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 .
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.
Claims 1-7 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/204685 (Mac hereinafter) in view of US 2020/0248963 (Beutler hereinafter) and further in view of US 5837193 (Childers hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mac teaches a method for drying a cavity that discloses a) charging the cavity with a gas so that a liquid present in the cavity at least partially evaporates, and so that the gas together with the evaporated liquid are transported out of the cavity as process exhaust air (Drying Step S1 per Page 13 Lines 8-30); b) detecting a relative humidity of the process exhaust air (Step S2 per Page 14 Line 21through Page 15 Line 2); wherein a) comprises: ii) performing at least one pressure surge with the gas depending on the detected relative humidity of the process exhaust air (Broadest reasonable interpretation of a pressure surge can be repeated step S1 if the humidity does not reach the required threshold of Mac).
Mac is silent with respect to step c) applying a negative pressure to the cavity as soon as the relative humidity of the process exhaust air falls below a specified humidity value during b) so that liquid remaining in the cavity freezes and sublimates, and so that the sublimated liquid is transported out of the cavity as sublimate.
However, Beutler teaches a freeze drying cavity and method of operation that discloses the ability of applying a negative pressure to the cavity so that liquid remaining in the cavity freezes and sublimates, and so that the sublimated liquid is transported out of the cavity as sublimate (¶ 3). The resultant combination would utilize the process to assist in removing excess liquid and humidity from the cavity of Mac such that the step c) applying a negative pressure to the cavity as soon as the relative humidity of the process exhaust air falls below a specified humidity value during b) so that liquid remaining in the cavity freezes and sublimates, and so that the sublimated liquid is transported out of the cavity as sublimate is taught.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying of the cavity of Mac with the teachings of Beutler to further ensure that the cavity is dry when a specific humidity is reached.
Mac is silent with respect to i) reversing a direction of flow of the gas through the cavity at least one time depending on the detected relative humidity of the process exhaust air.
However, Childers teaches a cleaning of a drying cavity that discloses wherein a) comprises: i) reversing a direction of flow of the gas through the cavity at least one time depending on the detected relative humidity of the process exhaust air (Column 6 Lines 12-28 where the alternated vacuum breaks is seen as a reverse of direction) and/or ii) performing at least one pressure surge with the gas depending on the detected relative humidity of the process exhaust air (Column 6 Lines 12-28 where the admittance of vent gas and repressurization is seen as a pressure surges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying method of Mac with the teachings of Childers to further ensure that the drying chamber is completely dry and ready for the next load to be processed.
Regarding claim 2, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose performing i) and/or ii) whenever the detected relative humidity of the process exhaust air stagnates or reaches a specified value (Resultant combination of the vacuum being drawn by Mac and the teachings of Childers).
Regarding claim 3, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose performing i) so that the direction of the flow of the gas through the cavity at least two times (Mac allows for multiple attempts/repetitions to made in step S1).
Regarding claim 4, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose performing i) and/or ii) whenever the relative humidity in the process exhaust air stagnates or reaches above 2 to 10 percent (Mac Page 13 Lines 14-17 and Page 14 Line 21 through Page 15 Line 2 details that the entrance humidity is between 2 and 10 percent).
Mac is silent with respect as to what the exit humidity is and specifically that the process air stagnates or exits at five to thirty percent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the exit humidity to be between 5 and thirty percent, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233. It should be noted that the Mac reference discloses adjusting the input air humidity so that the ability to absorb moisture from inside their cavity can be controlled to their liking therefore making the exit humidity a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 5, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose performing i), and performing a plurality of pressure surges with the gas during i) (Column 6 Lines 12-28 of Childers as well as Column 11 Lines 31-52 paired with the repeated step S1 of Mac).
Regarding claim 6, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose performing i), and performing five to ten pressure surges with the gas during i), wherein each pressure surge has a duration of a few milliseconds (Resultant combination of Mac and Childers for teaching the pressure surges described above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose b) comprises determining a difference between a humidity of the gas and a humidity of the process exhaust air (Inherent of Mac Page 14 Line 21through Page 15 Line 2).
Regarding claim 12, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers is silent with respect that the specified humidity value is less than five percent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the specified humidity value is less than five percent, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233. It should be noted that the Mac reference discloses adjusting the input air humidity so that the ability to absorb moisture from inside their cavity can be controlled to their liking therefore making the exit humidity a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 13, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose that the method comprises performing i) (Inherent of Mac and Childers as rejected above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose that the method comprises performing i) and ii) (Inherent of Mac and Childers as rejected above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose that the method comprises performing ii) (Inherent of Mac and Childers as rejected above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Mac teaches a drying device that discloses a gas supply configured to supply the drying device with a gas (Figure 2 with supply 314/315); a valve device configured to charge the cavity with the gas so that a liquid in the cavity at least partially evaporates when the cavity charged with the gas (Valves 310/309), and so that the gas together with the evaporated liquid are transported out of the cavity as process exhaust air (Valves 305/306); a moisture sensor configured to detect the relative humidity of the process exhaust air (Page 14 Line 21through Page 15 Line 2), and a vacuum pump configured to apply a negative pressure to the cavity as soon as the relative humidity of the process exhaust (Vacuum pump 302/303) air falls below a specified humidity value (Drying step S2).
Mac is silent with respect to the vacuum pump configured to apply a negative pressure to the cavity as soon as the relative humidity of the process exhaust air falls below a specified humidity value so that liquid remaining in the cavity freezes and sublimates and so that the sublimated liquid is transportable out of the cavity as sublimate via the valve device.
However, Beutler teaches a freeze drying cavity and method of operation that discloses the ability of applying a negative pressure to the cavity so that liquid remaining in the cavity freezes and sublimates, and so that the sublimated liquid is transported out of the cavity as sublimate (¶ 3). The resultant combination would utilize the process to assist in removing excess liquid and humidity from the cavity of Mac such that the vacuum pump configured to apply a negative pressure to the cavity as soon as the relative humidity of the process exhaust air falls below a specified humidity value so that liquid remaining in the cavity freezes and sublimates, and so that the sublimated liquid is transportable out of the cavity as sublimate via the valve device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying of the cavity of Mac with the teachings of Beutler to further ensure that the cavity is dry when a specific humidity is reached.
Mac is silent with respect to wherein the drying device is configured to reverse a direction of flow of the gas through the cavity at least once depending on the detected relative humidity of the process exhaust air.
However, Childers teaches a cleaning of a drying cavity that discloses the drying device is configured to reverse a direction of flow of the gas through the cavity at least once depending on the detected relative humidity of the process exhaust air (Column 6 Lines 12-28 where the alternated vacuum breaks is seen as a reverse of direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying method of Mac with the teachings of Childers to further ensure that the drying chamber is completely dry and ready for the next load to be processed.
Regarding claim 17, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose that the valve device fluidically connects the gas supply to a first connection of the cavity (Connection between the cavity 201 and the valves 309/310 of Mac)
Regarding claim 18, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose that the valve device fluidically connects the vacuum pump to a second connection of the cavity, the second connection of the cavity being different from the first connection of the cavity (Connection between 201 and valves 305/306 of Mac).
Regarding claim 19, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose that the valve device comprises a first plurality of valves assigned to the first connection of the cavity (Mac valves 309/310 in Figure 2) and a second plurality of valves assigned to the second connection of the cavity (Valves 305/306 in Mac), the first plurality of valves being different from the second plurality of valves (Figure 2 of Mac).
Regarding claim 20, Mac’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of Mac, Beutler, and Childers would further disclose a pressure sensor upstream of the vacuum pump, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to detect the negative pressure in the cavity (Sensor 304 of Mac in Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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.
Claim 8 requires specific pressure holding features that would require modifying an already modifying reference in such a manner that the Examiner would not find the combination obvious. For at least this reason, dependent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-11 are objected to as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights