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 .
This action is a response to the amendments and remarks filed on 3 August 2026.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5 August 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 17940707 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 18, 22, and 29-30 have been amended. Claim 17 has been canceled. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 18, 21-22, 28-30, and 32-33 are pending. In the previous action (Non-Final Rejection filed on 2 April 2026), claims 17-18, 22, 28-30, and 32-33 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate allowable limitations of claim 17.
In response to the amendments to the claims, the objection to claim 29 is withdrawn. In response to the amendments to the claims, and after consideration of Applicant’s explanation (Remarks, p. 10/12, “Accordingly”), the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 22 has been amended to expressly recite steps of the claimed procedure so that the indefiniteness rejection of the claim has been overcome (Remarks, p. 10/12, “Claim 22”).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as the amended text includes new limitations which raise new matter and further indefiniteness issues. Please see the rejections below. Upon further consideration and search, new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein. Said new grounds of rejection are presented herein as a final rejection, based upon amendment. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22, 28-30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22: The claim recites, “treating the process gas in the process apparatus.” This subject matter which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed. Each instance in the original disclosure recites “the treatment of a process material in a process apparatus” or similar (original claims 1 and 22; p. 1, “Field,” line 2; p. 17, line 17; p. 30, lines 10-14, 24; p. 31, lines 11-12), i.e., Applicant’s disclosure appears to support treating a process material in a process apparatus but not treating a process gas in a process apparatus.
Claims 28-30 and 32-33 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 22.
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 22, 28-30, and 32-33 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 22: The claim recites, “[a] procedure for the preparation of process gas to treat a process material in a process apparatus . . . treating the process gas in the process apparatus; and receiving treated process gas at the process gas outlet.” This text is unclear because the claimed effect of the procedure (i.e., treating a process material) is not consistent with the steps of the procedure (i.e., treating a process gas), so it is unclear what procedure Applicant means to claim.
The claim recites, “A procedure for the preparation of process gas . . . during a drying phase and a cooling phase . . . with a process gas dehumidifier . . . and a process gas tempering device . . . treating the process gas in the process apparatus.” Assuming the “drying phase” corresponds to the “process gas dehumidifier,” it is unclear whether the “cooling phase” corresponds to the “process gas tempering device” or the “process apparatus,” i.e., it is unclear how or whether the remainder of the claim relates to the “cooling phase,” so it is unclear if a cooling phase is being positively recited as an element of the procedure.
Claims 28-30 and 32-33 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 22.
Claim 33: The claim recites, “whereby during treatment of the process material in the process apparatus.” It is unclear what the nexus of this limitation is to claim 22 since the procedure of claim 22 does not positively recite a step of “treatment of the process material in the process apparatus.” It is noted that the claim does not recite “whereby during the treatment of the process material in the process apparatus” or “whereby during a treatment of the process material in the process apparatus,” so it is unclear if Applicant intends to refer to an antecedent or recite a new step.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 18, 21-22, 28-30, and 32-33.
The concept of a process gas preparation device for a process gas to treat a process material in a process apparatus, comprising:
a process gas inlet and a process gas outlet fluidly connected with the process apparatus, whereby the process gas flows in a preparation section that extends from the process gas inlet to the process gas outlet,
a process gas dehumidifier designed as a device component in the flow direction of the process gas,
a process gas tempering device designed as a device component downstream from the process gas dehumidifier, and
a control unit,
wherein the process gas dehumidifier has a dehumidifier inlet and a dehumidifier outlet, and the process gas tempering device has a tempering device inlet and a tempering device outlet,
wherein the process gas tempering device has a tempering unit for the process gas designed as a device component having a tempering unit inlet and a tempering unit outlet,
wherein a second measurement unit, having a relative humidity sensor to measure the relative humidity of the process gas, is arranged upstream of the process gas dehumidifier, and
wherein the process gas tempering device has a cooling unit for the process gas designed as a device component, having a cooling unit inlet and a cooling unit outlet, and has a bypass unit designed as a device component, having a bypass inlet and a bypass outlet, connected parallel to the tempering unit, whereby a valve arrangement designed as a device component is arranged on the bypass unit for selective flow through the tempering unit or the bypass unit, and is connected to a first measurement device having a relative humidity sensor for measuring the relative humidity of the process gas, wherein the first measurement device is arranged downstream of the process gas dehumidifier (claim 1)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
In addition, the concept of a procedure for the preparation of process gas to treat a process material in a process apparatus during a drying phase and a cooling phase, the process apparatus having a process gas preparation device, with a process gas inlet and a process gas outlet fluidly connected with the process apparatus, whereby the process gas streams in a preparation section that extends from the process gas inlet to the process gas outlet, with a process gas dehumidifier designed as a device component in the flow direction of the process gas, and a process gas tempering device designed as a device component downstream from the process gas dehumidifier, whereby the process gas dehumidifier has a dehumidifier inlet and dehumidifier outlet, and the process gas tempering device has a tempering device inlet and a tempering device outlet, and whereby the process gas tempering device has a tempering unit for the process gas designed as a device component having a tempering unit inlet and a tempering unit outlet, and with a control unit, wherein each device component of the process gas preparation device can be switched on and/or switched off, and that a second measurement unit, having a relative humidity sensor to measure the relative humidity of the process gas, is arranged upstream of the process gas dehumidifier, the procedure comprising:
conveying a process gas to the process gas inlet;
treating the process gas in the process apparatus; and
receiving treated process gas at the process gas outlet (claim 22)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Xu et al. (CN204814875U), which discloses a fluidized bed air inlet section (Fig. 1; [0006]) for coating drugs ([0012]) comprising:
a first pipe 103 (Fig. 2; [0031]) as an air inlet (Fig. 1; [0006]) and a second pipe 204 ([0031]) at the end of an air inlet duct for passing air to the coating system (Fig. 1; [0006]), the duct including a first air conditioning unit 1 and a second air conditioning unit 2 with a tee pipe 3 in between (Fig. 2; [0029]),
a rotary dehumidification unit 4 ([0029]) with an inlet and an outlet on either side of its branch of the tee pipe 3,
the second air conditioning unit 2 ([0029]) with an inlet and an outlet on either side of the duct (Fig. 2) for meeting coating process conditions before entering a fluidized bed cavity ([0010]), and
an overall control system 8 ([0030]),
wherein the second air conditioning unit 2 has a heating unit 202 ([0029]) with an inlet and an outlet on either side (Fig. 2).
However, Xu does not suggest a process gas tempering unit that has a cooling unit and a bypass unit connected parallel to the tempering unit, with selective flow through the tempering unit or the bypass unit, with a first measurement device having a relative humidity sensor for measuring the relative humidity of the process gas arranged downstream of a process gas dehumidifier.
Further regarding claim 17, Zhang et al. (CN112474157A) discloses a coating room (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising an air heating device 9, which is connected in parallel with the air cooling for cooling and dehumidification device 2 ([n0005], [n0022]). However, it would not have been obvious to modify Xu to provide a process gas tempering unit with a cooling unit for the process gas and a bypass unit connected parallel to the tempering unit since the process gas tempering unit/second air conditioning unit of Xu includes heaters, and including a cooling unit in the same second air conditioning unit with heaters while additionally adding a bypass to the second air conditioning unit would have required significant redesign of Xu, without obvious motivation to use this particular configuration.
Regarding claim 22, Xu does not suggest that air processed through the fluidized bed air inlet section is used for both a drying phase and a cooling phase, as no cooling phase is suggested.
Further regarding claim 22, Hromadka et al. (US 2014/0324234 A1) discloses a method ([0010]) for conditioning air ([0100]) in a coating system ([0002]) with a conditioner 108 [0100]) comprising a dehumidifier 111 and a heater 115 (Fig. 2b; [0102]) in which the air is either heated when it is too cooler or dry ([0131]) or is cooled, heated, and cooled again when it is too warm and humid ([0132]). However, Hromadka does not suggest distinct drying and cooling phases since the latter sub-process is a combined drying and cooling phase.
Claims 22, 28-30, and 32-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
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 GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights