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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 11/19/2024.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract is not limited to a single paragraph and also contains the form of a claim and / or claim language (i.e. “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 1 the limitation, “a deflector (50) for deflecting solid particles (14) in tubular pipe (52)”, is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 10 the limitation, “unit for dehydrating alcohol to olefin.”, is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 6 the limitation, “means of an airlock…”, is being interpreted as NOT invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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 2 & 12 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 2 the recitation “first capacitive valve is preferably at least 1.05 times, and more preferably at least 1.15 times said predetermined volume....”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “preferably” and / or “more preferably”, this is relative and does not clearly define the volume of capacity. The limitation raises the question as to whether the claimed volume capacity is 1.05 -1.15 times said predetermined volume or not?
Recommended recitation: “…the first capacitive valve is at least 1.05 times to 1.15 times said predetermined volume.”
Regarding claim 2 the limitation “…the volume of the capacity (106)…” lacks antecedent basis.
Recommended recitation: ““the volume of a capacity (106)…”
Regarding claim 12 the recitation “preferably discharging a fluid contained in the predetermined volume through third valve...”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “preferably”, this is relative and does not clearly define the discharging function. The limitation raises the question as to whether the claimed fluid discharge occurs or not?
Recommended recitation: “…discharging a fluid contained in the predetermined volume through third valve...”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11 & 13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
MUNIER MICHEL et al. (FR 3007137 A1) discloses a solid sampling device from a closed chamber said device comprising a body carrying a sampling head with a collecting recess of the solid, a transfer notch of the collected solid, angularly displaceable closure means (30) for said indentations controlled by control means. According to the invention, the device further comprises means for limiting the angular clearance of the closing means for a displacement of said means.
Munier et al (US 9464966 B2) discloses a device for sampling a solid from a sealed enclosure, the device comprising a body carrying a sampling head with a solid collection recess, a collected solid transfer recess, angular-displacement shutter means for the recesses controlled by a control means, characterized in that the device also comprises means for limiting the angular clearance of the shutter means for no-load displacement of the means. (Summary of Invention)
Wong et al (US 5134879 A) discloses a first probe that can be replaced with a second probe inserted into a process stream. The second probe exposes a solids collection surface to collect scale. A real time estimate of scale can be obtained by drag force or pressure drop measurement, as well as direct measurement of the scaled probe. The in-stream sampling, redundant real time data, and initial separation of suspended solids result in accurate solids and other fluid measurements. The replaceable probe device also allows complementary fluid measurements further assuring accuracy. (Summary of Invention).
LENZING (SDE 10051307 B4) discloses a contraption for separation of gas and liquid solid particles from a flowing in a conduit Medium, a gas-liquid solid particle mixture, wherein in the conduit a deflecting element is arranged, that the flowing one Medium diverts, and that is a separation of gas and liquid and Solid particles of the streaming Medium causes, characterized in that the conduit in a channel opens, in which a measuring medium flows, in particular a combustion air for an internal combustion engine, and in that in the channel at least one measuring element for the determination at least one parameter, in particular a volumetric flow, of flowing Measuring medium is arranged. (Abstract)
The cited pertinent art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious a sampling device comprising a tubular pipe attached to a tubular body forming a non-zero angle with tubular body, tubular body comprising a deflector for deflecting solid particles in tubular pipe, characterized in that the sampling device comprises a first capacitive valve for discharging the solid particles, positioned downstream from tubular pipe, in the direction of flow of solid particles in sampling device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20260032415 A APPARATUS FOR A CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM DEVICE, CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM DEVICE, METHOD OF ANALYZING A MAGNETIC LENS FOR A CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY MEDIUM
US 20230087629 A1 METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SOLID PARTICLE REMOVAL
US 9658199 B2 Systems and methods for detecting change in species in an environment
US 8862420 B2 Multi-axis tilt sensor for correcting gravitational effects on the measurement of pressure by a capacitance diaphragm gauge
EP 1618960 B1 Apparatus and method for sink-float-separation of solid particles having different densities
DE 4331684 A1 Apparatus for the phase separation of a gas/liquid stream, if appropriate with previous mixing
US 9464966 B2 Device for sampling solids from a sealed enclosure and method using same
US 5134879 A Test method and apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights