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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a mixing unit for mixing the material with the liquid to provide the material comprising liquid content” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 exceeds 150 words in length. 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
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: “a mixing unit” in claims 14 and 17 .
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.
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.
Claims 14 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, claim 14 recites “a mixing unit for mixing the material with the liquid to provide the material comprising liquid content” and claim 17 recites “a mixing unit configured to receive a material and mix said material with the liquid to obtain a material comprising liquid content”. The term “unit” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which a mixing unit for mixing the material with the liquid to provide the material comprising liquid content or a mixing unit configured to receive a material and mix said material with the liquid to obtain a material comprising liquid content. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of mixing material. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
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 and 17 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.
Claim limitation “a mixing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of mixing material.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reissner et al (US 20170268173).
Regarding claim 1, Reissner teaches a method for recovering thermal energy in a material drying process (paragraphs 0014-0017), the method comprising, at least after a starting phase (paragraphs 0049-0055, Fig. 1) where a starting volume of liquid (GW) and a starting amount of gas flow (GW) is obtained, providing a material (GW) to be dried comprising a liquid content (solvent W, paragraph 0050), providing thermal energy (WTI through D) to evaporate at least a portion of the liquid from the material (G), providing a drying gas (WTI between D) flow to carry the vapor of the evaporated liquid and the related latent heat from the material (fig. 1), gathering the gas flow carrying the vapor and the latent heat (WTI in HPE), recovering at least most or essentially all of the vapor carried by the gas flow to obtain recovered liquid and recovered gas flow by condensing the at least most or essentially all of the vapor content in the gathered gas flow (condensation of W TI in HPE, paragraphs 0049-0055), recovering the thermal energy used for evaporation and the latent heat of vapor carried by the gas flow by heat exchanging and condensing to obtain recovered thermal energy by the heat exchanging and condensing (Q), recirculating at least a portion of the recovered thermal energy as the thermal energy used for evaporation (refeeding heat energy Q, paragraph 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 2, Reissner teaches the method is a closed process with respect to the liquid (W, fig. 1, paragraph 0049-0059).
Regarding claim 3, Reissner teaches the method is a closed process with respect to the gas flow (fig. 1) and the method comprises recirculating at least most or essentially all of the recovered gas flow as the drying gas flow (paragraph 0059).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Reissner teaches the method comprises directing the gas flow carrying the vapor and the latent heat to a heat recovery unit comprising at least a condensing heat exchanger unit (HPE), wherein the cooling fluid (WTII) is provided by a cooling fluid providing device (K) for providing a cooling fluid (WTII) to the condensing heat exchanger unit for exchanging the heat from the drying gas flow (WTI) by the heat exchanger and thereby cooling the gas flow and condensing the liquid carried by the gas flow to recover also said latent heat from the gas flow (fig. 1), and directing at least a portion of the thus obtained recovered thermal energy to said cooling fluid (paragraph 0049-0055).
Regarding claim 5, Reissner teaches the cooling fluid is provided by a heat pump unit (WP), and the method comprises directing at least a portion of recovered thermal energy obtained at the condensing heat exchanger unit to the heat pump unit to recover additional thermal energy from the recovered thermal energy obtained at the condensing heat exchanger unit to obtain further recovered thermal energy (paragraph 0061), and recirculating the additional recovered thermal energy as the thermal energy used for evaporation (paragraph 0051-0052) and/or the processing of the material to be dried (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Reissner teaches the method comprises recovering at least 50% to 80% of the thermal energy used for evaporation (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Reissner teaches at least a portion of the recovered thermal energy is provided at least to the drying gas flow, the method comprising heating the drying gas flow to a temperature of under 200° C (between 100 degree C to 200 degree C, paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 8, Reissner teaches the material is a mixture comprising fibers (fibers, paragraph 0050), and liquid (solvent, paragraph 0050), the method comprising mixing fibers and at least one liquid (paragraph 0050), the at least one liquid comprising water (water, paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 9, Reissner teaches the thermal energy is provided at least to the drying gas flow (paragraph 0050, fig. 1)
Regarding claim 10, Reissner teaches the gas flow carrying the vapor and the latent heat is cooled to at least a dew point temperature (paragraph 0050) of the gas flow in order to recover the latent heat by the condensing (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Reissner teaches a heat recovery system (fig. 1) for recovering thermal energy used in a material drying process (paragraph 0049-0055), configured to receive a drying gas (G) flow carrying vapor of evaporated liquid (W) and the related latent heat from a material (GW) comprising liquid content from which said liquid content has been evaporated using thermal energy (paragraphs 0049-005, fig. 1), and transfer heat from the drying gas flow by a heat exchanger (HPE) to cool said drying gas flow to condense essentially all or at least most of the vapor to provide a recovered liquid (W), recovered gas flow (WTII), and recovered thermal energy (Q) by the heat exchanging and condensing (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Reissner teaches comprising a thermal energy recirculation system (HPE, HPC) and the device for providing said cooling fluid is a heat pump unit (WP), wherein the condensing heat exchanger unit is configured to direct at least a portion of the obtained recovered thermal energy to the heat pump unit to recover further thermal energy from the recovered thermal energy obtained at the condensing heat exchanger unit to obtain additional recovered thermal energy (paragraphs 0049-0055, fig 1), recirculating the additional recovered thermal energy as the thermal energy used for evaporation (paragraphs 0051-0052) and/or the processing of the material to be dried (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Reissner teaches comprising a gas flow recirculation system (HPE, HPC) configured to receive the recovered gas flow and recirculate the recovered gas flow as the drying gas flow in the process for drying material (paragraphs 0049-0055, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Reissner teaches an arrangement for receiving a material comprising liquid content and drying (fig. 1) said material, the arrangement comprising at least a heat recovery system according to claim 11 (see claim 11) and at least one gas flow element (flow through fig. 1) for providing a drying gas flow (fig. 1) and at least one heating element (D, paragraph 0057) for providing thermal energy for evaporating the liquid from the material (D to HPE).
Regarding claim 18, Reissner teaches the arrangement additionally comprising a drying surface (surface illustrated in D, fig. 1)configured to receive the material to be dried.
Regarding claim 19, Reissner the arrangement additionally comprising a control entity (SE) configured to receive one or more determined parameters (paragraph 0058), wherein the control entity is configured to control control an amount of gas flow provided by the at least one gas flow element based on said determined parameters (paragraph 0058).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 14 and 17, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Reissner et al (US 20170268173). The prior art of record teaches a liquid recirculation system in contrast to the claimed features of a liquid recirculation system configured to receive the recovered liquid and recirculate the recovered liquid to a mixing unit for mixing the material with the liquid to provide the material comprising liquid content as recited in claim 14 or a mixing unit configured to receive a material and mix said material with the liquid to obtain a material comprising liquid content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights