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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/18/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser et al. 2021/0061549 and in view of Van Raden 3,610,485.
In Re Claim 1, Risser et al. teach a hopper (100) for feeding bulk material, the hopper comprising: a main body having an upper portion (top inclined portions, Fig. 2) and a lower portion (bottom inclined panels, Fig. 2); an inlet (top inlet, Fig. 2) located on an upper surface of the upper portion of the main body for bulk material to enter the hopper; and an outlet (outlet at bottom of 101, Fig. 2) located on a lower surface of the lower portion of the main body for bulk material to exit the hopper, wherein the main body defines a substantially vertical passageway for bulk material, so that a direction of travel of the bulk material is from the inlet down substantially vertically through the outlet of the hopper, the vertical passageway having a centrally positioned substantially vertical axis passing through a center of the hopper from the inlet to the outlet, (See Fig. 2) wherein each side of the upper portion of the main body has at least one or a plurality of substantially planar panel surfaces (Panel surfaces at top of 100, Fig. 2) that are inclined outwardly away from the vertical axis in the direction of travel of the bulk material, (Fig. 2) wherein each side of the lower portion (Panel surfaces of 101, Fig. 2) of the main body has at least one or a plurality of substantially planar panel surfaces that are inclined inwardly towards the vertical axis in the direction of travel of the bulk material to thereby assist transportation of the bulk material, (fig. 2) wherein the hopper provides a substantially constant feed of bulk material through the outlet, (Fig. 2)
Risser et al. do not teach wherein the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined outwardly directly adjoin the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined inwardly.
However, Van Raden teaches wherein the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined outwardly directly adjoin the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined inwardly. (Fig. 1-Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use planar panel surfaces inclined outwardly directly adjoining planar panel surfaces inclined outwardly in the hopper of Risser et al. as taught by Van Raden with a reasonable expectation for success in order to strengthen the hopper.
In Re Claim 2, Risser et al. teach It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a storage rack as recited in Claim 1 in the system of Aggarwal et al. as taught by Ozaki et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to better protect substrates being handled. (See Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 3, Risser et al. teach wherein a majority of the planar panels forming the upper portion of the hopper extend outwards and away from the vertical axis of the hopper as the bulk material travels from the inlet through and out of the outlet. (See Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 4, Risser et al. teach wherein the planar panels forming the upper portion of the hopper are substantially flat polygon shapes. (See Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 6, Risser et al. teach wherein the at least one or the plurality of planar panels forming the upper portion of the hopper and extending outwards and away from the vertical axis of the hopper are inclined outwards in a range from about 2 degrees to about 45 degrees. (See Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 12, Risser et al. teach wherein on the lower portion of the hopper, there is a plurality of substantially flat planar panels, wherein a majority or all of the planar panels forming the lower portion of the hopper are inclined in towards the vertical axis of the hopper and therefore extend inwardly towards the vertical axis in the direction of travel of the bulk material, the planar panels forming the lower portion of the hopper and being inclined towards the vertical axis forming the planar panel surfaces that are inclined inwards. (See Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 13, Risser et al. teach wherein a degree of inclination of the planar panels forming the lower portion ranges from about 10 degrees to about 45 degrees.
In Re Claim 16, Risser et al. teach wherein the outlet of the hopper is about 30% to 80% smaller than a cross-section of an area between the upper portion and the lower portion of the hopper. (See Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 17, Risser et al. teach wherein the upper portion and lower portion of the hopper are made from planar panels that are flat or substantially flat and form a flat and/or smooth surface for the passageway passing through the hopper. (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 19, Risser et al. teach wherein the planar panels forming the upper and/or lower portions form a smooth inner surface for material to pass through the hopper from the inlet to the outlet with a minimum amount of friction and/or resistance and to thereby prevent any blockages of bulk material. (See Fig. 1 and 2)
In Re Claim 22, Risser et al. teach a conveying system comprising a hopper. (See Fig. 2)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser et al./Van Raden and in view of Lynch 1,242,012.
In Re Claims 8 and 9, Risser et al./Van Raden teach the hopper of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Risser et al./Van Raden are silent concerning the upper portion of the hopper being longer in height extending down the vertical axis of the hopper than the lower portion of the hopper.
However, Lynch teaches wherein the upper portion of the hopper is longer in height extending down the vertical axis of the hopper than the lower portion of the hopper; (See Fig. 1) and wherein the upper portion of the hopper is about 1 to 5 times or 2 to 5 times the height of the lower portion of the hopper. (See Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a hopper with an upper portion longer in height extending down the vertical axis of the hopper than the lower portion in the hopper of Risser et al./Van Raden as taught by Lynch with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide an easier to control flow of material from the hopper.
Claims 10, 11, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser et al./Van Raden and in view of Wu CN105730904.
In Re Claims 10, 11, 14, 15 and 20, Risser et al./Van Raden teaches the hopper of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Risser et al./Van Raden does not teach wherein on the lower portion of the hopper there is at least one or a plurality of agitators capable of providing stirring and/or pulsing and/or vibration and/or disrupting and/or wiping and/or scraping to the lower portion of the hopper which facilitates the flow of the bulk material to the outlet of the hopper.
However, Wu et al. teach wherein on the lower portion of the hopper there is at least one or a plurality of agitators (6) capable of providing stirring and/or pulsing and/or vibration and/or disrupting and/or wiping and/or scraping to the lower portion of the hopper which facilitates the flow of the bulk material to the outlet of the hopper; and wherein there is at least one agitator (6) located on a planar panel surface of the lower portion of the hopper or there are two or more agitators located on planar panel surfaces (Inner Wall, Fig. 1) on opposite sides of the lower portion of the hopper, and wherein the at least one agitator is a wiping agitator (7) or the two or more agitators are wiping agitators that disrupt and/or dislodge bulk material on inner surfaces of the hopper, wherein the agitators on the lower portion of the hopper are located on planar panels (Inner wall, Fig. 1) forming the lower portion which are inclined in towards the central vertical axis of the hopper and are therefore located on planar panels which extend inwardly towards the vertical axis in the direction of travel of the bulk material; and wherein a degree of inclination of the planar panels forming the lower portion ranges from about 10 degrees to about 45 degrees. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add at least one agitator to the hopper of Risser et al./Van Raden as taught by Wu et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to clear interior surfaces.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser et al./Van Raden and in view of Lucas et al. 2018/0305118.
In Re Claim 18, Risser et al./Van Raden teaches the hopper of Claim 17 as discussed above.
Risser et al./Van Raden does not teach wherein the planar panels forming the upper and/or lower portions are formed from sheet metal and/or composite material and/or alloy.
However, Lucas et al. teach wherein the planar panels forming the upper and/or lower portions are formed from sheet metal (Paragraph 27, Fig. 1, 2) and/or composite material and/or alloy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use sheet metal in the hopper of Risser et al./Van Raden as taught by Lucas et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to create a combination of strong and lightweight panel.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser et al./Van Raden and in view of Rynyk 4,266,900.
In Re Claim 23, Risser et al./Van Raden teaches the hopper of Claim 22 as discussed above.
Risser et al./Van Raden does not teach wherein the conveying system is part of a mechanical conveying system for burning household and/or industrial waste.
However, Rynyk teaches wherein the conveying system (100) is part of a mechanical conveying system for burning household and/or industrial waste (22, 24). (Column 2, Lines 14-21)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a mechanical conveying system for burning waste to the system of Risser et al./Van Raden as taught by Rynyk with a reasonable expectation for success in order to be used as fuel.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser et al. 2021/0061549 and in view of Van Raden 3,610,485.
In Re Claim 21, Risser et al. teach method of providing a substantially constant feed of bulk material, the method comprising: providing a main body having an upper portion (top inclined portions, Fig. 2) and a lower portion (bottom inclined panels, Fig. 2); providing an inlet (top inlet, Fig. 2) located on an upper surface of the upper portion of the main body for bulk material to enter the hopper; and providing an outlet (outlet at bottom of 101, Fig. 2) located on a lower surface of the lower portion of the main body for bulk material to exit the hopper, wherein the main body defines a substantially vertical passageway for bulk material, so that a direction of travel of the bulk material is from the inlet down substantially vertically through the outlet of the hopper, the vertical passageway having a centrally positioned substantially vertical axis passing through a center of the hopper from the inlet to the outlet; (See Fig. 2) wherein each side of the upper portion of the main body has at least one or a plurality of substantially planar panel surfaces that are inclined outwardly away from the vertical axis in the direction of travel of the bulk material, (See Fig. 2) wherein each side of the lower portion of the main body has at least one or a plurality of substantially planar panel surfaces that are inclined inwardly towards the vertical axis in the direction of travel of the bulk material to thereby assist transportation of the bulk material, (See Fig. 2)
Risser et al. do not teach wherein the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined outwardly directly adjoin the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined inwardly.
However, Van Raden teaches wherein the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined outwardly directly adjoin the at least one or the plurality of planar panel surfaces that are inclined inwardly. (Fig. 1-Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use planar panel surfaces inclined outwardly directly adjoining planar panel surfaces inclined outwardly in the method of Risser et al. as taught by Van Raden with a reasonable expectation for success in order to strengthen the hopper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
Claims 24 and 25 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, although Van Raden does not specifically disclose that directly adjoining outwardly and inwardly inclined panels would make strengthen the hopper, the examiner notes that this reduces the number of joints in the structure and it is known that joints in a structure are areas of potential failure. Therefore, by reducing the number of joints the structure is strengthened because there are less points for failure.
In response to applicant's argument that “the hopper in Risser is merely portion 101” and that “the upper portion is the feed bin” and that if the cylindrical body portion between the upper portion of Risser and the lower portion of Risser were removed so that the upper portion and the lower portion were adjoined the “entire particulate material storage aspect of the feed bin 100 would be negated”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner notes that as discussed above, Risser teaches “a main body having an upper portion and lower portion”. Also, if the middle cylindrical section of Risser were not present the main body would still define a volume and therefore be useful for storing material. Van Raden is used to teach substantially planar panel surfaces inclined outwardly being adjoined to substantially planar panel surfaces inclined inwardly as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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