 “Roland is directed to a twin-screw press specifically designed for dewatering fibrous pulp, particularly pulp produced during cellulose and paper manufacturing processes. As explained in Roland, the invention seeks to improve the efficiency of the dewatering process by progressively increasing the compression applied to the fibrous pulp as it advances through the press. On the other hand, Johnston is directed to a twin-screw press for dewatering fibrous, slippery, or slimy materials. Accordingly, Johnston and Roland are directed at different applications and address different technical problems. According to this, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner does not explain why a PHOSITA, seeking to improve the twin press disclosed in Johnston, would have consulted Roland and modified Johnston in the specific manner proposed therein.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that both references are concerned with dewatering products. Just because Roland uses the press for dewatering fibrous pulp and Johnston uses the press for dewatering fibrous, slipper, or slimy material, it does not teach away or address different technical problem. Examiner notes that the technical problem is dewatering rather than dewatering a specific type of material. Examiner also notes that Roland further teaches that “The conveying gap 7 formed by the shaft 4, the screw flight 5 and the casing shell 6 changes its geometry along the shaft axis in the direction of the outlet casing 3 in a way that is beneficial to dewatering. In most cases, the volume available is reduced along the length of the shaft axis in order to force dewatering of the suspension.” Therefore, a PHOSITA, seeking to improve the twin press disclosed in Johnston, would have consulted Roland and modified Johnston in the specific manner proposed therein.
Applicant further argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that the conical shafts and the progressively decreasing screw pitch of amended claim 1 are not intended only to increase the squeezing effect within the press.
Rather, the Specification explains that these structural features cooperate to progressively increase the compression applied to the vegetable fruits and to the oil palm fruit, as they advance toward the cake discharge section. Such gradual compression promotes proper oil extraction while avoiding overheating of the vegetable fruits and, in the case of oil palm fruits, prevents the nuts from cracking during the pressing operation.
The Specification further explains that preserving the integrity of the palm nuts is important because the intermeshed screw configuration removes the fibers from the nuts by friction while preventing nut breakage. As a result, the disclosed twin-screw press reduces the presence of lauric acid in the extracted palm oil, preserves the quality of the Palm Kernel Oil (PKO), reduces oil retained in the press cake, and improves the overall oil extraction efficiency. Accordingly, the claimed screw geometry was selected to achieve multiple interrelated technical effects rather than simply increasing the squeezing force applied to the processed material.
The Office Action, however, concludes that a PHOSITA would have modified Johnston merely because "less volume between the wall and the shaft creates more squeezing effect." Applicant respectfully submits that this rationale does not address the actual technical purpose of the claimed configuration. Increasing the squeezing effect, by itself, does not explain why a PHOSITA would have selected conical shafts converging toward the discharge section together with a progressively decreasing screw pitch so as to obtain the controlled, progressive compression described in the present Specification and the resulting improvements in oil extraction efficiency, oil quality, reduced oil loss, and reduced palm nut breakage.”
Applicant's arguments above 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. Examiner suggest positively reciting a structure that differentiates between the prior art(s) rather than arguing that the applicant’s invention does something different when operated a certain way especially since this is an apparatus claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. 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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
