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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 12, 14-15, and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the Greer reference cannot operate at a constant, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Upon review of the Greer reference in its the entirety, Greer is configured to be programmed to operate in a low speed (constant speed) movement mode (low speed, high pressure) for example, Column 9, lines 10-13. Lastly, applicant mischaracterizes the reference. The Greer reference never states that the system cannot operate at a constant speed, in actuality it teaches a low speed mode. Greer also teaches that while a hydraulic pressure may change it is not required that a pressure changes, nor does the reference teach away from a constant pressure option (Column 6, lines 61-63).
The amendments to independent claims 1, 9, and 18 changed the scope of all pending claims.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 is rejected to because of the following: both claims recite “the hydraulic press to operate at variable speeds…” and then further in the same claim recite “wherein the hydraulic press is operated using a constant speed…”.
Claim 9 is rejected to because of the following: both claims recite “a hydraulic press that operates at variable speeds…” and then further in the same claim recite “wherein the hydraulic press is operated using a constant speed…”.
These above limitations are functional limitations and are in actual contradiction. How can the apparatus both operate at various speeds but within the same limitation operate at a constant speed?
By virtue of dependency, claims 2-8 and 10-17 are also rejected.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer (US 6,349,565 B1) in view of Galloway (4,360,325).
Regarding Claim 1: Greer teaches a system for producing dry ice (title, abstract), the system comprising: a hydraulic power unit (142); a block press (via 100, 110) comprising; an injection point (via 112) for receiving liquid carbon dioxide (from 50) from a supply tank (70) that includes a control valve (72, valve in line with 112); a chamber (110) in fluid communication with the injection point and that receives the liquid carbon dioxide (see Figure 3), the chamber being maintained at a lower pressure (functional limitation) than the supply tank (70) that allows the liquid carbon dioxide to undergo a flashing (Column 1, lines 65-68) process that results in formation of carbon dioxide snow and carbon dioxide gas (Column 2, lines 1-10); a hydraulic press (134, 136) powered by the hydraulic power unit (142) that powers the hydraulic press (134, 136) to operate at variable speeds (Column 9, lines 3-13), the hydraulic press (134, 136) including a piston (138) movable within the chamber to cause increasing pressure (functional limitation) upon the carbon dioxide snow causing the carbon dioxide snow to form a solid carbon dioxide block within the chamber,(Column 9, lines 3-13); and an outlet (114) for removing the solid carbon dioxide block (114 into 7, see Figure 3).
Greer fails to teach wherein the hydraulic press is operated using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke.
Galloway teaches a hydraulic press (1, 2) is operated using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the hydraulic press is operated using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke to the structure of Greer as taught by Galloway in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency (see Galloway, Column 4, lines 52-63).
Regarding Claim 2: Greer teaches wherein the block press further comprises an exhaust port for venting the carbon dioxide gas (118) .
Regarding Claim 3: Greer teaches wherein the exhaust (118) includes a valve to control the amount of carbon dioxide gas that exits the system to control the pressure within the chamber (Column 7, lines 6-27).
Regarding Claim 5: Greer teaches further comprising a controller (via controller 170) that controls the amount liquid carbon dioxide injected (Column 8, lines 41-51) into the chamber (110) by actuating the control valve (valve in line 112).
Regarding Claim 9: Greer teaches a block press (100, 110) for producing dry ice blocks (title, abstract), the block press (100, 110) comprising: an injection point (via 112) for directly receiving liquid carbon dioxide (from 50), the injection point including a control valve (valve in line with 112); a chamber (110) in fluid communication with the injection point (at 112) and that receives the liquid carbon dioxide (see Figure 3), the chamber (110) at a lower pressure than a liquid carbon dioxide supply line (Column 2, lines 1-10; line into 112) so the liquid carbon dioxide (from 50) undergoes a flashing process (Column 1, lines 65-68) that results in carbon dioxide snow and carbon dioxide gas as the liquid carbon dioxide (Column 2, lines 1-10) enters the chamber (110); a hydraulic press (134, 136) that operates at variable speeds (Column 9, lines 3-13), and is operable to including a piston (138) movable within the chamber to increase pressure upon the carbon dioxide snow (functional limitation) causing the carbon dioxide snow to form a solid carbon dioxide block (abstract); and an outlet for removing the solid carbon dioxide block from the chamber (via 114 into 7, see Figure 3).
Greer fails to teach wherein the hydraulic press is operated using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke.
Galloway teaches a hydraulic press (1, 2) is operated using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the hydraulic press is operated using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke to the structure of Greer as taught by Galloway in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency (see Galloway, Column 4, lines 52-63).
Regarding Claim 10: Greer teaches wherein the block press (from 100) further comprises an exhaust port (118) for venting the carbon dioxide gas (Column 5, lines 45-57).
Regarding Claim 11: Greer teaches wherein the exhaust (118) includes a valve to control the amount of carbon dioxide gas that exits the system to control the pressure within the chamber (Column 7, lines 6-27).
Regarding Claim 12: Greer teaches wherein the exhaust (118) includes a screen (122) that prevents carbon dioxide snow from escaping from the chamber (Column 5, lines 45-57).
Regarding Claim 17: Greer teaches wherein the hydraulic press (134, 136) is configurable to connect to a HPU (136, 134, 138).
Regarding Claim 18: Greer teaches a method for producing dry ice blocks (title, abstract), the method comprising: injecting liquid carbon dioxide from a supply line (line with 112) through a control valve (valve in line with 112) into a chamber (110) of a block press (100) at a lower pressure than the supply line (Column 2, lines 1-10); flashing (Column 1, lines 65-68) the liquid carbon dioxide (from 50) that results in carbon dioxide snow and carbon dioxide gas (abstract, Column 2, lines 1-10); compressing, by a hydraulic press (134) including a piston (138), the snow into a carbon dioxide block within the chamber (Column 4, lines 47-61); and outputting the carbon dioxide block through an outlet of the block press (via 114 into 7, see Figure 3).
Greer fails to teach by operating the hydraulic press using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke.
Galloway teaches a hydraulic press (1, 2) is operated using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided by operating the hydraulic press using a constant speed and pressure during a piston stroke to the structure of Greer as taught by Galloway in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency (see Galloway, Column 4, lines 52-63).
Regarding Claim 19: Greer teaches the method further comprising dynamically monitoring the size of the carbon dioxide block by monitoring the position of the hydraulic press within the chamber of the block press (via Controller 170, Column 8, lines 41-51).
Regarding Claim 20: Greer teaches further comprising injecting more liquid carbon dioxide in response to the carbon dioxide block having incorrect dimensions based on the dynamic monitoring (via Controller 170, Column 8, lines 41-51).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer (US 6,349,565 B1) in view of Galloway (4,360,325).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13: Greer modified supra fails to teach wherein the block is 10″×10″×5″ or 10″×5″×2″.
However, Greer teaches varying size of the dry ice blocks (Column , lines).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change the size/shape of the dry ice blocks, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide varying sizes due to user input via the logic controller (see Greer, Column 8, lines 41-51). Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape/size is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer (US 6,349,565 B1) in view of Galloway (4,360,325), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Haase (3,098,361).
Regarding Claim 6: Greer modified supra fails to teach wherein the block press further includes interchangeable plates that are configurable to change the volume of the solid carbon dioxide block formed within the chamber.
Haase teaches a block press (Figure 1) includes interchangeable plates (10, 10’) that are configurable to change a volume of a solid carbon dioxide block (see Figures 3-5) formed within a chamber (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the block press further includes interchangeable plates that are configurable to change the volume of the solid carbon dioxide block formed within the chamber to the structure of Greer modified supra as taught by Haase in order to advantageously provide varying alternative molds of the dry ice (see Haase, Column 3, lines 26-30).
Regarding Claim 15: Greer modified supra fails to teach further comprising interchangeable plates that are configurable to change the volume of the carbon dioxide block formed within the chamber.
Haase teaches interchangeable plates (10, 10’) that are configurable to change the volume of a carbon dioxide block formed within the chamber (see Figures 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided interchangeable plates that are configurable to change the volume of the carbon dioxide block to the structure of Greer modified supra as taught by Haase in order to advantageously provide varying alternative molds of the dry ice (see Haase, Column 3, lines 26-30).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer (US 6,349,565 B1) in view of Galloway (4,360,325), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Bendzick (5,391,069).
Regarding Claim 7: Greer modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a gate that covers an opening of the block press; a hydraulic gate drive that opens and closes the gate; and a block manifold that connects the hydraulic connection of the HPU to hydraulic press and the hydraulic gate.
Bendzick teaches a gate (76) that covers an opening of a block press (see Figures 1-2); a hydraulic gate drive (80) that opens and closes the gate (Column 3, lines 44-55); and a block manifold (12) that connects a hydraulic connection (Column 3, lines 15-22) of a HPU to hydraulic press (see Figures 1-2) and the hydraulic gate (76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a gate that covers an opening of the block press; a hydraulic gate drive that opens and closes the gate; and a block manifold that connects the hydraulic connection of the HPU to hydraulic press and the hydraulic gate to the structure of Greer modified supra as taught by Bendzick in order to advantageously provide control during the formation and release of formed pellets (see Bendzick, Column 2, lines 55-62).
Regarding Claim 16: Greer modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a gate that covers an opening of the block press; and a hydraulic gate drive that opens and closes the gate.
Bendzick teaches a gate (76) that covers an opening of a block press (see Figures 1-2); and a hydraulic gate drive (80) that opens and closes the gate (Column 7, lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a gate that covers an opening of the block press; and a hydraulic gate drive that opens and closes the gate to the structure of Greer modified supra as taught by Bendzick in order to advantageously provide control during the formation and release of formed pellets (see Bendzick, Column 2, lines 55-62).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer (US 6,349,565 B1) in view of Galloway (4,360,325) and Bendzick (5,391,069), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Umino et al. (4,412,852), hereafter referred to as “Umino.”
Regarding Claim 8: Greer modified supra fails to teach wherein the block manifold includes directional valves to direct the flow of hydraulic fluid from the HPU to the hydraulic press and the hydraulic gate and return the hydraulic fluid back to the HPU.
Umino teaches directional valves (Column 8, lines 50-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the block manifold includes directional valves to direct the flow of hydraulic fluid from the HPU to the hydraulic press and the hydraulic gate and return the hydraulic fluid back to the HPU to the structure of Greer modified supra as taught by Umino in order to advantageously provide control of the flow within conduits (see Umino, Column 8, lines 50-61).
Regarding Claim 14: Greer teaches further comprising a controller (via controller 170, Column 8, lines 41-51) that controls the amount liquid carbon dioxide injected into the chamber (110) by actuating the control valve (valve in line 112).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobold (2,151,855).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights