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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 14-20) in the reply filed on July 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 30, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because spring 320 is blurry and not clearly shown in Fig. 2. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the sample fixing parts” should be changed to “the plurality of sample fixing parts” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “trough” should be changed to “through” in order to correct a minor informality.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “impregnated” should be changed to “attached” in order to correct a minor informality.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 14-20 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.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “measuring a moisture content of lignocellulosic biomass” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how the lignocellulosic biomass is connected with the compressor. As currently written, the claim defines a plurality of sample fixing parts but fails to define the sample fixing parts fixing the lignocellulosic biomass to the body. The specification fails to define how compressor is used to test the lignocellulosic biomass. The claim fails to particularly point out how the lignocellulosic biomass is connected to the compressor. The Examiner has interpreted the claim as the sample fixing parts attaching the lignocellulosic biomass to the body.
Regarding claim 15, recites the limitation "the sample fixing part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim relies on claim 14 which recites “a plurality of sample fixing parts”. The claim fails to define whether or not the sample fixing part is part of the plurality of sample fixing parts. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “each sample fixing part of the plurality of sample fixing parts comprises a piston, a spring and a fixing pin”.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation "the direction of the sample" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim fails to introduce and define “a direction of a sample”. The claim relies upon claims 15. Neither claim 14 nor claim 15 define what the direction of the sample is. The claim fails to recite a limitation directed to introducing “a sample”. Claim 15 recites sample fixing part but fails to define the sample being part of the sample fixing part.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation "the opposite direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to recite a limitation directed to “an opposite direction”. The claim fails to define what direction is opposite of the direction of the sample since claim 16 has failed to defined the direction of sample. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “an opposite direction”.
Further, the limitation “when the protrusion discharged from the trough hole and jam is removed” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how the protrusion is discharged and fails to define how the jam occurs. As currently written, the claim states that a jam is removed. However, the claim fails to introduce a jam occurring and fails to introduce the protrusion being able to be discharged.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation "the internal hollow of the spring" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to recite a limitation directed to “an internal hollow of the spring”. As currently written, the claim does not define the spring having an internal hollow. Claim 15 fails to define the spring having an internal hollow.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein the spring is impregnated in the lignocellulosic biomass and fixes the lignocellulosic biomass when the spring is compressed” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how lignocellulosic biomass is connected to the invention. The claim relies upon claims 14 and 15 which recite limitations direct to sample fixing parts but fail to recite limitations directed to the sample fixing part containing the lignocellulosic biomass. The claim fails to particularly point out how the lignocellulosic biomass is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitation "the light reflected from the sample" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed to light being reflected from the sample. As currently written, the claim states that the light absorbing fiber absorbs the reflected light without defining how the light is generated and how the sample is connected to the compressor. Claim 14 defines the plurality of sample fixing parts but fails to define the sample being part of the sample fixing parts. The claim fails to particularly out how the sample is part of the compressor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Mannhardt (U.S. 2018/0306726).
Regarding claim 1:
Mannhardt discloses a sample compressor for measuring a moisture content of lignocellulosic biomass comprising:
a compression part which has cylinder shape ([0060], cylindrical shape), and comprises a body with a hollow oriented longitudinally (Fig. 6, hollow body);
a detection part which is longitudinally oriented in the middle of the body ([0060], detector element inner side), and comprises a near-infrared probe ([0034], NIR measurement).
However, Mannhardt fails to disclose a plurality of sample fixing parts which are located inside of the hollow and are oriented longitudinally around the detection part.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection above. Claims 15- 20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights