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 Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, line 2: the limitation “a coaxial cooling pipe” should be “at least one of the coaxial cooling pipes” to have proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, lines 1-2: the limitation “the connection units” should be “connection units” since it is being introduced for the first time.
Regarding claim 14, line 2: the limitation “the existing coaxial cooling pipes” should be “the coaxial cooling pipes” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8, 11-14, 16 and 18 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 7, line 3: the limitation "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, line 3: the limitation “the protective casing” has a lack of antecedent basis rendering the claim indefinite. It appears this limitation should be dependent upon claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, line 4: the limitation “depending on the conveying element” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what would change structurally as a result of the limitation. The examiner recommends deleting the limitation.
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.
Claims 1-10, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niiyama (JP 2004189515).
Regarding claim 1, Niiyama discloses a conveying device for conveying thermally or thermo-chemically treated material having a temperature of 1,500° C. to 3,200° C., comprising:
a) a housing (10) having a material inlet and a material outlet;
b) a conveying device (11) by means of which the thermally or thermo-chemically treated material can be conveyed from the material inlet to the material outlet along a conveyance path; wherein,
c) along the conveyance path, those surfaces which come into contact with the thermally or thermo-chemically treated material-that is to be conveyed are provided, at least in some portions, by a second material which is a graphite material or a material with graphite-like properties (paragraph 0026 of the translation, the vertical casing 10 is made of graphite; and paragraph 0031 of the translation, the vertical screw 11 is made of graphite).
Regarding claim 2, Niiyama also discloses all surfaces which come into contact with the thermally or thermo-chemically treated material that is to be conveyed along the conveyance path are provided by the second material (paragraph 0026 of the translation, the vertical casing 10 is made of graphite; and paragraph 0031 of the translation, the vertical screw 11 is made of graphite).
Regarding claim 3, Niiyama also discloses the second material is hard graphite and/or a CFC material and/or a carbide material (paragraph 0026 of the translation, the vertical casing 10 is made of graphite; and paragraph 0031 of the translation, the vertical screw 11 is made of graphite).
Regarding claim 4, Niiyama also discloses the conveyance path comprises a conveying chamber (10) which defines a longitudinal axis and in which a conveying element (11) is arranged.
Regarding claim 5, Niiyama also discloses the conveying element is a screw conveyor (11) which is arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conveying chamber and has a threaded web, thereby forming a conveyance path.
Regarding claim 6, Niiyama also discloses the screw conveyor has one or more or all of the following parameters:
a) a web width at the passage inlet of 10 mm to 50 mm;
b) a web width at the passage base of from 20 mm to 100 mm;
c) a passage depth of from 2 mm to 30 mm;
d) a passage width at the passage base of from 10 mm to 50 mm; and
e) a core diameter of from 50 mm to 300 mm (core diameter of screw 11 is 52mm; paragraph 0052 of translation).
Regarding claim 7, Niiyama also discloses the conveying element is a conveying roller which has conveying grooves on its outer lateral surface (vertical screw 11 can be interpreted as a roller with the area between the fins as grooves), in particular running parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conveying chamber (this limitation is not part of the claimed invention but would overcome the rejection if positively recited).
Regarding claim 8, Niiyama also discloses the conveyor roller has one or more or all of the following parameters:
a) a groove width at the groove inlet of from 10 mm to 100 mm;
b) a groove width at the groove base of from 5 mm to 95 mm;
c) a groove depth of from 2 mm to 30 mm;
d) a spacing of the conveying grooves-in the circumferential direction: from 5 mm to 30 mm; and
e) a core diameter of from 50 mm to 1000 mm (core diameter of element 11 is 52mm; paragraph 0052 of translation).
Regarding claim 9, Niiyama also discloses the conveying chamber is delimited by the inner circumferential surface of a protective casing made of the second material (paragraph 0026 of the translation, the vertical casing 10 is made of graphite).
Regarding claim 10, Niiyama also discloses the protective casing is made up of multiple parts (paragraph 0022 of the translation; 10 and 21).
Regarding claim 15, Niiyama also discloses the conveying element is made entirely of the second material (paragraph 0031 of the translation, the vertical screw 11 is made of graphite).
Regarding claim 19, Niiyama also discloses the second material is one or more of hard graphite, CFC material, or carbide material (paragraph 0031 of the translation, the vertical screw 11 is made of graphite).
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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niiyama.
Niiyama discloses all of the limitation of claims 6 and 8 above, but does not appear to disclose (claim 17) the screw conveyor has one or more or all of the following parameters: a) a web width at the passage inlet of 20 mm to 30 mm; b) a web width at the passage base of 40 mm to 60 mm; c) a passage depth of 10 mm to 20 mm; d) a passage width at the passage base of 25 mm to 40 mm; and e) a core diameter of 80 mm to 100 mm and (claim 18) the conveyor roller has one or more or all of the following parameters: a) a groove width at the groove inlet of 15 mm to 25 mm; b) a groove width at the groove base of 10 mm to 20 mm; c) a groove depth of 3 mm to 10 mm; d) a spacing of the conveying grooves in the circumferential direction: from 10 mm to 20 mm; and e) a core diameter of 80 mm to 200 mm.
Regarding claim 17 and 18, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill of the art to design the screw conveyor has one or more or all of the following parameters: a) a web width at the passage inlet of 20 mm to 30 mm; b) a web width at the passage base of 40 mm to 60 mm; c) a passage depth of 10 mm to 20 mm; d) a passage width at the passage base of 25 mm to 40 mm; and e) a core diameter of 80 mm to 100 mm and the conveyor roller has one or more or all of the following parameters: a) a groove width at the groove inlet of 15 mm to 25 mm; b) a groove width at the groove base of 10 mm to 20 mm; c) a groove depth of 3 mm to 10 mm; d) a spacing of the conveying grooves in the circumferential direction: from 10 mm to 20 mm; and e) a core diameter of 80 mm to 200 mm in order to suite the desired application, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11-14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith R Campbell whose telephone number is (571)270-1015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/KRC/Examiner, Art Unit 3651 9/16/2026
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights