DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
In view of, inter alia, claim(s) 1, line(s) 10, the examiner considers saturated or degraded solid material particles to be positively recited.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
The loading scenario of claim(s) 1 employs separate positive and negative pressure prime movers. The positive pressure prime mover needs to be depicted.
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.
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 1-14 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.
With regard to claim(s) 1, line(s) 8 & 16, “tank” needs to be related to that of the preamble to preclude(s) the claim(s) being open to interpretation. Additionally, the language is unclear in that the pump is part of the pneumatic conveyor of line(s) 6. The examiner suggests reciting --a first pneumatic conveyor comprising a pump--. Then identify the “pneumatic conveyor” of line(s) 23 as another, which employs positive pressure.
With further regard to claim 1, this claim(s) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the positive pressure prime mover employed in the loading scenario.
With regard to claim(s) 11-12, reference(s) should be made to the particular scenario under recitation. The examiner suggests --when loading--, & --when unloading--, or something to that effect.
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 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 1-9 & 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (2023/0405644).
Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) disclose(s):
system for loading & unloading, figure(s) 4;
Reactor, [0178];
Catalyst [0007];
Tank to be loaded/unloaded 14;
Intermediate tank 30;
Empty or partially empty solid material tank 11;
Pump 13;
pneumatic conveyor comprising transport line(s), 34;
filtration means, best seen figure(s) 11B;
Empty or partially empty solid material tank level sensor, [0123];
Empty or partially empty solid material tank conical lower part 50;
Intermediate tank conical lower part, best seen figure(s) 10E;
Connection box, centering mechanism at top of Tank to be unloaded which keeps hose down the tank centerline.
With regard to “saturated or degraded”, Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) may be silent on such explicit recitation, but such a state is almost the exclusive motivation to removing catalyst from a reactor. Additionally, Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) disclose(s) refinery operations which are clearly a “chemical process”.
Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) lack(s) application of system component rearrangement to both load & unload a tank. As recited, application of this methodology is deemed obvious. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. It has generally been recognized that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as the binary choice of scraping or reusing existing, in place, equipment), with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regard to claim(s) 12, in the scenario of loading, if some type of receiving box were necessary, it would be obvious to provide an intermediate component constituting a receiving box as define by applicant’s claim language. Again, it has generally been recognized that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as the binary choice if to provide an intermediate component), with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) to apply system component rearrangement to both load & unload a tank, or to interpose a receiving box during loading, in order to increase efficiency.
With regard to claim(s) 5, this claim(s) is a tautology.
Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) in view of Krambrock (4,082,364).
With regard to claim(s) 10, Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) lack(s) a level sensor in the intermediate tank. Krambrock (4,082,364) teach(es) a level sensor in the intermediate tank of a pneumatic conveyor a tank; column 5, 4th full paragraph.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas et al. (2023/0405644) to provide a level sensor in order to maintain safety as taught by Krambrock (4,082,364).
Conclusion
The examiner invites the applicant to telephone upon review of this Office Action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Veselov et al. (9,708,138), inter alia, disclose(s) the base unloading structure including a level sensor in the solid material tank.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights