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 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with a semicolon instead of a period. 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: control apparatus, operational interface assembly, and sensor assembly in claims 15 and 31 (including the “second” versions of the features in claim 31); actuating assembly in claims 15; and second actuating assembly in claim 31.
Regarding the control apparatus, the claims recite a generic term, i.e., control apparatus, and a function, i.e., control operation of the elements of the system, without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as control apparatus 100 which is described as including the sensors and actuators of the entire system (P. 15, Lns. 13-24) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the operational interface assembly, the claims recite a generic term, i.e., operational interface assembly, and a function, i.e., provide operational interface for the system to other systems via a data communication network, without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the operational interface assembly 102 which is described as including a graphical user interface (GUI), applicant programming interface (API), display 104 and an input device 106 (P. 16, Ln. 20 through P. 18, Ln. 3) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the sensor assembly, the claims recite a generic term, i.e., sensor assembly, and a function, i.e., sense operational characteristics of elements in the system and sense physical characteristics of the material processed, without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as sensor assembly 120 which is described as including a spectroscopy sensor to sense a physical characteristic of the material (P. 18, Lns. 22-28), a flow scale to sense a weight of the material (P. 19, Lns. 5-8) and camera 148 to sense the color and shape of the material (P. 22, Ln. 29 through P. 23, Ln. 5) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the actuating assembly (and second actuating assembly), the claims recite a generic term, i.e., actuating assembly, and a function, i.e., operate elements of the system, without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the actuating assembly 154 which is described as including a motor speed controller 154 that may include at least one current transformer, at least one voltage transformer or a variable frequency driver control.
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 31-33 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 31, the claim recites the first control apparatus and second control apparatus are configured to “receiving, by the second operation interface assembly of the second control apparatus and via the data communication network, operational settings for the elements of the first grinding apparatus based upon the data points” and “apply…the received operational settings to the second grinding apparatus” however the claim fails to recite that the first control apparatus is configured to transmit the operational settings. The first control apparatus is configured to “transmit…data point values based upon the first machine data and physical characteristics of the material processed,” i.e., the first control apparatus is not configured to transmit the operational settings. Thus, it is unclear how the operational settings are being received and applied at the second grinding apparatus. For the purpose of examination, the first control apparatus and the second control apparatus will be interpreted as configured to transmit the operational settings via the first operational interface assembly and receive the operational settings via the second operational interface assembly. Further, the first grinding apparatus does not include an actuating assembly to control the positioning actuator and adjust the size of the first gap, thus it is unclear what operational settings are being provided to the second grinding apparatus that can be used by the second actuator assembly to make such adjustments, i.e., how can the first grinding apparatus transmit operational settings regarding the first gap if there is no actuating assembly to adjust the gap. For the purpose of examination, the first grinding assembly will be interpreted as also including a first actuating assembly similar to the second actuating assembly, and the operational settings include settings that may be implemented by an actuating assembly. Claims 32 and 33 depend from claim 31 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites “the position actuator is configured to act upon the first roll support to move the role support and adjust the size of the second gap” which renders the claim indefinite because “the first roll support” is not previously recited so it is unclear if the first roll support is part of the “plurality of second roll supports” previously recited or if this is a different component. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the plurality of second roll supports includes a first roll support and the position actuator is configured to act upon the first roll support of the plurality of second roll supports. Claim 33 depends from claim 32 and fails to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is directed to the second grinding apparatus and recites “the first grinding rolls” which claim 31, from which claim 33 depends, recites as being part of the first grinding apparatus. For the purpose of examination, claim 33 will be interpreted as reciting a rotation motor configured to rotate the second grinding rolls.
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.
Claims 15, 16 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0259446 A1 to Coffey in view of US 2017/0043348 A1 to Pearson (cited in 892 dated June 7, 2023) in further view of US 2016/0193609 A1 to Ellermeijer in further view of US 2015/0220418 A1 to Aries.
Regarding claim 15, Coffey teaches a system (Abstract) comprising:
a grinding apparatus 102 configured to receive material and produce the output material (Fig. 1; Para. [0090]; the mill 102 is fed unprocessed product 10), the grinding apparatus comprising:
a frame (Fig. 1; Paras. [0088] and [0090]; the mill 102 includes components such as rolls and the structure supporting the rollers as they process the material is interpreted as the frame);
at least one pair of grinding rolls, the rolls being separated by a gap (Fig. 1; Para. [0090]; the mill 102 is a roller mill which would require at least two rolls, i.e., a pair of rolls, separated by a gap in which the material is fed to grind the material), each grinding roll of the pair having a circumferential surface with a plurality of grinding teeth for grinding material passing through the gap (Fig. 1; Paras. [0088]-[0089]; the grinding rolls may be drums having hammers, i.e., teeth, attached thereto for grinding material);
at least one rotation motor configured to rotate at least one of the rolls of the at least one pair of rolls (Para. [0089]; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the drum is rotated by a motor); and
a control apparatus 120 configured to control operation of elements of the system using operational settings for the elements (Fig. 1; Para. [0102]), the control apparatus comprising:
an operational interface assembly 104 configured to provide an operational interface for the system to other systems via a data communication network (Fig. 1; Paras. [0011], [0086], and [0102]; the control module includes a display and computers as an interface, and these are capable of communicating with other systems via a data network such as through the internet, a satellite network, a LAN network or any of the other communication networks discussed in Para. [0086]);
a sensor assembly 110 being configured to sense physical characteristics of the material processed by the system to produce material data (Fig. 1; Paras. [0092]-[0093] and [0110]; the particles are examined by the NIR spectroscope and the controller determines the physical characteristics of the particles based the results of the examination); and
an actuating assembly configured to operate elements of the system according to the operational settings for the elements (Para. [0102]; the control module 104 controls components that operate the flow of material into the mill 102 and the rpm, i.e., rotation, of the grinding components in the mill, i.e., actuating assemblies).
Coffey fails to explicitly teach a plurality of roll supports configured to support the at least one pair of grinding rolls on the frame, at least one of the roll supports being adjustable to adjust a size of the gap between the rolls; a sensor assembly configured to sense operational characteristics of elements of the system to produce machine data, the operational characteristics of the elements including the size of the gap between the rolls and the physical characteristics of the material including particle size of the output material produced by the grinding apparatus corresponding to the size of the gap between the rolls; the actuating assembly including at least one controller configured to control a positioning actuator to adjust a size of the gap between the pair of grinding rolls of the grinding apparatus; and the control apparatus is further configured to: transmit data point values based upon the machine data and the physical characteristics of the material processed by the system to another system using the operational interface assembly via the data communication network, the data point values including the particle size of the output material; receive operational settings for the elements of the system from the another system via the data communication network based upon the transmitted data point values, the operational settings including the size of the gap corresponding to the particle size of the output material; and actuate the positioning actuator of the control apparatus by the at least one controller to cause the positioning actuator to adjust the size of the gap between the pair of grinding rolls to apply the received operational settings.
Pearson teaches a roller mill for comminuting vegetative material (Para. [0034]);
at least one pair of grinding rolls 14, 16 (Figs. 2-3; Para. [0035]), the grinding rolls 14, 16 being separated by a gap 27 (Figs. 3A and C; Para. [0038]), each grinding roll of the pair having a circumferential surface with a plurality of grinding teeth 24 for grinding material passing through the gap 27 (Fig. 3; Para. [0035]);
a plurality of roll supports 30, 31, 46 configured to support the at least one pair of rolls 14, 16 on the frame (Figs. 3A-C and 5; Paras. [0039]-[0040] and [0042]), at least one of the roll supports 30, 31 being adjustable to adjust a size of the gap 27 between the rolls (Figs. 3A-C; Paras. [0039]-[0040] and [0050]);
a sensor assembly 60 configured to sense operational characteristics of elements of the system to produce machine data, the operational characteristics of the elements including the size of the gap between the rolls (Para. [0050]; the sensor indicates the position of the rolls with respect to each other, which would indicate a gap between rolls);
an actuating assembly 64 including at least one controller 62 configured to control a positioning actuator to adjust a size of the gap between the pair of grinding rolls of the grinding apparatus (Para. [0050]; the actuating assembly includes roll gap adjustment assembly that adjusts the position of the rolls according to operational settings, i.e., the detected position of the rolls);
and a control apparatus configured to actuate the positioning actuator of the control apparatus by the at least one controller to cause the positioning actuator to adjust the size of the gap between the pair of grinding rolls to apply the received operational settings (Para. [0050]; the control apparatus includes the controller 62 that controls the actuating assembly to adjust the size of the gap).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the roller mill of the comminuting system of Coffey to include the rolls, adjustable roll supports, actuating assembly, controller and roll gap sensor of Pearson so that the rolling conditions may be modified to be optimal for each material being comminuted and the rolls may be monitored during operation to ensure they do not deviate from the desired configuration.
Ellermeijer teaches a system for comminuting material (Abstract) including rolls 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 with gaps between the rolls that may be adjusted (Fig. 4; Paras. [0024]-[0025]) and a sensor 9 that measures the particle size exiting the rollers (Figs. 3-5; Para. [0024]), and producing operational characteristics of the elements including the size of the gap between the rolls and the physical characteristics of the material including particle size of the output material produced by the grinding apparatus corresponding to the size of the gap between the rolls (Paras. [0025] and [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Coffey to include the sensor for measuring particle size and the sensor assembly of the control apparatus producing operational characteristics regarding the size of the gap between the rolls and the physical characteristics of the material including particle size of the output material corresponding to the gap as taught by Ellermeijer so that the system is able to consistently produce the material with the desired size and the system has the ability to adjust the parameters of the system when the produced material deviates from the desired size.
Aries teaches a system 20 including a comminuting apparatus 64 (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0013]), a control apparatus 60 (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0015]), an operational interface 36 configured to provide an operational interface for the system to other systems via a data communication network (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0014]-[0015] and [0025]; the operational interface includes an interface with a display 50, display icons and user-operable controls according to Paras. [0014]-[0015], and the operational interface communicates to other systems via the communication module 102 to assist in controlling the settings and operations of the shredder according to Para. [0025]), and a processing device 102 (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0013]), wherein the control apparatus 60 includes a device 102 configured to:
transmit data point values based upon the machine data and the physical characteristics of the material processed by the system to another system using the operational interface assembly via the data communication network (Paras. [0018]-[0019], [0021], [0023], and [0025]; each control apparatus includes a communication module 102 that communicates with the operational interface assembly 36, other shredders and a central network to transmit data regarding the shredder including operational settings and physical characteristics of the material processed, as discussed in Para. [0025]);
receive operational settings for the elements of the system from another system via the data communication network based upon the transmitted data point values (Paras. [0018]-[0019] and [0025]); and
actuate the system components to apply the received operational settings (Para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operational interface of Coffey to be configured to provide an interface to other systems via a data communication network as taught by Aries as well as the control apparatus configured to transmit data to and receive settings from another system using the operational interface assembly via the data communication network as taught by Aries so that the components of the system may be controlled in response to events happening with the grinding apparatus not being monitored locally at the operational interface, i.e., jams or low supply of needed components, as well as generally controlling and operating the apparatuses from a remote location to ensure safe and proper operations (Aries, Para. [0025]). It is noted that modified Coffey includes operational settings and data point values related to characteristics of the gap size and material produced by the apparatus which would result in data values related to the size of the gap between rolls, the particle size, the particle size corresponding to the size of the gap being transmitted as those are the data values being transmitted, received and applied in modified Coffey to ensure the system is functioning in a desired manner.
Regarding claim 16, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1) wherein the actuating assembly additionally comprises at least one controller configured to control rotation of at least one motor associated with the grinding apparatus (Para. [0102]; the control module 104 controls components that operate the flow of material into the mill 102 and the rpm, i.e., rotation, of the grinding components in the mill, i.e., actuating assemblies).
Regarding claim 27, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1) wherein the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises a roll characteristic sensor 60 configured to sense at least one characteristic of a said grinding roll with which the roll characteristic sensor is associated (Pearson, Para. [0050]; modified Coffey includes the roller assembly of Pearson, which teaches sensor 60 monitoring the rolls to determine the position of the rolls relative to each other).
Regarding claim 28, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 27 (Fig. 1) wherein the roll characteristic sensor 60 is in communication with one of the roll supports associated with the said grinding roll (Pearson, Para. [0050]; modified Coffey includes the roller assembly of Pearson, which teaches the sensor is in communication with a controller that controls the movement of the roll which is done via movement of the supports as discussed in Para. [0040] of Pearson).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Pearson in further view of Ellermeijer in further view of Aries in further view of US 2017/0259303 A1 to Van Middendorp in further view of US 2019/0054476 A1 to Green.
Regarding claim 19, modified Coffey the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1), wherein the control apparatus additionally comprises an operating assembly configured to operate elements of the system according to the operational settings for the elements (Para. [0102]; the control module 104 operates components that operate the flow of material into the mill 102 and the rpm, i.e., rotation, of the grinding components in the mill according to the operational settings).
Coffey fails to explicitly teach wherein the grinding apparatus additionally comprises a scalper apparatus configured to receive raw material input into the system, scalper apparatus including a material movement element and a drive motor connected to the material moving element to move the raw material with respect to the scalper apparatus; and wherein the operating assembly including a motor control configured to control a rotational speed of the drive motor, the motor control being additionally configured to sense an amperage load of the drive motor.
Van Middendorp teaches a scalper apparatus 20 configured to receive raw material input into the system (Figs. 1-2 and 6; Paras. [0020]-[0021]), scalper apparatus including a material movement element 76 and a drive motor 92 connected to the material moving element to move the raw material with respect to the scalper apparatus (Fig. 4; Para. [0028]); and wherein the actuating assembly of the control apparatus additionally comprises a motor control configured to control a rotational speed of the drive motor (Para. [0028]; the controller sets the motor to rotate at a suitable speed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Coffey to include the scalper of Van Middendorp so that the material entering the system may be filtered and sorted to remove any material that is too large for the settings of the grinding mill.
Green teaches an infeed system for a grinding system (Abstract) wherein the motor control being additionally configured to sense an amperage load of the drive motor (Para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Coffey to include sensing the amperage of the motors feeding material as taught by Green so that the system may determine whether material is effectively moving into the system (Green, Para. [0044).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Pearson in further view of Ellermeijer in further view of Aries in further view of US 2017/0165674 A1 to Harrison.
Regarding claim 20, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1) wherein the grinding apparatus additionally comprises a feed apparatus configured to feed input material at an input of the grinding apparatus (Para. [0089]; a conveyor belt feeds the material), and wherein the control apparatus additionally comprises an operating assembly configured to operate elements of the system according to the operational settings for the elements (Para. [0102]; the control module 104 operates components that operate the flow of material into the mill 102 and the rpm, i.e., rotation, of the grinding components in the mill according to the operational settings).
Coffey fails to explicitly teach the feed apparatus including a feed rotor rotatable to move material through the feed housing interior; and a feed motor configured to rotate the feed rotor; and the operating assembly including a motor control configured to control a rotational speed of the feed motor.
Harrison teaches a feed system for a grinding machine (Abstract) including a conveyor 12 (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0030]) having a feed rotor rotatable to move material (Fig. 1 shows the rotors at the end of the conveyor) and a feed motor configured to rotate the feed rotor (Para. [0030]; the conveyor has a drive system, i.e., a motor); and wherein the actuating assembly of the control apparatus additionally comprises a motor control configured to control a rotational speed of the feed motor (Para. [0030]; the drive system is adapted to control the speed of the conveyor and if it is going in forward or reverse).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Coffey to include the rotors and controls of the feed conveyor of Harrison so that the system is better able to control the amount of material fed and the rate at which the material is fed to the grinding mill.
Regarding claim 21, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 20 (Fig. 1) wherein the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises a feed apparatus operation sensor configured to sense a characteristic of the operation of the feed apparatus (Harrison, Para. [0032]; modified Coffey includes the rotor and conveyor control of Harrison, which monitor the rotation speed and fuel consumption of the feed system), the feed apparatus operation sensor being configured to sense rotation of the feed rotor to generate a rotation count signal corresponding to a number of rotations of the feed rotor (Harrison, Para. [0032]; modified Coffey includes the rotor and conveyor control of Harrison, which monitor the rotation speed of the conveyor to control the feed rate relative to the rest of the system).
Claims 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Pearson in further view of Ellermeijer in further view of Aries in further view of US 2019/0176158 A1 to Tagawa.
Regarding claim 22, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1) wherein the control apparatus additionally comprises an operating assembly configured to operate elements of the system according to the operational settings for the elements (Para. [0102]; the control module 104 operates components that operate the flow of material into the mill 102 and the rpm, i.e., rotation, of the grinding components in the mill according to the operational settings).
Coffey fails to explicitly teach the operating assembly including a motor controller configured to control power supplied to the at least one rotation motor to control a rotational speed of the at least one rotation motor.
Tagawa teaches a system for grinding material (Abstract) comprising at least one pair of grinding rolls 4, 5 (Figs. 1 and 3-4; Para. [0039]):
a plurality of roll supports configured to support the at least one pair of rolls on the frame (Fig. 1; Para. [0039]; the rolls are supported by a bearing, housing, seal, spring and roll gap adjusting apparatus);
at least one rotation motor 47 configured to rotate at least one of the rolls of the at least one pair of rolls (Fig. 7; Para. [0058]); and
an operating assembly including a motor controller configured to control power supplied to the at least one rotation motor to control a rotational speed of the at least one rotation motor (Paras. [0057]-[0058]; the motor load current to the rotation motor is sensed and controlled).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating system and roll motor of Coffey to include the operating system controlling the power supplied to the rotation motor to control the rotation speed as taught by Tagawa so that the roll speed may be controlled in situations where the grinding needs to be performed faster or slowed down when the supply of material is lower.
Regarding claim 30, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1).
Coffey fails to explicitly teach the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises a grinding roll speed controller configured to control operation of the at least one rotation motor rotating a corresponding roll.
Tagawa teaches a system for grinding material (Abstract) comprising at least one pair of grinding rolls 4, 5 (Figs. 1 and 3-4; Para. [0039]):
a plurality of roll supports configured to support the at least one pair of rolls on the frame (Fig. 1; Para. [0039]; the rolls are supported by a bearing, housing, seal, spring and roll gap adjusting apparatus);
at least one rotation motor 47 configured to rotate at least one of the rolls of the at least one pair of rolls (Fig. 7; Para. [0058]); and
the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises a grinding roll speed controller 47 configured to control operation of the at least one rotation motor rotating a corresponding roll (Paras. [0057]; the assembly includes a motor 47 that drives the rotation of the rollers and is controlled by the control apparatus 50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating system and roll motor of Coffey to include the operating system controlling the rotation speed of the motor as taught by Tagawa so that the roll speed may be controlled in situations where the grinding needs to be performed faster or slowed down when the supply of material is lower.
Claims 23-25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Pearson in further view of Ellermeijer in further view of Aries in further view of US 2020/0406268 A1 to Hall.
Regarding claim 23, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1).
Coffey fails to explicitly teach the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises at least one input material sensor configured to sense at least one physical characteristic of input material being input into the system.
Hall teaches a grinding system (Abstract) including a mill 14 (Figs. 1 and 3) and the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises at least one input material sensor 15 configured to sense at least one physical characteristic of input material being input into the system (Fig. 3; Para. [0024]; camera 15 detects particle size of material entering the mill).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Coffey to include a sensor monitoring material being fed to the grinding mill as taught by Hall so that the system may adjust any setting of the grinding mill to better grind the material.
Regarding claim 24, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 23 (Fig. 1) wherein the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises a process material sensor 110 configured to sense at least one characteristic of material at least partially processed by the system (Paras. [0092]-[0093]; the spectroscope 110 detects properties of the particles that have been reduced in size by the grinding mill 102).
Regarding claim 25, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 24 (Fig. 1) wherein the process material sensor comprises at least one camera configured to capture an image of particles of the material being sensed by the process material sensor (Paras. [0092]-[0093]; spectroscope 110 includes monochromator 114 which is a camera that is used to capture images, i.e., the wavelengths reflected off the material, of the material).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Pearson in further view of Ellermeijer in further view of Aries in further view of US 2020/0368755 A1 to Graber.
Regarding claim 26, modified Coffey teaches the system of claim 15 (Fig. 1).
Coffey fails to explicitly teach the sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises a material flooding sensor configured to sense a saturation of input material at a location prior to the pair of grinding rolls along a material processing path.
Graber teaches a system for grinding material (Abstract) including a sensor assembly of the control apparatus comprises a material flooding sensor configured to sense a saturation of input material at a location prior to the pair of grinding rolls along a material processing path (Para. [0023]; the moisture level of the material being fed to the grinding apparatus is measured).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Coffey to include a sensor monitoring the moisture level of material being fed to the system as taught by Graber so that the grinding mill may be set up to better grind material with varying moisture levels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record alone or in combination fails to explicitly teach the first control apparatus of the first grinding facility and the second control apparatus of the second grinding facility are configured to: receive, by the second operational interface assembly of the second control apparatus and via the data communication network, operational settings for the elements of the first grinding apparatus based upon the data point values, the operational settings including the size of the first gap corresponding to the particle size of the first output material; and apply, by the second actuating assembly of the second control apparatus, the received operational settings to the second grinding apparatus by causing actuating the positioning actuator of the second actuating assembly to adjust the size of the second gap between the pair of grinding rolls to apply the received operational settings, as recited in claim 31 upon which claims 32 and 33 depend.
Aries teaches networked comminuting devices (Fig. 3) in which each of the comminuting devices 20 includes a communication module 102 configured to transmit and receive information related to the operation of the comminuting devices (Fig. 3; Paras. [0023] and [0025]; the shredders are able to send information to the server 104 relating to operating state of the shredder including the material shredded and the physical operating state of the shredder, and then the shredders receive commands from the server 104 to control the operating parameters of the shredders). However, the communication in Aries is only between the shredders and the network which does not directly transmit the operational settings for a first shredder to a second shredder, i.e., the second control apparatus for the second grinding facility is not configured to receive, by the second operational interface assembly of the second control apparatus and via the data communication network, operational settings for the elements of the first grinding apparatus based upon the data point values, the operational settings including the size of the first gap corresponding to the particle size of the first output material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated January 26, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In particular, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the step of actuating the positioning actuator of the control apparatus by the at least one controller to cause the positioning actuator to adjust the size of the gap between the pair of grinding rolls to apply the received setting. Remarks, PP. 12-14. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. Applicant does not address the teachings of the combination of prior art references and states that “the allegedly obvious combinations of features from the cited art, even if it were made by a person having ordinary skill in the art, would not lead the PHOSITA to the combination of features set for in [claim 15]” (Id. at P. 13) before asserting the Aries fails to teach adjustment of the gap between grinding rolls (Id. at P. 14). While Aries is relied upon for teaching the comminuting devices are on a network and include a control apparatus used to transmit, receive and apply data point values and physical characteristics of the material processed including actuating the system features to apply received operational settings, Aries is not relied upon for teaching these settings include the gap size or actuating the positioning actuator to adjust the size of the gap. Pearson is relied upon for teaching the adjustable rollers and a sensor assembly to produce machine data regarding the size of the gap, and Ellermeijer teaches producing operational data regarding the size of the gap between the rolls and the physical characteristics of the material being produced, as discussed in the obviousness rejection above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the operational characteristics and machine data transmitted to, received by and applied by the comminuting devices may include this information, i.e., data point values related to the roller gap size and physical characteristics of the material produced corresponding to the roller gap size. As discussed in MPEP 2145(IV), “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 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 on (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
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights