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 Objections
Claims 2-9, 11-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-4, 11-12, “the one or more heating elements” shall be changed to --the one or more infrared heating elements—to show antecedent basis.
Claims 2-9, 11-17, “A drying apparatus” shall be changed to --The drying apparatus --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
inf
Claims 1, 4-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 10-1112199).
Lee discloses a drying apparatus for drying a substance (Abstract, drying sludge), comprising: a drum 50 rotatable about a central axis, and having an exterior circumferential surface and an interior circumferential surface (Figs. 1-4); a belt 42 supported on the drum 50 having a first and second side, the belt 42 being adapted to receive the substance (i.e. sludge) on a first side of the belt 42 , and to urge the substance via its first side towards a portion of the exterior circumferential surface 51 of the drum 50 when in operation (Fig. 1); wherein one or more infrared heating elements 52 are arranged proximate to and about a portion of the interior circumferential surface of the drum 50 (Figs. 3-4) providing indirect infrared heating by directing radiant energy to the interior circumferential surface to thereby transfer heat by conduction to the substances being urged between the belt 42 and drum 50 (Fig. 1). Wherein the one or more heating elements 52 are in the form of a curved panel (Figs 3-4). Wherein the drum 50 has a heating area (Figs. 3-4, area that heating elements 52 located) where heat can be provided to the substance being dried, the heating area having at least one heating zone (Figs 3-4, heating zone between 53a, 53b)). Wherein the heating area has at least one non-heating zone (Figs. 3-4, area where refractory material 53 located is considered as non-heating zone) where no heat is provided to the substance being dried. Wherein the belt is porous (translation, page 3, last paragraph, belt 32 is formed of a mesh filter cloth).
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 2 and 10, 12-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1112199) in view of Fleissner et al. (US 3,727,325).
The drying apparatus of Lee as above includes all that is recited in claims 2 and 10except for further comprising one or more infrared heating elements arranged proximate to and about a portion of the exterior circumferential surface of the drum and directing radiant energy to the belt to thereby transfer heat by conduction to the substances being urged between the belt and drum. Fleissner et al. discloses a drying apparatus for drying a substance 6 (Fig. 1) comprising one or more infrared heating elements 5 arranged proximate to and about a portion of the exterior circumferential surface of a drum 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Lee to further include one or more infrared heating elements arranged proximate to and about a portion of the exterior circumferential surface of the drum as taught by Fleissner et al. in order to improve the drying efficiency. The drying apparatus of Lee as modified Fleissner et al. would result in the radiant energy directed to the blet to thereby transfer heat by conduction to the substances being urged between the belt and drum. For claim 14, see Fig. 1 of Fleissner et al., no heating zone is formed by shutter sheets 7.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1112199) in view of Berg (FI 113285B).
The drying apparatus of Lee as above includes all that is recited in claim 3 except for wherein the one or more heating elements are in the form of a flat panel. Berg discloses one or more heating elements 12, 30 are in the form of a flat panel (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Lee to design the one or more heating elements of Lee in the form of a flat panel since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1112199) in view of Portnoy et al. (WO 2016/000748).
The drying apparatus of Lee as above includes all that is recited in claim 7 except for wherein the heating area comprises at least two heating zones with heating applied at different temperatures at each said heating zone. Portnoy et al. discloses a drying apparatus for drying substance 104 comprising a drum 126, one or more infrared heating element arranged within the drum 126 (paragraph [0020], infrared heating lamps), wherein the drum 126 has a heating area (area that receives heat from the heating lamps), the heating area having at least one heating zone (each infrared heating lamp corresponds to a heating zone on the drum), wherein the heating area comprises at least two heating zones with heating applied at different temperatures at each said heating zone (paragraph [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Lee to individually control the heating temperature at different heating zones as taught by Portnoy et al. in order to improve the heating control efficiency.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1112199) in view of Smith (US 3,395,631).
The drying apparatus of Lee as above includes all that is recited in claim 8 except for wherein reflectors are provided on opposing sides of each infrared heating element for reflecting radiant energy towards the drum. Smith teaches a concept of providing a reflector 4 on opposing side of infrared heating element 3 for reflecting radiant energy towards the drum 1 (sole figure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Lee to provide on opposing sides of each infrared heating element with a reflector for reflecting radiant energy towards the drum as taught by Smith in order to direct and concentrate radiant heat from the infrared heating element 3 toward the drum 1 and thus improve heating efficiency.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1112199) in view of Fleissner et al. (US 3,727,325) as applied to claim 10 as above, and further in view of Berg (FI 113285B).
The drying apparatus of Lee as modified by Fleissner et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 11 except for wherein the one or more heating elements are in the form of a flat panel. Berg discloses one or more heating elements 12, 30 are in the form of a flat panel (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Lee to design the one or more heating elements of Lee in the form of a flat panel since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1112199) in view of Fleissner et al. (US 3,727,325) as applied to claim 10 as above, and further in view of Portnoy et al. (WO 2016/000748).
The drying apparatus of Lee as modified by Fleissner et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 15 except for wherein the heating area comprises at least two heating zones with heating applied at different temperatures at each said heating zone. Portnoy et al. discloses a drying apparatus for drying substance 104 comprising a drum 126, one or more infrared heating element arranged within the drum 126 (paragraph [0020], infrared heating lamps), wherein the drum 126 has a heating area (area that receives heat from the heating lamps), the heating area having at least one heating zone (each infrared heating lamp corresponds to a heating zone on the drum), wherein the heating area comprises at least two heating zones with heating applied at different temperatures at each said heating zone (paragraph [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Lee to individually control the heating temperature at different heating zones as taught by Portnoy et al. in order to improve the heating control efficiency.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1112199) in view of Fleissner et al. (US 3,727,325) as applied to claim 16 as above, and further in view of Smith (US 3,395,631).
The drying apparatus of Lee as modified by Fleissner et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 16 except for wherein reflectors are provided on opposing sides of each infrared heating element for reflecting radiant energy towards the drum. Smith teaches a concept of providing a reflector 4 on opposing side of infrared heating element 3 for reflecting radiant energy towards the drum 1 (sole figure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Lee to provide on opposing sides of each infrared heating element with a reflector for reflecting radiant energy towards the drum as taught by Smith in order to direct and concentrate radiant heat from the infrared heating element 3 toward the drum 1 and thus improve heating efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. 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, MICHAEL G 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights