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 .
Status of the Claims
In the reply of 2/20/26, the following has occurred:
Claim(s) 1 is/are amended
Claim(s) 2 and 11-20 is/are canceled
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are pending
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been overcome as per Applicant’s amended claims filed on 2/20/26.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues on pp. 6-8 that the combination of Barger in view of Johannsmann, as evidenced by Malvern Panalytical, would not have been obvious and fail to teach the claimed invention. The combination requires impermissible hindsight and fail to provide a credible reason for modification. Any such combination would fail to teach an x ray analyzer and a control in operable arrangement therewith, as claimed. Instead, the combination is directed to the water content of the gypsum, and not the phase, as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Further, 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, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Barger based on the teachings of Johannsmann. Such a modification would not rely on knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, and would be based on the suggestions of Johannsmann. For example, it would have been obvious to include the suitable structure of Johannsmann’s calcination unit, to suitably calcine the raw material, and it would have been obvious to adjust the calcination conditions based on the sample’s analysis, to reduce variations in the gypsum quality while minimizing energy consumption.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have configured a device which uses an x ray analyzer to generate a control signal indicative of the phases of gypsum and/or water (Barger para. 25), and then use the control signal to further operate a suitable calcining unit (as taught by Johannsmann). In other words, the control signal generated by the x ray analyzer of Barger includes more than only a water content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140020603 A1 to Barger in view of US 20190330106 A1 to Johannsmann, as evidenced by the attached NPL to Malvern Panalytical, X-ray analysis, dated 04/18/2021.
Regarding claim 1. Barger teaches a system for manufacturing calcined gypsum, the system comprising:
a calcination unit (fig. 2, calcine step represents a suitable calcination unit, shown by numeral 4 in fig. 1), the calcination unit including an inlet for receiving a supply of gypsum therethrough and into the calcination unit (fig. 2, raw gypsum inlet of calcine step) and an outlet for discharging the supply of gypsum from the calcination unit (fig. 2, stucco outlet of calcine step, fed into analyzer);
an in-line control device (fig. 2, analyzer and programmable control system), the in-line calcination control device including an x-ray analyzer (fig. 2, analyzer, which para. 24 details as, “Any elemental analyzer that may be configured to measure and/or detect and determine the actual composition of the raw material feed may be used, non-limiting examples of which include prompt gamma neutron activation analysis (PGNAA), controlled neutron analysis, x-ray fluorescence, laser spectrometry, or x-ray diffraction. In an embodiment, the online analyzer comprises PGNAA (such systems are available, for example, from Thermo Scientific). The elemental analyzer may be used in combination with other sensors (i.e., measurement devices, transducers, and the like) coupled to one or more programmable controllers.” (emphasis added)) and a controller in operable arrangement therewith (fig. 2, programmable control system, which controls control valves as shown), wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
420
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The x-ray analyzer is configured in at least one of a position upstream of the inlet of the calcination unit (fig. 3) and a position downstream of the outlet of the calcination unit (fig. 2, further, para. 22 describes the raw material being analyzed at any suitable point, including before or after calcination, “The method of analyzing the raw material may be conducted on site at a mine from which the raw materials are obtained or at any suitable point during the manufacturing of the gypsum products. For example, in an embodiment the raw material is analyzed on site at the mine, after crushing and/or grinding the raw material, before or after calcinating the raw material, before or after before or after forming a gypsum slurry, or before or after depositing the gypsum slurry on the facing sheet.” (emphasis added)), and is configured to generate a control signal indicative of the response measured by the x-ray analyzer (para. 26, where the amount is optimized based on the measurement of the analyzer as described in para. 25, where para. 26 states, “A programmable control system then may be used to optimize the amount of the one or more target materials in the raw material. For example, the programmable control system may be configured to calculate and control the proportioning of a raw material feed (i.e., using pumps, valves, and the like) based on the desired target composition of the gypsum product or to calculate and sort the raw material feed (i.e., using gates and valves and the like) based on the presence and/or absence of one or more target chemicals in the raw material.”).
As evidenced by Malvern Panalytical, when the x-ray analyzer is configured as an XRF or XRD analyzer, it would have an x-ray source and a detector (XRD vs XRF – Which is best for me?, “XRD and XRF are complementary techniques with several similarities as both use an X-ray source and an X-ray detector …”), as further detailed below:
the x-ray source configured to emit an x-ray beam to strike at least a portion of the supply of gypsum (as noted above, both XRD and XRF use an x ray source, when applied into the system of Barger, the x ray source would be used to strike the supply of gypsum, in order to analyze it), and
the detector configured to measure a response of the supply of gypsum to the x-rays emitted from the x-ray source interacting with the gypsum (as noted above, both XRD and XRF use a x ray detector in conjunction with the x ray source, thus, the x ray detector would be used to measure the response of the x rays after interacting with the gypsum, in order to analyze it).
But fails to teach the calcination unit including a calcining chamber and a heating unit associated with the calcining chamber, where the inlet and outlet of the calcination unit are communicated with the calcining chamber, and
the in line control device being a calcination control device in which the x ray analyzer is configured to generate a calcining control signal and the controller is configured to adjust at least one operating parameter of the calcination unit based upon the calcining control signal received from the x ray analyzer.
Johannsmann teaches a calcination unit including a calcining chamber (fig. 1, calcination unit 4) and a heating unit associated with the calcining chamber (fig. 1, heating unit 5, where para. 143 details, “The calciner unit 4 is equipped with a heating unit 5 for providing heat for calcination. Into the heating unit 5 are introduced fuel and air to be burned and the hot gases are then introduced into the calcination unit 4.”), where the inlet and outlet of the calcination unit are communicated with the calcining chamber (fig. 1, inlet and outlet as described in para. 143, “The raw gypsum is then transported to a calcination unit 4, e.g. a flash calciner … After calcination the calcined gypsum is removed from the calcination unit (4).” Can be seen to be attached to the calcination unit 4), and
PNG
media_image2.png
385
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an in line control device being a calcination control device in which an analyzer is configured to generate a calcining control signal and a controller is configured to adjust at least one operating parameter of the calcination unit based upon the calcining control signal received from the analyzer (paras. 15-20, “In the process according to the invention a continuous feed of raw gypsum is provided; the raw gypsum is calcined in a calcination unit at a fire rate to remove water from the raw gypsum and to obtain a calcined gypsum having a water content within a defined range; a water content of the calcined gypsum is determined by near infrared spectroscopy, and the fire rate is adjusted based on the water content of the calcined gypsum. By determination of the water content in the gypsum after calcination, the fire rate of the gypsum can be adjusted very quickly and variations in the quality of the gypsum can be balanced such that a constant quality of the calcined gypsum is obtained”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Barger to implement a suitable structure of the calcination unit, as taught by Johannsmann. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably calcining the raw material, as suggested by Johannsmann in para. 143, “The calciner unit 4 is equipped with a heating unit 5 for providing heat for calcination. Into the heating unit 5 are introduced fuel and air to be burned and the hot gases are then introduced into the calcination unit 4.”
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Barger such that the calcination conditions are adjusted based on the analyzed sample, as done in Johannsmann, especially since the elemental analyzer of Barger is configured to measure water content as detailed in para. 25. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably reducing the variations in the quality of the gypsum while minimizing energy consumption, as suggested by Johannsmann in paras 19-20, “the fire rate is adjusted based on the water content of the calcined gypsum. By determination of the water content in the gypsum after calcination, the fire rate of the gypsum can be adjusted very quickly and variations in the quality of the gypsum can be balanced such that a constant quality of the calcined gypsum is obtained. Due to the very close process control the process can be performed very efficiently and the energy consumption can be minimized to the minimally required amount necessary for calcination to obtain a desired quality of calcined gypsum.”
Furthermore, the device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 1, wherein the calcining control signal generated by the x-ray analyzer is indicative of the amounts of dihydrate, hemihydrate, and anhydrate phases in the supply of gypsum (para. 25 of Barger, “In embodiments, the elemental analyzer is configured to measure and/or detect an amount of one or more chemicals and minerals. For example, the elemental analyzer may be configured to measure and/or detect materials selected from the group consisting of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate), calcium sulfate hemihydrate, calcium sulfate anhydrite,” Since the XRF or XRD analyzer of modified Barger can directly measure the phases of gypsum as noted above, it would have been obvious to generate the calcining control based on the directly measured values, since the water content of the calcined gypsum was indicative of the gypsum quality, as described in Johannsmann para. 9, “To achieve a constant quality level of the calcined gypsum it is desirable that the calcination conditions are kept constant such that a constant amount of water is removed from the raw material and e.g. no unwanted gypsum modifications arise.”).
Regarding claim 3. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 1, wherein the calcining control signal generated by the x-ray analyzer is indicative of the purity of the supply of gypsum, including whether at least one impurity is present in the supply of gypsum (Barger para 25, “In embodiments, the elemental analyzer is configured to measure and/or detect an amount of one or more chemicals and minerals. For example, the elemental analyzer may be configured to measure and/or detect materials selected from the group consisting of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate), calcium sulfate hemihydrate, calcium sulfate anhydrite, acid solubles, acid insolubles, organics, water, salt (e.g., chloride salts), sulfurs, aluminum silicates, calcium carbonate, and combinations thereof. Non-limiting examples of acid solubles include limestone, sand, shale, clay, silica phyllosilicates, or combinations thereof.” Where at least some of the materials listed above would be considered impurities, depending on the desired gypsum product. For example, the Applicant’s PGPUB discloses that salt and chloride could be considered impurities, paras. 58 and 71).
Regarding claim 4. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to adjust at least one of a feed rate of the supply of gypsum into the calcining chamber and a temperature profile of the calcining chamber based upon the calcining control signal received from the x-ray analyzer (paras. 19-20 of Johannsmann teaches adjusting the fire rate of the calciner, which would have a corresponding effect to the chamber’s temperature profile. Additionally, para. 9 suggests adjusting the feed rate of raw material, “In case the quality of the calcined gypsum runs out of the specification, the calcination conditions are adjusted, e.g. by adjustment of the temperature in the kiln or by adjusting the feed of the raw material to the kiln.”).
Regarding claim 5. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 4,
But fails to teach the rest of the claim’s limitations.
Johannsmann further teaches a feeder conveyor (fig. 2, conveyor 1), the feeder conveyor configured to feed the supply of gypsum to the calcining chamber (para. 145, “A raw gypsum feed from a silo 20 is transported on a conveyor 1 to a belt scale 2 to weigh and adjust the raw gypsum feed. The particle size of the raw gypsum is adjusted to less than 60 mm. Part of the raw gypsum feed is separated into a separation line 11 whereas a main feed is transported further by conveyor 1 towards the calcination unit 4.”);
a source of gypsum (fig. 2, raw gypsum feed silo 20), the source of gypsum associated with the feeder conveyor to selectively deliver the supply of gypsum to the feeder conveyor (para. 145, “A raw gypsum feed from a silo 20 is transported on a conveyor 1” where para. 28 further details, “Basically, also a discontinuous feed can be used to provide the raw gypsum.”);
wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the feeder conveyor and the source of gypsum to selectively adjust the feed rate of the supply of gypsum based upon the calcining control signal (para. 9 suggests further adjusting the feed to the kiln, “According to the state of the art the quality of the calcined gypsum is controlled regularly by taking a sample and analysis of the same in the lab. In case the quality of the calcined gypsum runs out of the specification, the calcination conditions are adjusted, e.g. by adjustment of the temperature in the kiln or by adjusting the feed of the raw material to the kiln.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Barger by implementing a suitable feeder conveyor and source of gypsum, as taught by Johannsmann, to further control the supply of gypsum to the calcination unit of Barger. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably supplying a metered amount of gypsum increasing the quality of the calcined gypsum, as suggested by Johannsmann in paras. 145, “para. 145, “A raw gypsum feed from a silo 20 is transported on a conveyor 1 to a belt scale 2 to weigh and adjust the raw gypsum feed.” and 9, “the quality of the calcined gypsum is controlled regularly by taking a sample and analysis of the same in the lab. In case the quality of the calcined gypsum runs out of the specification, the calcination conditions are adjusted, e.g. by adjustment of the temperature in the kiln or by adjusting the feed of the raw material to the kiln.”
Regarding claim 9. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 1, wherein the x-ray analyzer comprises an XRF analyzer configured to generate x-ray fluorescence data and to generate, using the x-ray diffraction data, the calcining control signal (Barger, the analyzer used to generate the suitable calcining control signal is described in para. 24, “Any elemental analyzer that may be configured to measure and/or detect and determine the actual composition of the raw material feed may be used, non-limiting examples of which include prompt gamma neutron activation analysis (PGNAA), controlled neutron analysis, x-ray fluorescence, laser spectrometry, or x-ray diffraction. In an embodiment, the online analyzer comprises PGNAA (such systems are available, for example, from Thermo Scientific). The elemental analyzer may be used in combination with other sensors (i.e., measurement devices, transducers, and the like) coupled to one or more programmable controllers.” Where x-ray fluorescence is XRF), the calcining control signal indicative of the contents of the supply of gypsum (Barger paras. 24-25, “Any elemental analyzer that may be configured to measure and/or detect and determine the actual composition of the raw material feed may be used … In embodiments, the elemental analyzer is configured to measure and/or detect an amount of one or more chemicals and minerals.”), including whether an impurity is present in the supply of gypsum (Barger para. 25, “For example, the elemental analyzer may be configured to measure and/or detect materials selected from the group consisting of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate), calcium sulfate hemihydrate, calcium sulfate anhydrite, acid solubles, acid insolubles, organics, water, salt (e.g., chloride salts), sulfurs, aluminum silicates, calcium carbonate, and combinations thereof. Non-limiting examples of acid solubles include limestone, sand, shale, clay, silica phyllosilicates, or combinations thereof.” Where at least some of the materials listed above would be considered impurities, depending on the desired gypsum product. For example, the Applicant’s PGPUB discloses that salt and chloride could be considered impurities, paras. 58 and 71).
Regarding claim 10. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 9, wherein the impurity comprises at least one of salt and chloride (Barger para. 25, “For example, the elemental analyzer may be configured to measure and/or detect materials selected from the group consisting of … salt (e.g., chloride salts) …”).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barger in view of Johannsmann, as evidenced by Malvern Panalytical and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to NIH, Effects of addition of calcium phosphates on the properties of gypsum, published 1990.
Regarding claim 6. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 1, wherein the x-ray analyzer comprises an XRD analyzer configured to generate x-ray diffraction data and to generate, using the x-ray diffraction data, the calcining control signal (Barger, the analyzer used to generate the suitable calcining control signal is described in para. 24, “Any elemental analyzer that may be configured to measure and/or detect and determine the actual composition of the raw material feed may be used, non-limiting examples of which include prompt gamma neutron activation analysis (PGNAA), controlled neutron analysis, x-ray fluorescence, laser spectrometry, or x-ray diffraction. In an embodiment, the online analyzer comprises PGNAA (such systems are available, for example, from Thermo Scientific). The elemental analyzer may be used in combination with other sensors (i.e., measurement devices, transducers, and the like) coupled to one or more programmable controllers.” Where x-ray diffraction is XRD), the calcining control signal indicative of the contents of the supply of gypsum (Barger paras. 24-25, “Any elemental analyzer that may be configured to measure and/or detect and determine the actual composition of the raw material feed may be used … In embodiments, the elemental analyzer is configured to measure and/or detect an amount of one or more chemicals and minerals.”),
But fails to explicitly state that the calcining control signal is indicative of a proportion of at least one phase of calcium phosphate present in the supply of gypsum.
NIH teaches addition of calcium phosphates into gypsum (Effects of addition of calcium phosphates on the properties of gypsum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Barger to implement a suitable amount of calcium phosphates in the produced gypsum. This would be done by measuring the calcium phosphate content of the gypsum, and suitably adjusting the process to achieve the desired result. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of improving the mechanical properties of the gypsum material, as suggested by NIH, in the abstract, “the addition of CHPD improved the mechanical properties of the gypsum materials.” Where the abstract further details the specific mechanical properties that were improved.
Regarding claim 7. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 6, wherein the XRD analyzer device is located downstream of the outlet of the calcining chamber and configured to monitor at least a portion of a discharge stream of calcined gypsum being discharged from the calcination unit (Barger fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8. The device of modified Barger teaches the system for manufacturing calcined gypsum according to claim 1, wherein the x-ray analyzer comprises an XRF analyzer configured to generate x-ray fluorescence data and to generate, using the x-ray diffraction data, the calcining control signal (Barger, the analyzer used to generate the suitable calcining control signal is described in para. 24, “Any elemental analyzer that may be configured to measure and/or detect and determine the actual composition of the raw material feed may be used, non-limiting examples of which include prompt gamma neutron activation analysis (PGNAA), controlled neutron analysis, x-ray fluorescence, laser spectrometry, or x-ray diffraction. In an embodiment, the online analyzer comprises PGNAA (such systems are available, for example, from Thermo Scientific). The elemental analyzer may be used in combination with other sensors (i.e., measurement devices, transducers, and the like) coupled to one or more programmable controllers.” Where x-ray fluorescence is XRF), the calcining control signal indicative of the contents of the supply of gypsum (Barger paras. 24-25, “Any elemental analyzer that may be configured to measure and/or detect and determine the actual composition of the raw material feed may be used … In embodiments, the elemental analyzer is configured to measure and/or detect an amount of one or more chemicals and minerals.”),
But fails to explicitly state that the calcining control signal is indicative of a proportion of at least one phase of calcium phosphate present in the supply of gypsum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Barger to implement a suitable amount of calcium phosphates in the produced gypsum. This would be done by measuring the calcium phosphate content of the gypsum, and suitably adjusting the process to achieve the desired result. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of improving the mechanical properties of the gypsum material, as suggested by NIH, in the abstract, “the addition of CHPD improved the mechanical properties of the gypsum materials.” Where the abstract further details the specific mechanical properties that were improved.
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 Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT WOLFORD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762