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
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins “A The” which appears to be a typo and should only be “The.” Appropriate correction is required.
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: “sensing device” in claim 47 and “dust and fine particle extraction apparatus” in claim 55.
Regarding sensing device, the claim recites a generic placeholder (“sensing device”) modified by functional language (“measures a physical parameter indicative of the energy being applied to operate”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as a torque meter (P. 19, Lns. 20-22) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the dust and fine particle extraction apparatus, the claim recites a generic placeholder (“dust and fine particle extraction apparatus”) modified by functional language (“separation of such products from multiple locations, during operation of the comminution machine”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as an air fan (P. 43, Lns. 16-20) and equivalents thereof.
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 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 43-62 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 43, the claim recites outer peripheral surface of the rollers are set apart by a “a lateral distance which is in alignment with the flow path and perpendicular to the flow direction which is received us use onto, and drawn between, the pair of rollers” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “the flow direction” is referring to and if this is separate from the flow path. It is noted that this claim is directed to a roller crushing machine, i.e., the material being acted upon by the machine which would flow through it is now part of the claimed invention. This phrase will be interpreted as the crushing machine is configured to receive a flow of material that moves through the system through a flow path having a flow direction. The claim further recites features by referring to the flow path (e.g., “the predetermined lateral distance encountered by the flow path”) and these phrases will be interpreted as the machine is configured to receive a flow of material through a flow path, i.e., the claimed machine is not interpreted as including a flow of material through it. Claims 44-46 and 60-62 depend from claim 43 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 44, the claim recites “said flow path of particulates passing therethrough is also angled” which renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons discussed above regarding the flow of material, i.e., the claim is directed to a machine for crushing material and does not include the material being crushed. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the crushing stages are configured such that a flow of material through the machine is angled to the vertical axis.
Regarding claim 45, the claim recites “the roller crushing machine as claimed claim 43 operatively connected to a control system” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the control system is a component of the claimed machine or if the claimed machine is configured to be connected to a control system that is not part of the system. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the roller crushing machine of claim 43 further comprising a control system that is connected to the components of the system.
Regarding claim 47, the claim recites the sensing device measures a parameter indicative of the energy “being applied to operate the or each functional unit” which renders the claim indefinite because it appears a word is missing after “the” and before the “or.” For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as measuring any energy used in the system. Claims 48-56 depend from claim 47 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 48, the claim recites “at least one property of a functional unit in a comminution stage” and recites the properties as including the rotational rate of each roll in a pair of rolls or the width of the distance between rolls which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the functional unit is a separate component in each comminution stage or if the functional unit is the comminution stage including the pair of rolls. Further, comminution stage is previously recited so it is unclear if the claim is introducing a new comminution stage or if the claim is saying one of the comminution stages includes a functional unit. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as at least one of said comminution stages includes a functional unit configured to control a rate of rotational motion of each roller or a width of the lateral distance between each roller pair.
Regarding claim 51, the claim recites a parameter indicative of the energy “being applied to operate the or each functional unit” which renders the claim indefinite because it appears a word is missing after “the” and before the “or.” For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as measuring any energy used in the system.
Regarding claim 54, the claim recites “comminution system as claimed in claim 48, further comprising the step of managing and maintaining the evenness of the flow properties of solid particulate materials, prior to feeding such materials into the comminution machine” which renders the claim indefinite because it recites a system and a process step in the same claim. Further, it is unclear what is required for a step of managing the evenness of the flow, i.e., creating an even flow or attempting to create an even flow. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the system is configured to maintain a flow of material through the rollers.
Regarding claim 55, the claim recites “the comminution system as claimed in claim 48, further comprising using dust and fine particle extraction apparatus for separation of such products from multiple locations, during operation of the comminution machine” which renders the claim indefinite because it recites a process and a system in the same claim. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the system includes a dust and fine particle extraction apparatus.
Regarding claim 56, the claim recites “the comminution system as claimed in claim 55, comprising the step of removal of at least some of the naturally-occurring fine particles by screening from the feed stream of solid particulate materials, prior to the remainder of the feed material entering the comminution machine” which renders the claim indefinite because it recites a process and a system in the same claim. Further, the claim recites a screening happening before the material enters the system, so it is unclear if the apparatus used for screening is part of the claimed machine or if the claimed machine is configured to receive screens material. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the system is configured to receive material that has been screened.
Regarding claim 57, the claim recites a method including the step of “said gap between the rollers of each pair of rollers having been selected to crush a top-size only of the solid particulate material” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required for the gap to have been selected, i.e., when the gap was set does it have to be for the recited purpose or is simply setting the gap to crush material sufficient. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as setting a gap between the rollers in each pair to crush the top-size of the particulate matter. Claims 58-59 depend from claim 57 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 58, the claim recites a method “comprising selection of the numbers of pair of rollers and the sizes of the lateral gaps between the roller pairs so that less than 30% by weight of the solid particulate material passes through each pair of rollers at the top size solid particulate material, thus giving a gradual, sequential grinding process” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for a step of “selection,” e.g., a user selects a setup for the machine that is expected to achieve the recited outcome or the machine performs a process in which the recited properties are present. Further, it is not clear what is required for a process to be “gradual,” i.e., occurring over a period of time or happening in steps. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as a step of providing a number of pairs of rollers that have lateral gaps so that the less than 30% by weight of the material fed through passes through each rollers at the top size.
Regarding claim 61, the claim recites “the adjustment of the relative displacement of at least one of the following components of a crushing stage in relation to that crushing stage: a functional unit, a component of which is operably connected to the roller of a functional unit; or a roller, which is arranged in use to provide an operable precision of adjustment of the predetermined lateral distance between the roller pairs to within 20% thereof” which renders the claim indefinite because this is a system claim so it is unclear if the “adjustment” is a process step and it is also unclear if the components recited therein are part of the system. Further, “a functional unit” is repeated twice and it is unclear if the second iteration of the phrase is introducing a new functional unit. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the system includes one of a functional unit or a roller which are configured to be adjusted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 43-44, 46, and 57-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 1,953,847 to Carey.
Regarding claim 43, Carey teaches a roller crushing machine for progressively crushing solid particulate material into finer size particulates (Figs. 1-3; P. 1, Lns. 1-5), the machine comprising
a plurality of spaced-apart crushing stages (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18) arranged so that, during use, a flow path of said particulates travels consecutively from one crushing stage to the next (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 30-47 and 76-77), each crushing stage comprising:
a pair of rollers, each mounted for rotational motion about an elongate axis, each roller of said pair along with its respective drive transmission mechanism representing a functional unit which is located at a support (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; each stage includes rollers that rotate about an axis and are attached to supports, i.e., the walls of the machine); and
respective outer peripheral surfaces of the rollers in each crushing stage being adjustably displaceably set apart from each other in use by a predetermined lateral distance which is in alignment with the flow path and perpendicular to the flow direction which is received in use onto, and drawn between, the pair of rollers (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18 and 80-84; the rollers are each set to a predetermined distance along the flow path, with the distances are provided in the table on P. 2 of the reference, and the distances may be adjusted via screws 14);
wherein when progressing consecutively through the crushing stages:
the predetermined lateral distance encountered by the flow path in use is adjustable to be smaller than the predetermined lateral distance in any preceding crushing stage (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; the rollers are set such that the gap narrows relative to the preceding stage, as shown in the table on P. 2); and
the rollers in said crushing stages in use are operable with a tangential velocity which is faster than that of the rollers located in any preceding crushing stage (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; the rollers are set so that the tangential velocity increases relative to the preceding stage, as shown in the table on P. 2); and
wherein for a preselected solid particulate material being passed through the machine, said predetermined lateral distance in each crushing stage is arranged of a dimension which is sufficiently operably narrow to provide sufficient compression breakage of just the top size of the particulates at that particular size range of preselected solid particulate material (Figs. 1-3; P. 1, Lns. 51-72 and P. 2, Lns. 19-29; it is noted that this claim is directed to a machine and any material may be provided to the machine by a user, thus the breakage of the material would depend on the material provided and the machine in Carey is capable of sufficiently compression breaking the top size of a material such as coal, as described in the cited passages of the reference).
Regarding claim 44, Carey teaches the roller crushing machine as claimed in claim 43 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the predetermined lateral distance between the roller pairs located in the or each crushing stage(s) are in respective angled alignment in relation to vertical, said flow path of particulates passing therethrough is also angled other than in a vertical orientation, and the outer peripheral surfaces of the roller pairs in the crushing stages are adjustably displaceable with respect to each other (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 30-47; Figs. 1-3 show that the rollers are vertically aligned, and the flow path of the material would depend on the material being broken and the manner in which the rotation of the rollers move the material, i.e., the rotation of the rollers would move the material away from the central gap area in the direction of roller rotation and thus angled from vertical as it passes through each roller stage).
Regarding claim 46, Carey teaches the roller crushing machine as claimed in claim 43 (Figs. 1-3), wherein said predetermined lateral distance in each crushing stage is arranged of a dimension which is sufficiently operably narrow to inhibit the formation of a bed of multiple particulates thereacross, at that particular size range of preselected solid particulate material (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; the rollers are set such that the gap between rolls narrow throughout the machine, and the rollers are capable of inhibiting the formation of a bed of particulates depending on the material being broken and the input rate of the material).
Regarding claim 57, Carey teaches a method of crushing solid particulate material into finer size particulates (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 30-47 and 76-84), the method comprising the steps of:
causing the rollers of a plurality of pairs of rollers, to rotate about respective parallel elongate axes (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18), and
supplying a solid particulate material successively through a gap between each pair of a plurality of pairs of laterally spaced-apart rotatable pairs of rollers, in which each pair defines a crushing stage (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 30-47),
said gap between the rollers of each pair of rollers having been selected to crush a top-size only of the solid particulate material by contact of the top-size solid particulate material with the rotating surfaces of the rollers of the pair (P. 1, Lns. 51-71 and P. 2, Lns. 19-29; the gaps are chosen to reduce a top size of the coal a sufficient amount that flakes will not be generated);
wherein the gap between the rollers of an upstream pair of rollers in the direction of movement of the solid particulate material is greater than the gap between the rollers of at least one successive downstream pair of rollers in the direction of movement of the solid particulate material (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18), and
wherein the tangential velocity of the rollers of said downstream pair of rollers is faster than the tangential velocity of said upstream pair of rollers, so that the solid particulate material is crushed into finer particulates when moving through the gaps between the rollers of the successive pairs of rollers (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18).
Regarding claim 58, Carey teaches the method as claimed in claim 57 (Figs. 1-3), comprising selection of the numbers of pair of rollers and the sizes of the lateral gaps between the roller pairs so that less than 30% by weight of the solid particulate material passes through each pair of rollers at the top size solid particulate material, thus giving a gradual, sequential grinding process (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-8; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection, this limitation is interpreted as a step of providing a number of pairs of rollers that have lateral gaps so that the less than 30% by weight of the material fed through passes through each rollers at the top size, and in Carey the coal is only moved through the top roll at the top size and each of the other rollers are fed particulate with a reduced size, i.e., 0% of the weight at roller pairs two through four is at the top size).
Regarding claim 59, Carey teaches the method as claimed in claim 57 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the solid particulate material is a mined ore (P. 2, Lns. 41-47; the material pulverized is coal, i.e., a mined ore).
Regarding claim 60, Carey teaches the roller crushing machine as claimed in claim 43 (Figs. 1-3), wherein when progressing consecutively through the crushing stages, the predetermined lateral distance encountered by the flow path in use is adjustable to be relatively smaller than the predetermined lateral distance in a preceding crushing stage by a preselected numerical ratio which is within the range of greater than 1 and less than 2 (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns . 3-18; it is noted that this is a system claim and therefore this claim is interpreted as the rollers are capable of being adjusted such that the gap of a pair is smaller than the previous gap within the recited range, and Carey teaches that the gap between the rolls may be adjusted such that the gap for each pair is narrower than the previous pair and the gap is capable of being within the recited range).
Regarding claim 61, Carey teaches the roller crushing machine as claimed in claim 43 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the adjustment of the relative displacement of at least one of the following components of a crushing stage in relation to that crushing stage: a functional unit, a component of which is operably connected to the roller of a functional unit; or a roller, which is arranged in use to provide an operable precision of adjustment of the predetermined lateral distance between the roller pairs to within 20% thereof (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this claim is interpreted as the system includes one of a functional unit or a roller which are configured to be adjusted, and Carey teaches that the rolls for each stage may be adjusted to control the gap).
Regarding claim 62, Carey teaches the roller crushing machine as claimed in claim 43, wherein each roller in the pair of rollers in any one of said crushing stages in use is operable with a tangential velocity within 5% of the respective other roller (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; the rolls each operate the tangential velocity provided in the table, i.e., each roll in a pair have the same tangential velocity).
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 45, 47-51 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey in view of US 2014/0263777 A1 to Anderson.
Regarding claim 45, Carey teaches the roller crushing machine as claimed claim 43 (Figs. 1-3). Carey fails to explicitly teach operatively connected to a control system which is arranged in use to adjust at least one of: (i) the predetermined lateral distance between the roller pair located in a crushing stage, and (ii) the rate of rotational motion of each roller in a roller pair located in a crushing stage.
Anderson teaches a roller crushing machine (Abstract; Figs. 9-10) including a pair of rolls (Figs. 9-10) and comprising a control system which is arranged in use to adjust at least one of: (i) the predetermined lateral distance between the roller pair located in a crushing stage, and (ii) the rate of rotational motion of each roller in a roller pair located in a crushing stage (Paras. [0036]-[0038] and [0041]; the control system 1100 adjusts the rotation speed of the rollers depending on the sensor data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Carey to include the controller of Anderson so that the settings of the sytem may be adjusted to reduce tool wear and lower power consumption (Anderson, Para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 47, Carey teaches a comminution system for crushing solid particulate materials into finer size particulates (Figs. 1-3; P. 1, Lns. 1-5), the system comprising:
a comminution machine in which a plurality of spaced-apart comminution stages are arranged so that, during use, a flow path of said particulates travels consecutively from one comminution stage to the next (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 30-47); and
each comminution stage including a pair of rollers mounted for rotational motion about an elongate axis, each roller of said pair along with its respective drive transmission mechanism representing a functional unit (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18); and
respective outer peripheral surfaces of said rollers in a comminution stage are adjustably displaceably set apart from each other by a predetermined lateral distance not greater than a desired maximum particulate size from that comminution stage, said lateral distance being in alignment with the flow path and perpendicular to the flow direction of solid particulate material which is received in use onto, and drawn between, the pair of rollers (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; the rolls are arranged to be displaced in the manner described in the table on P. 2 of Carey, and the rolls are positioned to be in the flow path of the material such that it is comminuted as it passes through the pairs of rolls);
said comminution stages being arranged so that, in use:
the rate of rotational motion of the rollers in a comminution stage is operably adjusted such that the tangential velocity is faster than that of the rollers located in a preceding comminution stage (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; the rolls are set so that the rotational rate and velocity are faster than the preceding pair of rolls, and it is noted that this is a system claim and the features after “in use” are interpreted as the system is capable of being set up in such a manner); and
the predetermined lateral distance in a comminution stage is smaller than the predetermined lateral distance in a preceding comminution stage (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18);
Carey fails to explicitly teach wherein the comminution system further comprises: a sensing device which measures a physical parameter indicative of the energy being applied to operate the or each functional unit in a comminution stage; and a controller which produces a signal to control at least one component of a functional unit in a comminution stage, to maintain the flow of particulates passing therethrough to a stipulated value, and to minimize overall energy consumption in said comminution stage.
Anderson teaches a comminution system (Abstract; Figs. 9-10) including a pair of rollers (Figs. 9-10) and comprising a sensing device which measures a physical parameter indicative of the energy being applied to operate the or each functional unit in a comminution stage (Figs. 9-10 and 15; Para. [0036]; the system includes a torque sensor as well as other sensors, such as rotational speed sensors, for sensing the operation of the system); and a controller 1100 which produces a signal to control at least one component of a functional unit in a comminution stage, to maintain the flow of particulates passing therethrough to a stipulated value, and to minimize overall energy consumption in said comminution stage (Fig. 15; Paras. [0004] and [0036]-[0038]; the controller receives the sensor data and controls the parameters of the system such as the power and rotational speed of the rollers in order to lower power consumption).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Carey to include sensors and controller as taught by Anderson so that a user may be able to monitor the state of the system during operation as well as adjusting the system to reduce tool wear and lower power consumption (Anderson, Para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 48, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 47 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the at least one property of a functional unit in a comminution stage which is controllable in use to maintain the flow of particulates passing therethrough to a stipulated value (Anderson, Paras. [0036]-[0038] and [0041]; modified Carey includes the controller and sensors of Anderson, which teaches the controller adjusts the speed of the input conveyor in response to sensor data, which would maintain the flow of particulates), and
to minimize overall energy consumption in said comminution stage, is from the group comprising: the rate of rotational motion of each roller in a roller pair; and width of the predetermined lateral distance between each roller in a roller pair (Anderson, Paras. [0036]-[0038] and [0041]; modified Carey includes the controller and sensors of Anderson, which teaches the controller adjusting the rotational motion of the roller pairs to reduce power consumption).
Regarding claim 49, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 48 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the rate of rotational motion of each roller of a functional unit in a comminution stage can be controlled, in use so as to inhibit the formation of a bed of multiple particulates thereacross at a particular size range of solid particulate material, and to maintain a mono-layer flow of particles passing therethrough, thereby minimizing energy consumption in that stage (Anderson, Paras. [0036]-[0038] and [0041]; modified Carey includes the controller and sensors of Anderson, which teaches controlling the rate of rotation of each roller pair to reduce power consumption and ensure the material to be comminuted is flowing through).
Regarding claim 50, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 48 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the predetermined lateral distance between each roller of a functional unit in a comminution stage can be controlled to be of a dimension which is sufficiently operably narrow to just apply a sufficient compression breakage force to only the topsize of the particulates at that particular size range of preselected solid particulate material, but not their progeny, and in so doing, inhibiting the formation of a bed of multiple particulates thereacross, and maintaining a mono-layer flow of particles passing therethrough, and to thereby minimize energy consumption in that stage (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; it is noted that this claim is interpreted as the distance between rollers is capable of being controlled in any manner so that material input to the system is subject to compression breakage of the top size material while the material flows through the system, and Carey teaches setting the lateral distance of each pair of rollers so that they narrow in such a manner that only the top size of material from the previous rollers are comminuted and flows to the next stage).
Regarding claim 51, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 48 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the physical parameter indicative of the energy being applied to operate the or each functional unit in a comminution stage in use is rotational torque, and the sensing device is a torque meter (Anderson, Paras. [0036]-[0038] and [0041]; modified Carey includes the controller and sensors of Anderson, which teaches the torque for each roller pair is sensed by a torque sensor).
Regarding claim 54, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 48 (Figs. 1-3), further comprising the step of managing and maintaining the evenness of the flow properties of solid particulate materials, prior to feeding such materials into the comminution machine (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection, this claim is interpreted as interpreted as the system is configured to maintain a flow of material through the rollers and Carey teaches the pairs of rolls being setup to maintain a flow through the system).
Claims 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey in view of Anderson in further view of US 11,318,47 B2 to Tracy (it is noted this reference has a priority date of May 14, 2018).
Regarding claim 52, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 48 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the physical parameter indicative of the predetermined lateral distance between the roller pairs in a comminution stage in use is the displacement between the outer peripheral surface of the rollers components (Figs. 1-3; P. 2, Lns. 3-18; a person of ordinary skill the art would understand that the gap between the outer surface of the rolls is the lateral distance that is set in the system).
Carey fails to explicitly teach the sensing device is a distance measurement sensor.
Tracy teaches a comminution system (Abstract) including a controller and sensors including a roll gap distance sensor (Col. 4, Lns. 3-20) which provides measurements to the controller that may be used to control the gap size (Col. 7, Lns. 4-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Carey to include a roll gap sensor and components to allow a controller to adjust the gap as taught by Tracy so that the comminuting system may be automatically adjusted to output the desired particle size.
Regarding claim 53, modified Carey teaches the roller crushing machine as claimed in claim 52 (Figs. 1-3), wherein in use, the control system takes an output signal from a signal transmission device for the distance measurement sensor, and provides an input signal to a control device for a motorized drive to adjust the relative displacement of said component(s) and therefore the predetermined lateral distance between the roller pairs (Tracy, Col. 4, Lns. 3-20 and Col. 7, Lns. 4-38; modified Carey includes the sensors and control system of Tracy, which teaches the control system adjusts the gap via a motorized device in response to a measurement from the gap sensor because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the control system providing commands to control the gap size would be performed with a motorized device).
Claims 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey in view of Anderson in further view of US 11,260,394 B2 to Pfammatter (it is noted this reference has a priority date of July 26, 2016).
Regarding claim 55, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 48 (Figs. 1-3).
Carey fails to explicitly teach the system further comprising using dust and fine particle extraction apparatus for separation of such products from multiple locations, during operation of the comminution machine.
Pfammatter teaches a comminuting system (Abstract) including multiple stages of rolls (Figs. 1-3) comprising a dust and fine particle extraction apparatus 17, 21 for separation of such products from multiple locations, during operation of the comminution machine (Fig. 1; Col. 5, Lns. 4-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Carey to include a dust extraction apparatus as taught by Pfammatter so that any dust particles may be removed from the system before they enter into the parts of the rollers or are expelled from the machine where they may be inhaled by a user.
Regarding claim 55, modified Carey teaches the comminution system as claimed in claim 55 (Figs. 1-3), comprising the step of removal of at least some of the naturally-occurring fine particles by screening from the feed stream of solid particulate materials, prior to the remainder of the feed material entering the comminution machine (Figs. 1-3; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection, this claim is interpreted as the system is configured to receive material that has been screened and the system in Carey is capable of receiving screened material).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0176159 A1 (Figs. 1-15), US 3,933,086 (Figs. 1-2) and US 4,630,781 (Figs. 4-6) each teach comminuting systems including multiple stages of rollers with adjustable gaps and/or pairs of rolls with gaps narrower than the previous pair of rolls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 8 September 2026
Prosecution Insights