DETAILED ACTION
Application 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 in response to Applicant’s submission dated 03/29/2024. Claim(s) 10–18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 10 & 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,615,619 to Kakuda et al.
With regard to claim 10, Kakuda discloses a centrifugal dryer machine for drying a product (abstract), comprising: a support frame (1, 3, 4) (Fig. 1), a perforated drum (5) substantially cylindrical in shape (Fig. 1), and having a first end open (side with door (7)) and a second end closed (side attached to main shaft (8)), and a motor (12) provided with a shaft (8, shaft shown but not labeled connected to the motor (12)) connected to the drum (5) (Fig. 1), wherein the shaft (8) is integrally coupled to the second end of the drum (5) (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 12, Kakuda further discloses the drum (5) and the shaft (8) are configured to rotate when the centrifuge is in operation (Fig. 1), about an axis coincident with the central axis of symmetry of the drum and inclined with respect to the horizontal direction, so that the first end faces downwards (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 22–28).
With regard to claim 13, Kakuda further discloses the angle of inclination of the axis is between 10° and 40° (Fig. 1).
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 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.
Claims 11 & 14–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuda.
With regard to claim 11, Kakuda further discloses a plurality of pulleys (11, 13) rotatably connected to the frame (1, 3, 4), and a belt (14) (Fig. 1), the belt (14) connected to a respective pulley (11, 13) and to the drum (5) (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 22–28), so as to transmit load of the drum (5) to the frame (1, 3, 4) and to transfer rotation of the drum (5) to the pulleys (11, 13) (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 22–28).
Kakuda fails to disclose the pulleys are connected to the frame near the first end of the drum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to attach the pulleys to the frame near the first end of the drum, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Kakuda fails to disclose a plurality of belts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of belts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claim 14, Kakuda fails to explicitly disclose the angle of inclination of the axis is 20°. The angle of inclination is a known results-effective variable because the greater the inclination, the greater the likelihood of the product being dried to remain toward the rear wall of the drum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an angle of inclination of 20°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 15, Kakuda fails to disclose three to five pulleys and respective belts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use three to five pulleys and respective belts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claims 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuda in view of US 2003/0233765 to Heinzen et al.
With regard to claim 16, Kakuda fails to disclose grooves for guiding the belts, provided on the drum near its first end. Heinzen teaches grooves (15) for guiding the belts (21), provided on the drum near an end (Fig. 3; ¶ 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Kakuda with the belt grooves of Heinzen because such a combination would have had the added benefit of keeping the belts in place.
With regard to claim 17, Kakuda fails to disclose a conveyor belt for distributing the product in the drum, the conveyor belt movable along the horizontal direction or along a direction parallel to the axis. Heinzen teaches a conveyor belt (11) for distributing the product in the drum (10) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0025), the conveyor belt (11) movable along the horizontal direction or along a direction parallel to the axis (Fig. 3; ¶ 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Kakuda with the conveyor belt of Heinzen because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing the dryer to be automatically loaded.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuda in view of US 3,369,663 to Serrell.
Kakuda fails to disclose the pulleys are idle. Serrell teaches the use of idler pulleys (Col. 7, lines 25–26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Kakuda with the idler pulley of Serrell because such a combination would have had the added benefit of preventing the belt from becoming lose with fatigue by maintaining tension on the belt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 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, 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights