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 .
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 air gap must be shown and clearly identified via an item number 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a description of the air gap item number is required to clearly describe the claimed air gap. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. Regarding claim 9, the term " optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-13, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wentworth (US 2,085,842).
As for claim 1, Wentworth shows an apparatus for removing moisture from particulate material, wherein the apparatus comprises a master chamber (3, fig. 1) having a master inlet for the supply of gas to the master chamber (2, fig. 1); wherein the apparatus further includes a plurality of drying chambers at least partially arranged within the master chamber (3, 5, fig. 4, each section of 5 is, broadly, a drying chamber); wherein each drying chamber that is at least partially arranged within the master chamber has a first end and a second end, and wherein each drying chamber is configured for directing a flow of gas-entrained particulate material between said first and second ends of the drying chamber (21, 5, fig. 1, claim 1); further wherein each drying chamber includes a plurality of dryer inlets for directing gas from the master chamber into the drying chamber, for interacting with said flow of gas-entrained particulate material within the drying chamber (6, fig. 1, claim 1).
As for claim 2, Wentworth shows in use, the master chamber is arranged in fluid communication with a source of gas under pressure, via said master inlet, whereby each drying chamber is provided with a flow of gas under pressure, via said dryer inlets (6, 5, fig. 4).
As for claim 9, Wentworth shows each drying chamber is of elongate configuration, having a longitudinal axis extending between said first and second ends (5, fig. 4); optionally, wherein each drying chamber is intended to be arranged at least generally horizontally for a generally horizontal direction of flow between said first and second ends (the term optionally renders the following limitation without proper definition, please see rejection of claim under 35 USC 112 above).
As for claim 10, Wentworth shows each plurality of dryer inlets comprises an array of spaced apart dryer inlets, wherein said dryer inlets are spaced apart in series along the longitudinal axis of the respective drying chamber (6, fig. 1).
As for claim 11, Wentworth shows wherein said plurality of drying chambers are arranged parallel to one another within the master chamber (5, fig. 4).
As for claim 12, Wentworth shows said plurality of drying chambers are arranged spaced apart from one another within the master chamber (5, fig. 4).
As for claim 13, Wentworth shows said plurality of drying chambers are arranged with an air gap about a periphery of each drying chamber, for flow of gas around the periphery of each drying chamber within the master chamber.
As for claim 15, Wentworth shows the master chamber is of elongate configuration having a longitudinal axis extending between first (3, fig. 1, right side of master chamber) and second ends (3, fig. 1, left side of master chamber) of the master chamber
As for claim 16, Wentworth shows the master chamber comprises opposing end plates (3, fig. 1, right side and left side of master chamber).
As for claim 20, Wentworth shows each drying chamber is intended to be mounted with a longitudinal axis of each drying chamber arranged horizontally (5, fig. 4).
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentworth as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of DE938059 (applicant provided).
Wentworth discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of drying chambers are mounted on one or more common supports. DE938059 teaches the plurality of drying chambers are mounted on one or more common supports (see support mount in fig. 6 below) in order to provide an efficient mounting system for a plurality of drying chambers. DE938059 would benefit equally from providing an efficient mounting system for a plurality of drying chambers. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Wentworth with the plurality of drying chambers are mounted on one or more common supports as taught by DE938059 in order to provide an efficient mounting system for a plurality of drying chambers.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 3 and 6 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the apparatus comprises a control system configured to: monitor flow at or adjacent the first and/or second end of each drying chamber. Examiner notes that modifying Wentworth with the limitations of claim 3 would destroy the Wentworth invention and thus would not be an obvious thing to combine in search of improvement. The same is true for the limitations of claim 6.
Claim 17 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the plurality of drying chambers are supported by said end plates with all of the limitations of independent claim 1 and claim 16. Modifying Wentworth to include the limitations of claim 17 would require major redesign to the invention not guided by any motivation other than impermissible hindsight reconstruction using applicants’ specification as a guide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights