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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Examiner agrees that Heino does not expressly disclose the first depth and second depth are equal in size despite such appearance in fig. 2. However, the exact first depth of the second depth is a matter of design choice as expressed below. Examiner finds that the current references continue to make obvious the claims as amended.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. The amendments of at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums arranged in a side-by-side manner and aligned perpendicularly to an initial direction of a flow of the heated fluidizing air from the fan, each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums comprising a dedicated upper exhaust port; and at least one turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate lacks express antecedent basis in the specification to describe the disclosure provided in the original drawings. Applicant is reminded to not include any new matter not supported by the figures or claims as initially disclosed.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “to” should be added in line 2 after the term “vane”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US 4,760,779) in view of Heino (US 7,794,670) and Yamamoto (US 5,753,191) in view of Ware (US 8,257,767), Sanderson (US 3,360,867) and Luker (6,189,234).
As for claim 1, Morris discloses a material drying apparatus, comprising: a fluidizing bed plate removably attached (4:52-55) to an interior surface of a fluid bed dryer (50, fig. 2, abstract); wherein the fluidizing bed plate defines a plurality of apertures (51, fig. 3); a side entry for fluidizing air delivery to the fluid bed dryer to enable multiple fluid bed dryer modules to be connected in series, making possible drying of materials which require a high length-to-width ratio and for extended drying time (38, fig. 1, drying time can be extended by adding additional assemblies), wherein the side entry enables multi- temperature zone configuration (31-33, fig. 1); a fan to direct heated fluidizing air (37, 46, fig. 1, 3:7-12) through a perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate (39, 50, fig. 2, 3:62-68); at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums arranged in a side-by-side manner and aligned perpendicularly to an initial direction of a flow of the heated fluidizing air from the fan (fig. 1 illustrates three laterally enclosed upper plenums arranged side by side and aligned perpendicularly to an initial direction of a flow of the heated fluidizing air from the fan), each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums being configured to reduce upflow velocity within the fluid bed dryer to allow entrained particles to return to the fluidizing bed (enlarged plenum as indicated in sketch below provides this feature as disclosed by applicant);
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums comprising a dedicated upper exhaust port. Ware teaches each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums comprising a dedicated upper exhaust port (60, 64, 68, fig. 1, 6:20-28) in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. Morris would benefit equally from providing independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums comprising a dedicated upper exhaust port as taught by Ware in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added.
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for each of said plurality of apertures comprising: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of said fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of said cylindrical shape to a bottom end of said fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth, wherein said first depth and said second depth are equal in size. Heino (fig. 2) and Yamamoto (fig. 3) teach each of said plurality of apertures comprising: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of said fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of said cylindrical shape to a bottom end of said fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged. Morris would benefit equally from preventing holes of the gas distributor from being plugged. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with each of said plurality of apertures comprising: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of said fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of said cylindrical shape to a bottom end of said fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth, as taught by Heino and Yamamoto in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged.
Heino and Yamamoto fail to teach said first depth and said second depth are equal in size. However, the exact depths of each feature involves no more than an obvious matter of design choice that could be determined without undue experimentation. Examiner was not able to find explanation in applicant’s specification as to what unexpected improvement was found by the first depth and second depth being of equal size. Applicant notes in [0037-0038] that a bedplate formed with frutso-conical apertures has several advantages to include reduced plugging and turbulence which results in greater efficiency and less noise but does not attribute these benefits to the first depth and the second depth being of equal in size. As such the prior art would be presumed to work equally well if not superior to applicant’s claimed arrangement.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for and at least one turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate. Sanderson teaches at least one turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate (12, 10, fig. 1) in order to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. Morris would benefit equally from more efficient air delivery. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with at least one turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate as taught by Sanderson to reduce turbulence.
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for an access door to enable cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer. Luker teaches an access door to enable cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer (25, 45, fig. 1) in order to provide for convenient cleaning and repair purposes. Morris would benefit equally from providing for convenient cleaning and repair purposes. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with an access door to enable cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer as taught by Luker in order to provide for convenient cleaning and repair purposes.
As for claim 3, Morris discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of apertures are non-plugging to reduce turbulence, to reduce plugging of the fluidizing bed plate, and the reduce the formation of powder. Heino (33, 34, fig. 2, cols. 5-6, lines 61-02) and Yamamoto (9:52-56) teaches the plurality of apertures are non-plugging to reduce turbulence, to reduce plugging of the fluidizing bed plate, and the reduce the formation of powder in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged. Morris would benefit equally from preventing holes of the gas distributor from being plugged. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with the plurality of apertures are non-plugging to reduce turbulence, to reduce plugging of the fluidizing bed plate, and the reduce the formation of powder as taught by Heino and Yamamoto in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged.
As for claim 4, Morris discloses the fluidizing bed plate is removably secured to the interior surface of the fluid bed dryer via a one or more fasteners to allow removal of the fluid bed plate for cleaning plugged apertures (50, 3:62-68, a removable fluidized bed would necessitate fastening means to maintain stability in the turbulent environment of a fluidized bed).
As for claim 6, Morris discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one turning vane to reduce air turbulence, thereby reducing the formation of a powder during the material drying process. Sanderson teaches the at least one turning vane to reduce air turbulence, thereby reducing the formation of a powder during the material drying process (similar structure of Sanderson, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant) in order to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. Morris would benefit equally from reducing turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with at least one turning vane to reduce air turbulence, thereby reducing the formation of a powder during the material drying process as taught by Sanderson in order to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery.
As for claim 7, Morris discloses the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums allows particles entrained in exhaust gas to fall back onto the fluidizing bed and exit the fluidizing bed dryer (See sketch above. The similar structure of Morris, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Heino and Yamamoto and in view of Sanderson and Luker as for claim 1 above and further in view of Ware (US 8,257,767).
Morris discloses the fluid bed dryer is constructed as a multi-unit fluid bed dryer to enable drying of materials which require low temperature drying (31-33, fig. 1, residence time adjustable matter of design choice) and the claimed invention except for each unit of the multi-unit fluid bed dryer comprises at least one laterally enclosed upper plenum and at least one dedicated upper exhaust port. Ware teaches each unit of the multi-unit fluid bed dryer comprises at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums (60, 64, 68, fig. 1, 6:20-28) in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. Morris would benefit equally from providing independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with each unit of the multi-unit fluid bed dryer comprises at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums as taught by Ware in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. It is noted that Morris contemplated the benefit of individual control of each drying unit exhaust by disclosing optional baffles for each drying unit in order to control the desired airflow pattern (3:30-34).
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums comprises at least one dedicated upper exhaust port. Ware teaches each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums comprises at least one dedicated upper exhaust port (60, 64, 68, fig. 1, 6:20-28) in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. Morris would benefit equally from providing independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with each of the at least two laterally enclosed upper plenums comprises at least one dedicated upper exhaust port as taught by Ware in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Heino and Yamamoto and in view of Sanderson in view of Ware and in view of Luker.
As for claim 9, Morris discloses a multi-unit material drying apparatus, comprising: a plurality of fluid bed dryers connected in series (31-33, fig. 1, 3:3-6), each fluid bed dryer comprising: a fluidizing bed plate attached to an interior surface of a fluid bed dryer (50, fig. 2) wherein the fluidizing bed plate defines a plurality of apertures (51, fig. 3); a side entry for fluidizing air delivery to the fluid bed dryer to enable the drying of materials which require a high length-to-width ratio and an extended drying time (38, fig. 1, drying time can be extended by adding additional assemblies), wherein the side entry enables multi- temperature zone configuration (31-33 , fig. 1); a fan to direct heated fluidizing air (37, 46, fig. 1, 3:7-12) through a perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate (39, 50, fig. 2, 3:62-68); at least two upper plenum each with side walls (See sketch above, the similar structure of Morris, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant), wherein the expanded plenums are arranged side-by-size manner and aligned perpendicularly to an initial direction of a flow of the heated fluidizing air from the fan, each of the at least two upper plenums being configured to reduce upflow velocity to allow entrained particles to return to the fluidizing bed (see sketch above); wherein the plurality of fluid bed dryers form a multi-unit material drying apparatus to enable drying of materials requiring low temperature drying with longer solids residence time (31-33, fig. 1. The similar structure of Morris, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant).
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for the fluidizing bed plate defines a plurality of apertures each having a frusto-conical bottom half and a cylindrical top half. Heino (fig. 2) and Yamamoto (fig. 3) teach the fluidizing bed plate defines a plurality of apertures each having a frusto-conical bottom half and a cylindrical top half in order to more uniformly and stably diffuse the gas to effectively prevent dead zones, and particle adherence to the opening. Morris would benefit equally from more uniformly and stably diffusing the gas to effectively prevent dead zones, and particle adherence to the opening. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with the fluidizing bed plate defines a plurality of apertures each having a frusto-conical bottom half and a cylindrical top half as taught by Heino and Yamamoto in order to more uniformly and stably diffuse the gas to effectively prevent dead zones, and particle adherence to the opening.
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for a turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate. Sanderson teaches a turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate (12, 10, fig. 1, similar structure of Sanderson, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant) in order to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. Morris would benefit equally from more efficient air delivery. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with a turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate as taught by Sanderson in order to produce more efficient air delivery.
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for an upper plenum with a dedicated upper exhaust port. Ware teaches an upper plenum with a dedicated upper exhaust port (60, 64, 68, fig. 1, 6:20-28) in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. Morris would benefit equally from providing independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with an upper plenum with a dedicated upper exhaust port as taught by Ware in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. It is noted that Morris contemplated the benefit of individual control of each drying unit exhaust by disclosing optional baffles for each drying unit in order to control the desired airflow pattern (3:30-34).
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for an access door to enable cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer. Luker teaches an access door to enable cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer (25, 45, fig. 1) in order to provide for convenient cleaning and repair purposes. Morris would benefit equally from providing for convenient cleaning and repair purposes. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with an access door to enable cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer as taught by Luker in order to provide for convenient cleaning and repair purposes.
As for claim 11, Morris discloses the claimed invention except for each of the plurality of apertures comprise: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of the fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of the cylindrical shape to a bottom end of the fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth, wherein the first depth and said second depth are equal in size. Heino and Yamamoto teaches each of the plurality of apertures comprise: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of the fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of the cylindrical shape to a bottom end of the fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged. Morris would benefit equally from preventing holes of the gas distributor from being plugged. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with each of the plurality of apertures comprise: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of the fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of the cylindrical shape to a bottom end of the fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth, wherein the first depth and said second depth are equal in size as taught by Heino and Yamamoto in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged.
Heino and Yamamoto fail to teach said first depth and said second depth are equal in size. However, the exact depths of each feature involves no more than an obvious matter of design choice that could be determined without undue experimentation. Examiner was not able to find explanation in applicant’s specification as to what unexpected improvement was found by the first depth and second depth being of equal size. Applicant notes in [0037-0038] that a bedplate formed with frutso-conical apertures has several advantages to include reduced plugging and turbulence which results in greater efficiency and less noise but does not attribute these benefits to the first depth and the second depth being of equal in size. As such the prior art would be presumed to work equally well if not superior to applicant’s claimed arrangement.
As for claim 12, Morris discloses the fluidizing bed plate is removably secured to the interior surface of the fluid bed dryer via a one or more fasteners to allow removal of the fluid bed plate for cleaning plugged apertures (50, 3:62-68, a removable fluidized bed would necessitate fastening means to maintain stability in the turbulent environment of a fluidized bed).
As for claim 14, Morris discloses the claimed invention except for the turning vane reduces air turbulence, thereby reducing the formation of a powder during the material drying process. Sanderson teaches the turning vane reduces air turbulence, thereby reducing the formation of a powder during the material drying process (12, 10, fig. 1, similar structure of Sanderson, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant) in order to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. Morris would benefit equally from reducing turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with the turning vane reduces air turbulence, thereby reducing the formation of a powder during the material drying process as taught by Sanderson in order to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery.
As for claim 15, Morris discloses the expanded upper plenum allows articles entrained in exhaust gas to fall back onto the fluidizing bed and exit the fluidizing bed dryer (See sketch above. The similar structure of Morris, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant).
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Sanderson (US 3,360,867) in view of Heino in view of Ware and in view of Luker.
As for claim 17, Morris discloses a material drying apparatus, comprising: at least one fluid bed dryer, comprising: an air inlet to allow the ingress of fluidizing air driven by a fan (37, fig. 1), the fan to direct the flow of the fluidizing air to heat the fluidizing air (46), and the fan to direct the flow of air through a perforated fluidizing bed plate attached to an interior surface of a fluid bed dryer (50), the perforated fluidizing bed plate position in an interior of the one or more fluid bed dryers (50, 3:62-68), wherein the fluidizing bed plate defines a plurality of apertures (51, fig. 3); a side entry for fluidizing air delivery to the fluid bed dryer to enable the drying of materials which require a high length-to-width ratio and an extended drying time (38, fig. 1, drying time can be extended by adding additional assemblies. The similar structure of Morris, without further definition or limitation would be expected to produce the same results as applicant), wherein the side entry enables multi-temperature zone (31-33, fig. 1); a plurality of expanded upper plenums each with side walls and at least one dedicated exhaust port, wherein the plurality of expanded upper plenums are arranged in a side-by-side manner and aligned perpendicularly to an initial direction of a flow of the air from the fan (fig. 1, including sketch above for expanded volume).
Morris discloses the fluidizing bed plate defines a plurality of apertures (53, fig. 3) and the claimed invention except for wherein each of the plurality of apertures comprise: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of the perforated fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of the cylindrical shape to a bottom end of the perforated fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth, wherein the first depth and said second depth are equal in size. Heino teaches wherein each of the plurality of apertures comprise: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of the perforated fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of the cylindrical shape to a bottom end of the perforated fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth, wherein the first depth and said second depth are equal in size (33, 34, fig. 2, cols. 5-6, lines 61-02) in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged. Morris would benefit equally from . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with wherein each of the plurality of apertures comprise: a cylindrical shape extending from a top end of the perforated fluidizing bed plate and defining a first depth, a frusto-conical shape extending from a bottom of the cylindrical shape to a bottom end of the perforated fluidizing bed plate and defining a second depth, wherein the first depth and said second depth are equal in size as taught by Heine in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged as taught by Heino in order to prevent holes of the gas distributor from being plugged.
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for the fan to direct the flow of the fluidizing air to a burner to heat the fluidizing air; a turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate. Sanderson teaches the fan to direct the flow of the fluidizing air to a burner to heat the fluidizing air (13, 14, fig. 1); a turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate (12, 10, fig. 1) because a burner is a well-known and obvious substitution to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for a means to raise heat for drying; and to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. Morris would benefit equally from reducing turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with the fan to direct the flow of the fluidizing air to a burner to heat the fluidizing air; a turning vane defining a concave curvature positioned within the fluid bed dryer below each of the at least two upper plenums to turn the flow of the heated fluidizing air from the initial direction to a different direction toward the perforated bottom of the fluidizing bed plate as taught by Sanderson because a burner is a well-known and obvious substitution to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for a means to raise heat for drying; and to reduce turbulence from a 90-degree transition for more efficient air delivery.
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of plenums each with side walls and at least one dedicated exhaust port. Ware teaches a plurality of plenums each with side walls and at least one dedicated exhaust port (60, 64, 68, fig. 1, 6:20-28) in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. Morris would benefit equally from providing independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with a plurality of plenums each with side walls and at least one dedicated exhaust port as taught by Ware in order to provide independent process control of each drying chamber enabling one or more drying chambers to be sequentially added.
Morris discloses the claimed invention except for an access door to enable efficient cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer. Luker teaches an access door to enable efficient cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer (25, 45, fig. 1) in order to provide for convenient cleaning and repair purposes. Morris would benefit equally from providing for convenient cleaning and repair purposes. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morris with an access door to enable efficient cleaning and maintenance access to an interior of the fluid bed dryer as taught by Luker in order to provide for convenient cleaning and repair purposes.
As for claim 19, Morris discloses the fluidizing bed plate is constructed as a non-plugging fluidizing bed plate to reduce turbulence and plugging of the fluidizing bed plate to reduce the formation of powder (50, fig. 2, it is presume that all fluidized bed plates are designed to be non-plugging), and wherein the fluidizing bed plate is removably secured to the interior surface of the fluid bed dryer via a one or more fasteners to allow removal of the fluid bed plate for cleaning plugged apertures (50, 3:62-68, a removable bed would necessitate fastening means to remain stable in the turbulent environment of a fluidized bed).
As for claim 20, Morris discloses the material drying apparatus is capable of drying a raw material formed into a uniform pellet shape, wherein the raw material requires an extended drying process at a low temperature (fig. 1, structure disclosed capable of drying pellets at low temperatures with control over the temperature of heat source 46, an obvious matter of design choice).
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 JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights