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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of insulation molds having a predetermined shape" in lines 5 and 6. It renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether it is meant to be a plurality of insulation molds each having a predetermined shape, a plurality of insulation molds having predetermined shapes or an insulation mold having a predetermined shape. For the compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as a plurality of insulation molds each having a predetermined shape.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the insulation space” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining dependent claims 2-12 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wolfe et al. (US 5,049,333).
With respect to claim 1, Wolfe teaches a device (“briquet forming apparatus”, co 3 li 38-39) comprising:
a stirrer (“A hopper 30”. Co 5 li 42); and
a thermal molding device (“roll-type press”, co 4 li 21) that compressing and molding the paste into a plurality of molds having a predetermined shape (“As in roll-pressing equipment, the particulate material is compacted by squeezing the material as it is carried into the pinch space 33 between the two rotating rollers.”, co 4 li 26-29).
It is noted that the limitations “an insulation filling device for a fuel reformer” in line 1 and “filling the insulation space of a fuel reformer with the insulation molds” in lines 6-7 are intended uses since the apparatus taught by Wolfe is capable of being used as the clamed device. Furthermore, it is noted that the limitation “for forming an insulation paste by mixing the powder insulation material with a liquid binder for agglomerating particles of the powder insulation material” in lines 3-4 is an intended use since the hopper containing a vertically oriented drive shaft taught by Wolfe is capable of performing the clamed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Wolfe does not explicitly mention a feeder for supplying a material. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Wolfe implies a feeder for supplying the material into the hopper. Alternatively, the one would have found it obvious to provide a feeder with Wolfe’s apparatus for the purpose of supplying the material into the hopper.
With respect to claim 2, Wolfe as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that
said stirrer (“A hopper 30”) is equipped with:
a stirring chamber (the space in the hopper 30) wherein said material supplied from said feeder is received; and
a stirring screw (“a vertically oriented drive shaft 31, such as a screw feed”, co 5 li 42-43).
Wolfe does not explicitly mention a binder feeding member for supplying said liquid binder to said stirring chamber to bring it into contact with said powder insulation material, however, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple feeders with Wolfe’s apparatus for the purpose of supplying the materials into the hopper.
It is noted that the limitation “for stirring said powder insulation material and said liquid binder, which have been brought into contact with each other by said binder feeding member, to form said insulation paste” in lines 7-9 is an intended use since the hopper containing a vertically oriented drive shaft taught by Wolfe is capable of performing the clamed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 3, Wolfe as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that the above stirring chamber (the space in the hopper 30, Fig. 1) comprises:
an inlet (the upper part of the hopper 30) through which said powder insulation material supplied from said feeder enters;
a stirring space (the space in the hopper 30) where said powder insulation material passing through said inlet is received and said stirring screw is installed; and
an outlet (the lower part of the hopper 30) through which said insulation paste formed by said stirring screw in said stirring space is discharged.
With respect to claim 4, Wolfe as applied to claim 3 above further teaches that said inlet (the upper part of the hopper 30) is formed to communicate with the upper part of the stirring space and said outlet (the lower part of the hopper 30) is formed to communicate with the lower part of the stirring space;
said stirring screw (“a vertically oriented drive shaft 31”) comprises: a rotating shaft installed in said stirring space so as to extend from the upper part to the lower part of said stirring space; and a spiral blade coupled to the outer circumferential surface of said rotating shaft so as to be rotationally driven along said rotating shaft and stir and transport said powder insulation material and said liquid binder toward said outlet (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Wolfe as applied to claim 4 above further teaches that said stirring space is formed to have a diameter that gradually decreases from said inlet side toward said outlet side; and said spiral blade is formed to have an outer diameter that gradually decreases from said inlet side toward said outlet side (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 7, it is noted that the limitation “said liquid binder is water or an aqueous solution in which at least one additive is dissolved in said water” in lines 2-3 is an intended use since the apparatus taught by Wolfe is capable of using the clamed material. The Courts have held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 8, Wolfe as applied to claim 1 above further teaches a buffer chamber (the space between a vertically oriented drive shaft 31 and the pinch area 33) for temporarily storing said insulation paste transferred from said stirrer and transferring it to said thermal molding device (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, it is noted that the limitation “the amount of said insulation paste formed in said stirrer and the amount of said insulation paste molded in said thermal molding device are adjusted so that said insulation paste is layered in said buffer chamber to a predetermined reference height” in lines 2-4 is an intended use since the apparatus taught by Wolfe is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 10, Wolfe as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that said thermal molding device is provided with a pair of compression rollers (“a pair of rolls”) installed facing each other along a direction perpendicular to the conveying direction of said insulation paste and interlock with each other to compress and mold said insulation paste into said insulation molds (“As in roll-pressing equipment, the particulate material is compacted by squeezing the material as it is carried into the pinch space 33 between the two rotating rollers.”, co 4 li 26-29 and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 11, Wolfe as applied to claim 10 above further teaches that said thermal molding device is arranged so that said insulation paste transferred from said stirrer is transported by gravity along the direction of the gravitational force, and said compression rollers are installed facing each other along the horizontal direction perpendicular to said direction of the gravitational force so that said insulation paste conveyed along said direction of the gravitational force is layered on top of said compression rollers (“A hopper 30 containing a vertically oriented drive shaft 31, such as a screw feed, represents a feed means for charging particulate briquetting matter into the U-shaped depressions 12 as the depressions approach the pinch area 33 formed between the opposed roll press pairs. Therein compression of the particulate briquetting matter is initiated as the rolls rotate toward each other.”, co 5 li 42-49 and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 12, Wolfe as applied to claim 10 above further teaches that said compression rollers have a plurality of molding grooves recessed in the outer circumferential surface so as to have a shape corresponding to said insulation molds (“between a pair of rolls cooperating together, the rolls have mold pockets or cavities 12 on one roll 9 facing only. The second roll 10 is preferably blank with no pockets. The rolls interact tangentially so as to form a pinch space 33 between the faces of the rolls. As in roll-pressing equipment, the particulate material is compacted by squeezing the material as it is carried into the pinch space 33 between the two rotating rollers.”, co 4 li 22-29).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (US 5,049,333) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kraus et al. (US 6,367,959).
With respect to claim 6, Wolfe as applied to claim 4 above further teaches that this invention utilizes compression techniques of size enlargement to produce agglomerated briquet products from comminuted char of various vegetable materials (co 3 li 51-53), and most materials can now be agglomerated by this technique with the aid of binders, heat, and/or very high pressures if needed (co 3 li 63-65), and as recited above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple feeders with Wolfe’s apparatus in the inlet of the hopper for the purpose of supplying the materials into the hopper, but does not explicitly teach that said binder feeding member is installed so as to spray said liquid binder onto said powder insulation material being passed through the upper portion of said stirring space by said spiral blade.
Kraus relates to an apparatus for mixing water into a stream of sand (co 2 li 7), and teaches that the apparatus comprises a conveyor for transporting the sand stream, a receptacle having an inlet positioned below the conveyor discharge end and an outlet, a vertical path being defined between the conveyor discharge end and the receptacle inlet, a first mixer has a rotatable shaft extending at least partially into the receptacle, and an agitator is attached to and rotates with the shaft inside the receptacle, opposed first and second nozzle sets are provided which are adapted for attachment to a water source, each nozzle set comprising at least one nozzle directed at the vertical flow path for spraying water toward the vertical flow path, and the nozzles coat opposing surfaces of the sand stream with water as the sand falls along the vertical flow path and the rotating agitator mixes the sand and water inside the receptacle (co 2 li 8-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wolfe with the teachings of Kraus such that the one would provide a conveyor for transporting the comminuted char of various vegetable materials, and opposed first and second nozzle sets for supplying binders for the purpose of spraying binders toward the vertical flow path and coating opposing surfaces of the char stream with binders as the char falls along the vertical flow path before the hopper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742