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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-15 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 recites the limitation "the case of the granulated CO2 production apparatus”" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner surface of the case wall" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "granulated CO2 production apparatus" in lines 1-2 which is indefinite and should state ----the granulated CO2 production apparatus”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the housing wall" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sold CO2 chamber" in line 1 of page 42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 5 recites the limitation "it" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the apparatus case" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "its surface" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a plurality of holes" in lines 2-3. This is found to be indefinite as it is unclear if this is referring back to the previously recited “plurality of holes” in claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "granulated CO2 produced using the method according to any of claims 1-7" in lines 1-2. This is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how the granulated CO2 is structurally different from each of the methods being described. For the purpose of the office action it will be assumed that any granulated CO2 produced meets the structure/composition being claimed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "its surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the state of" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the case wall" in the last line of page 43. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the a confusing list of punctionation including a common in line 13. It is unclera grammatically how the claim makes sense but it will be assumed that the common in line 13 is a semicolon separating the first wherein clause from the following “pump…..OR…..valve” wherein clause.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the inflow of CO2" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the mating” in line 1 and "the bushing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims inherit the 112B deficiencies of their parent claims. It is pointed out that the claims are replete with 112B issues and that the examiner may not have caught all problems with the claims due to the quantity of indefiniteness issues. Applicant is recommended to go through the claims further to find and correct any additional antecedent basis issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication number 2018/0282168 Gimadeev.
Regarding claim 1, Gimadeev discloses a method for production granulated CO2 comprising formation of solid CO2 inside a case of a granulated CO2 production apparatus (see colleting device 205, see paragraphs 14, 44, see figures 4-5, 15-16, see paragraphs 122-224, see S for solid CO2); compressing solid CO2 inside the case to provide conversion of at least a portion to a state of essentially high-viscosity liquid CO2 adjacent to the inner surface of the case wall (see paragraphs 44, 65, , see figures 4-5, solid CO2 pushed out through Die 203 – Applicant defines “essentially high-viscosity liquid CO2” in the specification as “the expression ‘a state of essentially high-viscosity fluid CO2’ means solid CO2 having high viscosity and the capacity fo flow, for example when exposed to an external force” (page 22 of applicant’s specification) – in this case, the solid CO2 produced in 201 by compression is forced out of extruder 203 therefore has the viscosity required by applicant ; stopping the compressing to provide conversion of CO2 which is in the state of essentially high-viscosity liquid CO2 into solid CO2 to produce granulated CO2, finalized Solid granulated CO2 produced out of extruding member 203, see abstract and paragraphs 122-123, 44, figures 4-5, 15-16, see claim 42, pressing into granulated form”).
Regarding claim 7, Gimadeev discloses wherein in step b) all solid C02 located in the case of the granulated C02 production apparatus is converted into a state of essentially high-viscosity liquid C02 (any of the CO2 can be pushed out through 203, see explicit definition in the rejection of claim 1 above), and/or the granulated C02 production apparatus comprises a pressing member 206, wherein in step b) the compression is carried out by moving the pressing member in the case of the granulated C02 production apparatus, and wherein step c) comprises stopping the movement of the pressing member in the case of the granulated C02 production apparatus (see rejection with respect to claim 1 above, see piston 206 which pushes solid CO2 granulated out of die 203 and stops at a set point).
Regarding claim 8 (dependent from any of the claims 1-7 as the resulting granulated CO2 is found structurally to be the same throughout) - The granulated CO2 produced in the rejection of claim 1 above meets the structure being claimed of granulated CO2 with shoots (i.e. the CO2 being removed and pushed through the area shooting out through the die of Gimadeev). See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of similar method claim 1 above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimadeev as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. patent number 5,400,603 Bauer et al. (hereinafter Bauer).
Regarding claim 2, Gimadeev provides for sending liquid CO2 directly into chamber/case 201/202 through 404 (figures 4-5, 14-15) and then utilizing expanding to create the CO2. Gimadeev however does not disclose a housing defining a liquid C02 chamber configured to receive liquid C02, wherein the liquid C02 chamber envelopes the case, wherein liquid C02 is cyclically and/or continuously fed to the liquid C02 chamber, wherein the supply of liquid C02 to the liquid C02 chamber is controlled such that the liquid C02 is in contact with areas of the housing wall adjacent to which the high-viscosity liquid C02 is formed. This is disclosed by Bauer who provides for sending heat exchange fluids around a groove surrounding a chamber in pellet CO2 production apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to provide some external HE surrounding the case in order to provide additional temperature controls beyond the expansion and compression from the piston 206 and allow for greater control of the CO2 triple point within the case. Grooved/helical heat exchange is well known to provide temperature control in the art of CO2 solidification.
Regarding claim 3, Gimadeev further comprising step d) applying force to the granulated C02 to ensure that the granulated C02 exits the apparatus case, wherein the case has a chamber for forming solid C02, wherein steps a)-c) are carried out in the solid C02 chamber (see force piston 206).
Regarding claim 10, Bauer discloses a housing defining a liquid CO2 chamber configured to cyclically and/or continuously receive liquid CO2, wherein the liquid CO2 chamber envelopes the case (see rejection of claim 2 above), and Gimadeev discloses a power block to provide the movement of liquid CO2 in the liquid CO2 chamber of the case configured to cyclically and/or continuously supply liquid CO2 into the liquid CO2 chamber of the case, wherein the power block for providing movement of liquid CO2 is configured to supply liquid CO2 such that the liquid CO2 is in contact with areas of the case wall adjacent to which high- viscosity liquid CO2 is formed, wherein the case wall areas are areas of the outer surface of the case wall, wherein the power block for providing movement of liquid CO2 is configured to provide continuous and/or cyclic supply of liquid CO2, is a pump, or the power block for providing movement of liquid CO2 configured to provide cyclic supply of liquid CO2, is a valve for injection of liquid CO2 into the solid CO2 chamber of the case (see valve 404, additionally as piston 206 moves back to original position, it provides for increased volume allowing flow of liquid CO2). The examiner goes on official notice that pumps and valves to facility controlled heat exchanger fluid flow is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a power block pump or valve on the groove HE of Bauer as this Is merely applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (control of a HE fluid).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Gimadeev does not explicitly disclose wherein the case has an outer wall surface, wherein a groove is provided on the outer wall surface, extending in a spiral along the outer wall surface and configured to allow liquid C02 to flow therethrough and wherein the mating of a case and a bushing provides the formation of a groove running in a spiral along the outer surface of the case wall and configured to flow liquid C02 therethrough, wherein the power block to provide the movement of liquid C02 is configured to supply liquid C02 such that liquid C02 flows along the said groove. This is disclosed by U.S. patent number 5,400,603 Bauer et al. (hereinafter Bauer) who provides the creation of external spiral grooves to facilitate heat exchange with a chamber (see figure 2, grooves 55 for HE tubing 45) and provide temperature control. See motivation in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of the related prior art discloses providing a plurality of filter elements to create protrusion shaped shoots of high viscosity liquid CO2 that are then cut off in the manner claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798