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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/11/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spray manifolds”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 § 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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the screws are intermeshed between them overlapping” It is unclear what “them” is referring to and how the screws are intermeshed between “them” overlapping. Are the flights intermeshed? Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a gearbox that may be a single…” It is unclear if the limitations after the word “may” is positively recited or not. Is it a single, double or multiple output shaft gearbox or not?
Claim 8 recites the limitation “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations after the word “preferably” is positively recited or not. Does the adjustment elements have to be longitudinal shims placed along the draining element?
All dependent claims of above-mentioned claims inherit all of the limitations of the above-mentioned claims. Thus, the claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Johnston (US 20020096062).
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 the screws are intermeshed between them overlapping (see Fig. 1: 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.
Regarding claim 2, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 1, wherein the power transmission unit is connected to a gearbox (18) that may be a single, double or multiple output shaft gearbox.
Regarding claim 3, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 2, wherein a coupling element (20) connects the gearbox to the shaft of the screws.
Regarding claim 5, Johnston discloses 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, Johnston discloses 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 10, Johnston discloses 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, Johnston discloses 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 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 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Roland (CA 2851289).
Regarding claim 4, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 1.
Johnston fails to disclose wherein the shaft of each screw is conical and convergent 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).
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 as taught by Roland in order to provide effective squeezing since it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that less volume between the wall and the shaft creates more squeezing effect.
Regarding claim 6, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 1.
Johnston fails to disclose 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).
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 effective squeezing since it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that less volume between the wall and the shaft creates more squeezing effect.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston 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, preferably, 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. Theeasiest 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.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston.
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)).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston 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.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Eiichi (CA 2356967).
Regarding claim 12, Johnston discloses the twin-screw press of Claim 1.
Johnston fails to disclose wherein the press cage further includes a plurality of spray manifolds for spraying cleaning fluid to the outside of the draining element.
Eiichi teaches a similar screw press comprising a spray manifold (20) for spraying cleaning fluid to the outside of a draining element (4) (“shown in Fig. 1, and when cleaning water is injected toward the screen 4 from a cleaning water tube 20 provided along the outer tube 5.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add to the press cage of Johnston with the spray manifolds as taught by Eiichi in order to clean the draining element to prevent clog.
Modified Johnston fails to teach plurality of spray manifolds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple spray manifolds instead of just one, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights