Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawkins 8,985,932
In Re Claim 1, Hawkins teaches a bulk material discharging system, comprising: a transmission station (station covered by 40, Fig. 1) including a pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel (30) having a transmitting vessel inlet (top opening covered by 78, Fig. 22) configured to receive bulk material from an outlet (outlet covered by 44c, Fig. 6) of a bulk material transporter (46), and a transmitting vessel outlet (Outlet at the bottom of 30, Fig. 22) to transmit bulk material therefrom; and a transporter handling station (station where 34 is located, Fig. 1) located operatively upstream of the transmission station and including at least a portion of a transporter handler (42) including at least one carriage (38) with transporter couplings (40) configured to engage corresponding carriage couplings (wheels of 38) of the bulk material transporter and configured to convey the bulk material transporter over the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel. (See Fig. 3)
In Re Claim 10, Hawkins teaches the transmission station also includes a closure driver (56) configured to drive a driven closure (52) at the outlet of the bulk material transporter from a closed state to an open state to release bulk material from the bulk material transporter into the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel.
In Re Claim 12, Hawkins teaches the transmitting vessel inlet being pneumatically sealably closeable (78, 92, 116, Fig. 4-6) and the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel has an interior that is volumetrically larger than that of the bulk material transporter so as to define a sealable pressurizable headspace. (Fig. 1, 2, 22)
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Koenig 5,269,472.
In Re Claim 2, 4, 5 and 16, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach wherein the transporter handler also includes an elevator at the transporter handling station and including vertical guides, an elevator carriage guided by the vertical guides, and one or more elevator actuators operatively coupled to the elevator carriage to raise and lower the elevator carriage along the vertical guides, and wherein the transporter handler further includes a conveyor extending between the handling and transmission stations and including horizontal guides, a conveyor carriage guided by the horizontal guides, and one or more conveyor actuators operatively coupled to the conveyor carriage to advance and retract the conveyor carriage along the horizontal guides.
However, Koenig teaches wherein the transporter handler (portion in framework 116, Fig. 6) also includes an elevator (24) at the transporter handling station and including vertical guides (100), an elevator carriage (108) guided by the vertical guides, and one or more elevator actuators (102) operatively coupled to the elevator carriage to raise and lower the elevator carriage along the vertical guides, and wherein the transporter handler further includes a conveyor (110) extending between the handling and transmission stations and including horizontal guides (124), a conveyor carriage (118) guided by the horizontal guides, and one or more conveyor actuators (134) operatively coupled to the conveyor carriage to advance and retract the conveyor carriage along the horizontal guides; and the conveyor carriage including a frame. (fig. 7) at least one drive roller (drive shaft of 134) carried by the frame and configured to engage the horizontal guides and the one or more conveyor actuators includes at least one motor (134) coupled to the at least one drive roller; and the conveyor carriage also includes at least one transporter stabilizer (side bars, Fig. 7) that is configured to stabilize the bulk material transporter; and a modular frame constructed as a rectangular box truss, having a longitudinal axis, a lateral axis, and a vertical axis, and including lower beams extending longitudinally and being laterally opposed from one another, upper beams extending longitudinally and being laterally opposed from one another, posts extending vertically between the lower and upper beams, upper cross members extending laterally between the upper beams, and lower cross-members extending laterally between the lower beams; (Fig. 6) wherein the transporter handler includes an elevator having vertical guides coupled to interior portions of one or more of the lower and upper beams, (Fig. 6) and wherein the transporter handler includes a conveyor having horizontal guides coupled to interior portions of the upper beams. (Fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add an elevator to the system of Hawkins as taught by Koenig with a reasonable expectation for success in order to automate heavy lifting.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins/Koenig and in view of Koenig 2018/0118459.
In Re Claim 3, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Hawkins/Koenig ‘472 does not teach wherein the one or more elevator actuators include at least one set of hydraulic cylinders having cylinder housing coupled to the vertical guides and pistons coupled to the elevator carriage.
However, Koenig ‘459 teaches wherein the one or more elevator actuators include at least one set of hydraulic cylinders (60) having cylinder housing coupled to the vertical guides and pistons coupled to the elevator carriage (52). (Fig. 26-31)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a set of hydraulic cylinders to the system of Hawkins/Koenig ‘472 as taught by Koenig ‘459 with a reasonable expectation for success in order to use an easy to maintain, cost effective, well known means for lifting.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Rublee et al. 2018/0084242.
In Re Claim 8, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach the transporter handling station also including an AGV charger.
However, Rublee et al. teach the transporter handling station (126) also including an AGV charger. (Paragraph 44)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add an AGV Charger to the system of Hawkins as taught by Rublee et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent down time for charging.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Liet 11,691,684.
In Re Claim 9, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach the transporter handling station also including a weigh scale charger.
However, Liet teaches the transporter handling station also including a weigh scale charger. (Column 8, Lines 13-24)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a weigh scale charger to the system of Hawkins as taught by Liet with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent downtime required for scale charging.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Medoff et al. 2019/0316294.
In Re Claim 13, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach a foundation including a slab wherein the system is carried on the slab and no pit or basement beneath at least that portion of the slab that carries the system.
However, Medoff et al. teach a foundation including a slab (120) wherein the system is carried on the slab and no pit or basement beneath at least that portion of the slab that carries the system. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a slab to the system of Hawkins as taught by Medoff et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to create a more durable system.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of McMahon 2014/0377042.
In Re Claim 17, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach wherein the modular frame also includes one or more struts extending obliquely between the lower and upper beams.
However, McMahon teaches wherein the modular frame (31) also includes one or more struts (Oblique struts of 31, Fig. 1) extending obliquely between the lower and upper beams.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add obliquely extending struts to the system of Hawkins as taught by McMahon with a reasonable expectation for success in order to strengthen the supporting structure.
Claim 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Pfening 2,903,301.
In Re Claim 37, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach wherein the transmission station also includes a pneumatic transmission conduit to receive bulk material from the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel and facilitate pneumatic transmission of the bulk material.
However, Pfening teaches wherein the transmission station also includes a pneumatic transmission conduit (42) to receive bulk material from the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel (38, 30-A, Fig. 1) and facilitate pneumatic transmission of the bulk material. (Column 3, Lines 50-57)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a pneumatic transmission conduit to the system of Hawkins as taught by Pfening with a reasonable expectation for success in order to direct material to another vessel create room in the transmission vessel for more material.
Claim 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Jacobson 4,220,425.
In Re Claim 39, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach wherein the transmission station further includes a station outlet conduit in downstream fluid communication with the transmitting vessel outlet to receive bulk material from the transmitting vessel outlet, a station outlet pressurization conduit in fluid communication with the station outlet conduit to pressurize the station outlet conduit for pneumatic transmission of the bulk material through the station outlet conduit, and a station outlet pressurization valve to regulate opening of the station outlet pressurization conduit.
However, Jacobson teaches wherein the transmission station further includes a station outlet conduit (22) in downstream fluid communication with the transmitting vessel outlet (40) to receive bulk material from the transmitting vessel outlet, a station outlet pressurization conduit (64) in fluid communication with the station outlet conduit to pressurize the station outlet conduit for pneumatic transmission of the bulk material through the station outlet conduit, and a station outlet pressurization valve (54) to regulate opening of the station outlet pressurization conduit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a station outlet conduit to the system of Hawkins as taught by Jacobson with a reasonable expectation for success in order to direct material to another vessel create room in the transmission vessel for more material.
Claim 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Snowden 2010/0034599.
In Re Claim 40, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach wherein the transmission station further includes a vessel vent conduit in fluid communication with an upper portion of an interior of the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel, and a vessel vent conduit closure to close and open the vessel vent conduit.
However, Snowden teaches wherein the transmission station further includes a vessel vent conduit (conduit at the top of vessel 1, Fig. 3) in fluid communication with an upper portion of an interior of the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel, and a vessel vent conduit closure (112) to close and open the vessel vent conduit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a vessel vent conduit to the system of Hawkins as taught by Snowden with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make the system safer by preventing over pressurization.
Claim 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Freeman 4,005,908.
In Re Claim 41, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach wherein the transmission station further includes a vessel pressurization conduit in fluid communication with an upper portion of an upper portion of an interior of the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel, and a vessel pressurization valve to regulate opening of the vessel pressurization conduit.
However, Freeman teaches wherein the transmission station further includes a vessel pressurization conduit (110) in fluid communication with an upper portion of an upper portion of an interior of the pressurizable pneumatic transmitting vessel (44), (Fig. 1) and a vessel pressurization valve (134) to regulate opening of the vessel pressurization conduit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a vessel pressurization conduit to the system of Hawkins as taught by Freeman with a reasonable expectation for success in order to aid in pressurization of the vessel to improve flow of material.
Claim 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of O’Neal 3,186,770.
In Re Claim 42, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach a rejection station including a rejection hopper having a rejection inlet to receive bulk material therein and a rejection outlet to transmit bulk material therefrom.
However, O’Neal teaches a rejection station (Station of 20, Fig. 1) including a rejection hopper (20, Fig. 1) having a rejection inlet (Inlet at the top of 20, Fig. 1) to receive bulk material therein and a rejection outlet (outlet at bottom of 58, Fig. 1) to transmit bulk material therefrom.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a rejection station to the system of Hawkins as taught by O’Neal with a reasonable expectation for success in order to add more capacity to the system.
Claim 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Perry 5,388,773.
In Re Claim 43, Hawkins teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hawkins does not teach a rejection station including an auger having an auger inlet and an auger outlet, and a recirculation conduit having a recirculation inlet in fluid communication with the auger at a location upstream of the auger outlet and also having a recirculation outlet.
However, Perry teaches a rejection station including an auger (43, Fig. 1) having an auger inlet (opening at bottom end of 43, Fig. 1) and an auger outlet (51, Fig. 1), and a recirculation conduit (70, Fig. 1) having a recirculation inlet (opening of 70 at 43, Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the auger at a location upstream of the auger outlet and also having a recirculation outlet (opening of 70 at 35, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a rejection station to the system of Hawkins as taught by Perry with a reasonable expectation for success in order to add more capacity to the system.
Claim 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Pfening 2,903,301.
In Re Claim 44, Hawkins teaches a bulk material discharging system, comprising: a transmission station (station covered by 40, Fig. 1) including transmitting vessel (30) having a transmitting vessel inlet (top opening covered by 78, Fig. 22) configured to receive bulk material from an outlet (outlet covered by 44c, Fig. 6) of a bulk material transporter (46), and a transmitting vessel outlet (Outlet at the bottom of 30, Fig. 22) to transmit bulk material therefrom; and a transporter handling station (station where 34 is located, Fig. 1) located operatively upstream of the transmission station. (See Fig. 3)
Hawkins does not teach wherein the transmission station also includes a pneumatic transmission conduit to receive bulk material from the pneumatic transmitting vessel and facilitate pneumatic transmission of the bulk material.
However, Pfening teaches wherein the transmission station also includes a pneumatic transmission conduit (42) to receive bulk material from the pneumatic transmitting vessel (38, 30-A, Fig. 1) and facilitate pneumatic transmission of the bulk material. (Column 3, Lines 50-57)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a pneumatic transmission conduit to the system of Hawkins as taught by Pfening with a reasonable expectation for success in order to direct material to another vessel create room in the transmission vessel for more material.
Claim 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and in view of Jacobson 4,220,425.
In Re Claim 45, Hawkins teaches a bulk material discharging system, comprising: a transmission station (station covered by 40, Fig. 1) including transmitting vessel (30) having a transmitting vessel inlet (top opening covered by 78, Fig. 22) configured to receive bulk material from an outlet (outlet covered by 44c, Fig. 6) of a bulk material transporter (46), and a transmitting vessel outlet (Outlet at the bottom of 30, Fig. 22) to transmit bulk material therefrom; and a transporter handling station (station where 34 is located, Fig. 1) located operatively upstream of the transmission station. (See Fig. 3)
Hawkins does not teach wherein the transmission station further includes a station outlet conduit in downstream fluid communication with the transmitting vessel outlet to receive bulk material from the transmitting vessel outlet, a station outlet pressurization conduit in fluid communication with the station outlet conduit to pressurize the station outlet conduit for pneumatic transmission of the bulk material through the station outlet conduit, and a station outlet pressurization valve to regulate opening of the station outlet pressurization conduit.
However, Jacobson teaches wherein the transmission station further includes a station outlet conduit (22) in downstream fluid communication with the transmitting vessel outlet (40) to receive bulk material from the transmitting vessel outlet, a station outlet pressurization conduit (64) in fluid communication with the station outlet conduit to pressurize the station outlet conduit for pneumatic transmission of the bulk material through the station outlet conduit, and a station outlet pressurization valve (54) to regulate opening of the station outlet pressurization conduit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a station outlet conduit to the system of Hawkins as taught by Jacobson with a reasonable expectation for success in order to direct material to another vessel create room in the transmission vessel for more material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 18-20 and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights