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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,492,040 to Jensen in view of US Patent 4,696,115 to Spadafore.
In Reference to Claims 1, 2
Jensen discloses a method of drying wet powder using a fluidized bed dryer comprising a gas distribution plate (Fig. 7, 13) having a plurality of holes (Fig. 7, 21), a gas chamber (Fig. 7, 24), and a drying chamber (Fig. 7, 10/11) above the gas chamber, wherein the gas chamber and the drying chamber are divided by the gas distribution plate (Fig. 7, 19), the method comprising: dividing the gas chamber into two or more compartments (Fig. 7, 10/11); raising an internal temperature of the upper drying chamber (Chambers 10 and 11 are supplied with heated gas) and then supplying wet powder through an inlet (Fig. 7, 30) on one side of the drying chamber;
Jensen discloses two gas flow inlets (25 and 27), Jensen does not teach two different blower supplying gas.
Spadafore teaches supplying a fluidizing gas at different flow velocities to the two or more compartments respectively, utilizing an external blower (Fig. 1, 30/32) and introducing the fluidizing gas at different flow velocities into a corresponding region of the drying chamber through the gas distribution plate to perform drying of the wet powder. (Col. 6, Line 5-15, teaches a controller to control the blower to send the fluid gas in different flow volume)
the supplying of the fluidizing gas includes supplying the fluidizing gas at different flow velocities (Abstract) by two or more of the external blowers (Fig. 1, 30/32) to the two or more compartments respectively
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Spadafore into the design of Jensen. Doing so, would result in blowers being used to supply heated gas into the drying chamber with controlled flow volume. Both inventions of Jensen and Spadafore are in the same field of endeavor, Spadafore teaches a method of providing an improved method and apparatus for drying particulate material to obtain a uniform moisture content thereof despite variations in the moisture content of the particulate material at the onset of the drying operation. (Col. 2, Line 5-10) so the efficiency will be improved.
In Reference to Claim 4
Jensen discloses the two or more compartments include: a first compartment (Fig. 7, 10) corresponding to a region adjacent to the inlet (Fig. 7, 30) of the upper drying chamber and a second compartment (Fig. 7, 11) constituting a remainder of the gas chamber
Jensen does not teach the volume difference of drying chamber between chambers.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value.
In Reference to Claims 5 and 6
The combination of Jensen and Spadafore as applied to Claim 1 teaches drying chambers supplied by heated gas at different flow rate.
The combination of Jensen and Spadafore does not teach the flow rate difference between blowers.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value.
In Reference to Claim 7
Jensen discloses the raising of the internal temperature of the drying chamber includes transferring, by a heat transfer plate (Fig. 7, 14), heat from by circulating hot water. (Col. 5, Line 5-11)
In Reference to Claim 8 and 9
The combination of Jensen and Spadafore as applied to Claim 1 teaches drying chambers supplied by heated gas at different temperature.
The combination of Jensen and Spadafore does not teach the temperature difference between blowers.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value.
In Reference to Claim 10
Jensen discloses a plurality of compartment (Fig. 1)
In Reference to Claim 11
Jensen discloses the fluid bed dryer.
Jensen does not teach the water content drop.
According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." The Office considers that the water weight lost is a result of process.
In Reference to Claim 13
Jensen discloses a fluidized bed dryer for performing the method of wet to claim 1, the fluidized bed dryer comprising: a gas distribution plate (Fig. 7, 13) having a plurality of holes (Fig. 7, 21), a gas chamber including two or more compartments (Fig. 1, as showed chambers are divided by plates), a drying chamber (Fig. 7, 10) above the gas chamber, wherein the gas chamber and the drying chamber are divided by the gas distribution plate, a heat transfer plate (Fig. 7, 14) inside the drying chamber, a wet powder inlet (Fig. 7, 30) on one side of the upper drying chamber, a dry powder outlet (Fig. 7, 32) provided on the other side of the upper drying chamber, and a gas and flying powder discharge pipe (Fig. 7, 31) on top of the drying chamber
Jensen discloses two gas flow inlets (25 and 27), Jensen does not teach two different blower supplying gas.
Spadafore teaches supplying a fluidizing gas at different flow velocities to the two or more compartments respectively, utilizing an external blower (Fig. 1, 30/32) and introducing the fluidizing gas at different flow velocities into a corresponding region of the drying chamber through the gas distribution plate to perform drying of the wet powder. (Col. 6, Line 5-15, teaches a controller to control the blower to send the fluid gas in different flow volume)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Spadafore into the design of Jensen. Doing so, would result in blowers being used to supply heated gas into the drying chamber with controlled flow volume. Both inventions of Jensen and Spadafore are in the same field of endeavor, Spadafore teaches a method of providing an improved method and apparatus for drying particulate material to obtain a uniform moisture content thereof despite variations in the moisture content of the particulate material at the onset of the drying operation. (Col. 2, Line 5-10) so the efficiency will be improved.
In Reference to Claim 14
Jensen discloses the two or more compartments include: a first compartment (Fig. 7, 10) corresponding to a region adjacent to the inlet (Fig. 7, 30) the drying chamber and a second compartment constituting a remainder of the gas chamber (As showed),
Jensen does not teach the volume difference of drying chamber between chambers.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value.
In Reference to Claim 15
Jensen discloses a plurality of compartment (Fig. 1)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jensen and Spadafore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2006/0053650 to Manak.
In Reference to Claim 3
The combination of Jensen and Spadafore as applied to Claim 1 teaches multiple blowers supplying heated flow to respective chambers.
The combination of Jensen and Spadafore as applied to Claim 1 does not teach damps.
Manak teach dampers (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) used in the hot gas supplying lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
479
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Manak into the combination of Jensen and Spadafore as applied to Claim 3. Doing so, would result in damps (valve) being included in the hot air supplies. Both inventions of Manak and Jensen having drying chamber supplied with heated air. Manak teaches a design of controlling individual drying chamber with predictable result of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/10/26
Prosecution Insights