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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended
Claim 20 has been added
Claims 13-14 and 16-19 have been withdrawn
Claim 15 has been cancelled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neikirk et al. (US 20190376182) in view of Fernandez (US 10953381), with Hazlebeck et al. (US 6773581) and Bakaya et al. (US 10557088) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Neikirk teaches a system for treating fine powder particles comprising: a rotary treatment vessel (reactor system 100′″) configured to expose a plurality of particles to treatment gases or vapors; a controller (controller 170) configured to rotate the rotary treatment vessel at a first rotation speed (a rotational speed of the rotary vacuum chamber 112 is less than a threshold rotational speed, e.g., less than 15 rpm, such that particles 148 within the rotary vacuum chamber experience tumbling agitation while the rotary vacuum chamber 112 is in rotational motion) to establish a cataracting condition [Fig. 4 & 0092-0093], and at a second rotation speed to establish a centrifuging condition (controller 170 can control the drum motor 130a to rotate the vacuum chamber 112 at speeds up to 200 rpm, such that particles 148 are centrifugally moved) [Fig. 4 & 0079]; and a comb (paddle assembly 132) movable from a first position while the rotary treatment vessel is rotated at the first rotation speed, to a second position while the rotary treatment vessel is rotated at the second rotation speed (the paddle assembly can be rotated after either the first rotation speed or second rotation speed is applied in steps 805 or 804, respectively. As such, the paddle assembly is being moved between different positions at either rotation speed) [Fig. 8 & 0061, 0117-0119], wherein the comb is coupled to a shaft (drive shaft 156) oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rotary treatment vessel [Fig. 4, 5 & 0057].
Neikirk does not specifically disclose wherein a shaft is positioned off centerline relative to the longitudinal axis of the rotary treatment vessel.
Fernandez teaches wherein a shaft is positioned off centerline relative to the longitudinal axis of the rotary treatment vessel (as evidenced by Fig. 8, rotor 140 is offset from a centerline of the reaction chamber 115) [Fig. 8 & Col. 19 lines 63-67, Col. 20 lines 1-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Neikirk to have an off centered shaft, as in Fernandez, to create pressure differentials, thereby improving movement of particles [Fernandez - Col. 19 lines 63-67, Col. 20 lines 1-20]. It is noted that off center shafts are a well-known technique in the art; Hazlebeck et al. (US 6773581) and Bakaya et al. (US 10557088) teach that offset shafts would be beneficial so as to dislodge particles [Hazlebeck - Col. 11 lines 14-57; Bakaya - Col. 5 lines 35-47].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations “movable from a first position while the rotary treatment vessel is rotated at the first rotation speed, to a second position while the rotary treatment vessel is rotated at the second rotation speed,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 2:
Neikirk teaches wherein the comb rotates from the first position to the second position (the paddle assembly can be rotated using motor 130b, and as such, moves from a second position to a first position) [Fig. 4, 5, 8 & 0058].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 2 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 3:
Neikirk teaches wherein the comb translates longitudinally in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rotary treatment vessel from the first position to the second position (the paddle assembly can be rotated using motor 130b, and as such, moves from a second position to a first position) [Fig. 4, 5, 8 & 0058].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 3 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 4:
Neikirk teaches wherein the first rotation speed is less than 100 RPM (a rotational speed of the rotary vacuum chamber 112 is less than a threshold rotational speed, e.g., less than 15 rpm, such that particles 148 within the rotary vacuum chamber experience tumbling agitation while the rotary vacuum chamber 112 is in rotational motion) to establish a cataracting condition [Fig. 4 & 0092].
Regarding Claim 5:
Neikirk teaches wherein the second rotation speed is greater than 15 RPM (centrifugal force can be achieved by speeds greater than 15 rpm) [Fig. 4 & 0079].
Regarding Claim 6:
Neikirk teaches one or more gas injectors (gas inlet port 120) configured to intermittently introduce treatment gases or vapors into the rotary treatment vessel while the rotary treatment vessel rotates at the first rotation speed (a process gas is injected in step 810 either during the first rotation speed 805 or a second rotation speed 804) [Fig. 4, 8 & 0057, 0117-0118, 0121].
Regarding Claim 7:
Neikirk teaches wherein the one or more gas injectors are configured to uniformly raise a pressure inside the rotary treatment vessel (reactants can be fed via gas inlet port 120 to achieve specified pressures within the reactor system 100) [Fig. 5 & 0126].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 7 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 8:
Neikirk teaches a vacuum port (vacuum port 118) with an isolation valve (isolation valve 139b) to intermittently exhaust treatment gases or vapors from the rotary treatment vessel while the rotary treatment vessel rotates at the second rotation speed (the rotary treatment vessel exhausts gases in step 806 after either the first rotation speed or second rotation speed is applied in steps 805 or 804, respectively) [Fig. 8 & 0057, 0117-0119].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations “to intermittently exhaust treatment gases or vapors from the rotary treatment vessel while the rotary treatment vessel rotates at the second rotation speed,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 9:
Neikirk teaches wherein the comb includes rake-shaped tines (tines 606) [Fig. 6A & 0099], configured to break up agglomerates formed by the plurality of particles, movement of the comb to the first position placing the tines into contact with at least a portion of the plurality of particles (in some implementations, the at least one paddle includes a rake-shaped feature including multiple tines such that the tines of the paddles are in contact with the particles when the chemical delivery system is injecting the process gas into the particles) [Fig. 5 & 0016, 0094].
Furthermore, the limitations “configured to break up agglomerates formed by the plurality of particles, movement of the comb to the first position placing the tines into contact with at least a portion of the plurality of particles, and movement of the comb to the second position placing the tines out of contact with the plurality of particles,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the controller 170 can operate drum motor 130a to rotate the paddle assembly 132, therefore the paddle 132 would be capable of being moved in positions contacting the plurality of particles, or not contacting the plurality of particles [Fig. 2 & 0016, 0094],
Regarding Claim 10:
Neikirk teaches wherein the rotary treatment vessel is mounted horizontally (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the reactor system 100 is mounted horizontally) [Fig. 5 & 0057].
Regarding Claim 20:
The limitations of claim 20 are merely an intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that in Neikirk, the paddle assembly 132 can comprise one paddle and is rotatable, and as such, is moveable so as to not contact particles when desired; Fig. 4 depicts wherein the paddles 158c and 158b do not contact the particle bed 178 [Neikirk – Fig. 4 & 0009, 0072]. Furthermore, since Fernandez has modified Neikirk to have an off centered shaft, the paddle of Modified Neikirk would be able to be further positioned so as not to contact particles.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neikirk et al. (US 20190376182) in view of Fernandez (US 10953381), with Hazlebeck et al. (US 6773581) and Bakaya et al. (US 10557088) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-10 and 20 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20150144060), with Lei et al. (US 9355907) as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1-10 and 20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Neikirk does not specifically disclose a plurality of radially arrayed rotary treatment vessels, wherein the controller rotates the plurality of rotary treatment vessels at the second rotation speed around a common axis of rotation.
Park does not specifically disclose "a plurality of radially arrayed rotary treatment vessels," however Park does disclose that a system comprising a plurality of treatment apparatuses as opposed to a single one would help improve throughput [Park - 0049]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Neikirk to comprise of a plurality of treatment vessels to help improve throughput [Park - 0049]. Lei et al. (US 9355907) also discloses that using multiple treatment vessels improves throughput [Lei -Col. 13 lines 1-7].
Furthermore, although Neikirk modified by Park does not specifically disclose "wherein the controller rotates the plurality of rotary treatment vessels at the second rotation speed around a common axis of rotation," Neikirk does disclose an individual rotary vessel rotating at the second rotation speed (controller 170 can control he drum motor 130a to rotate the vacuum chamber 112 at speeds up to 200 rpm, such that particles 148 are centrifugally moved) [Neikirk - Fig. 1 & 0092]; As such, modifying a plurality of chambers to rotate at the second rotation speed would merely be applying a known technique to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 D).
Regarding Claim 12:
Neikirk does not specifically disclose wherein each rotary treatment vessel of the plurality of rotary treatment vessels defines a longitudinal axis, and the controller rotates each rotary treatment vessel of the plurality of rotary treatment vessels at the first rotation speed around its respective longitudinal axis.
Park does not specifically disclose "a plurality of radially arrayed rotary treatment vessels," however Park does disclose that a system comprising a plurality of treatment apparatuses as opposed to a single one would help improve throughput [Park - 0049]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Neikirk to comprise of a plurality of treatment vessels to help improve throughput [Park - 0049]. Lei et al. (US 9355907) also discloses that using multiple treatment vessels improves throughput [Lei -Col. 13 lines 1-7]. Furthermore, since the plurality of vessels would be three-dimensional objects, longitudinal axes would be defined.
Furthermore, although Neikirk modified by Park does not specifically disclose "the controller rotates each rotary treatment vessel of the plurality of rotary treatment vessels at the first rotation speed around its respective longitudinal axis," Neikirk does disclose an individual rotary vessel rotating at the second rotation speed (a rotational speed of the rotary vacuum chamber 112 is less than a threshold rotational speed, e.g., less than 15 rpm, such that particles 148 within the rotary vacuum chamber experience tumbling agitation while the rotary vacuum chamber 112 is in rotational motion) to establish a cataracting condition [Neikirk - Fig. 1 & 0079], As such, modifying a plurality of chambers to rotate at the first rotation speed would merely be applying a known technique to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the comb is coupled to a shaft oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rotary treatment vessel and positioned off centerline relative to the longitudinal axis of the rotary treatment vessel.” This argument has been fully considered but is now moot as it does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Fernandez (US 10953381), Hazlebeck et al. (US 6773581), and Bakaya et al. (US 10557088) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the comb is configured to be selectively positionable, during the cataracting condition, to contact particles in a particle-motion path within the rotary treatment vessel, and selectively positionable, during the centrifuging condition, out of contact with particles centrifugally confined against the inner surface of the rotary treatment vessel,” however the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, the aforementioned limitation is merely an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that in Neikirk et al. (US 20190376182), the paddle assembly 132 can comprise one paddle and is rotatable, and as such, is moveable so as to not contact particles when desired; Fig. 4 depicts wherein the paddles 158c and 158b do not contact the particle bed 178 [Neikirk – Fig. 4 & 0009, 0072]. Furthermore, since Fernandez has modified Neikirk to have an off centered shaft, the paddle of Modified Neikirk would be able to be further positioned so as not to contact particles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights