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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-14 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. In view of the Applicant’s amendments, the objections to claims 10-13 and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 are withdrawn.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessup (US 3674673, hereinafter Jessup) in view of Henig (US 3974057, hereinafter Henig) and Lazaro (US 5030330, hereinafter Lazaro).
Regarding claim 1, Jessup discloses a material processing system comprising:
a barrel line (figure 12) comprising one or more processing stations (station 63), wherein each processing station comprises a reservoir configured to hold a processing fluid (tank 79); and
a barrel assembly (barrel 77) arranged within a first station of the barrel line, wherein the barrel assembly comprises a cylinder configured to receive material to be processed (see figure 12), wherein the cylinder comprises:
a first end surface (figure 1, end member 5), a second end surface (end member 7), and a sidewall (body member 3) that extends therebetween, wherein the sidewall defines an opening (figure 6, opening 2) therein configured to receive the material;
an inner wall (lip member 8) extending from the side wall (see figure 6) configured to maintain the material within the cylinder when the cylinder rotates along a central axis in a first direction and to allow the material to exit the opening when the cylinder rotates along the central axis in an opposite direction (see figure 5).
Jessup is silent to one of the end surfaces being perforated as recited. Henig teaches a material processing system including a barrel assembly (figure 1 and 2) having a first and second end surface wherein at least one of the first end surface and the second end surface is perforated (column 7, lines 46-47). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Jessup with the perforated ends of Henig for the purpose of opening a path to integrate the peripheral zones of the batch adjacent the end walls of the barrel (Henig: column 11, lines 39-46).
Jessup discloses the inner wall extending from the side wall, but is silent to the inner wall extending beyond the central axis of the cylinder. Lazaro teaches a material processing system including a barrel assembly (figure 2) having a side wall (panels 30a-30e) and an inner wall (panels 30f-30i) extending from the side wall beyond a central axis of the cylinder (see figures 4, 6, 8, and 10). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the inner wall of Jessup with the longer extension of Lazaro for the purpose of better maintaining material within the barrel during rotation of thereof (Lazaro: figures 4, 6, 8, and 10).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Jessup discloses the sidewall of the cylinder is a first radial distance from the central axis of the cylinder (see figure 6) and wherein the inner wall of the cylinder defines a curved end region (see region formed by lip 8) that is a second radial distance from the central axis of the cylinder. With respect to the height of the fluid, this is considered to be a method of operation of the device. As held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” The device of Jessup would be fully capable of being operated in the way described in claim 2, and thus the claim is met.
Regarding claim 3, Jessup discloses each reservoir comprises a pair of opposing sidewalls (see figure 12) having formed therein a channel configured to receive a shaft of the barrel assembly about which the cylinder rotates (shaft seen in figures 1 and 7a).
Regarding claim 4, Jessup discloses a first material processing operation is performed in a first station, wherein the barrel assembly is configured to be lifted out of the first station and lowered into a second station to perform a second material processing operation (figure 12, multiple stations can be seen with conveyor 71 to move the barrel assembly between them; column 8, lines 4-7).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 11, and 12, Jessup is silent to a perforated end wall. Henig is relied upon, as above, to teach perforations, and further to teach a removable screen (see figure 2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Jessup with the perforated ends of Henig for the purpose of opening a path to integrate the peripheral zones of the batch adjacent the end walls of the barrel (Henig: column 11, lines 39-46). With respect to the materials and particles recited in claims 5 and 6, these are materials worked upon by the device, which do not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. The combination of Jessup and Henig would be fully capable of processing material and particles that are of the sizes recited in the claims, and thus the claims are met.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Jessup discloses the barrel assembly comprises a motor (figure 1, motor 18) configured to rotate the cylinder.
Regarding claim 8, Jessup discloses the barrel line comprises a motor (figure 1, motor 18) and wherein the barrel assembly comprises a gear assembly (gears 10, 12, 14, and 16) configured to mesh with the motor.
Regarding claim 9, Jessup discloses a cylinder that facilitates processing a material, the cylinder comprising:
a first end surface (figure 1, end member 5), a second end surface (end member 7), and a sidewall (body member 3) that extends therebetween, wherein the sidewall defines an opening (figure 6, opening 2) therein configured to receive the material;
an inner wall (lip member 8) configured to maintain the material within the cylinder when the cylinder rotates along a central axis in a first direction and to allow the material to exit the opening when the cylinder rotates along the central axis in an opposite direction (see figure 5).
Jessup is silent to one of the end surfaces being perforated as recited. Henig teaches a material processing system including a barrel assembly (figure 1 and 2) having a first and second end surface wherein at least one of the first end surface and the second end surface is perforated (column 7, lines 46-47). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Jessup with the perforated ends of Henig for the purpose of opening a path to integrate the peripheral zones of the batch adjacent the end walls of the barrel (Henig: column 11, lines 39-46).
Jessup discloses the inner wall extending from the side wall, but is silent to the inner wall extending beyond the central axis of the cylinder. Lazaro teaches a material processing system including a barrel assembly (figure 2) having a side wall (panels 30a-30e) and an inner wall (panels 30f-30i) extending from the side wall beyond a central axis of the cylinder (see figures 4, 6, 8, and 10). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the inner wall of Jessup with the longer extension of Lazaro for the purpose of better maintaining material within the barrel during rotation of thereof (Lazaro: figures 4, 6, 8, and 10).
Regarding claim 14, Jessup discloses a method for processing material, the method comprising:
inserting a material into an opening (figure 5, opening 2) in a sidewall of a cylinder of a barrel assembly (barrel 77), wherein the cylinder comprises:
a first end surface (figure 1, end member 5), a second end surface (end member 7), and a sidewall (body member 3) that extends therebetween, wherein the sidewall defines an opening (figure 6, opening 2) therein configured to receive the material;
an inner wall (lip member 8) configured to maintain the material within the cylinder when the cylinder rotates along a central axis in a first direction and to allow the material to exit the opening when the cylinder rotates along the central axis in an opposite direction (see figure 5);
lowering the barrel assembly into a reservoir of a station of a barrel line (see figure 12),
wherein the reservoir comprises a processing fluid (see tank 79); and
rotating the cylinder in the first direction to process the material, wherein during rotation (see arrows in figure 12), processing fluid enters the opening in the sidewall (fluid would enter through any opening in the cylinder, including opening 2).
Jessup is silent to one of the end surfaces being perforated as recited. Henig teaches a material processing system including a barrel assembly (figure 1 and 2) having a first and second end surface wherein at least one of the first end surface and the second end surface is perforated (column 7, lines 46-47). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Jessup with the perforated ends of Henig for the purpose of opening a path to integrate the peripheral zones of the batch adjacent the end walls of the barrel (Henig: column 11, lines 39-46). It is noted that in this combination, fluid would exit through the perforated end of the barrel as recited, meeting the claim.
Jessup discloses the inner wall extending from the side wall, but is silent to the inner wall extending beyond the central axis of the cylinder. Lazaro teaches a material processing system including a barrel assembly (figure 2) having a side wall (panels 30a-30e) and an inner wall (panels 30f-30i) extending from the side wall beyond a central axis of the cylinder (see figures 4, 6, 8, and 10). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the inner wall of Jessup with the longer extension of Lazaro for the purpose of better maintaining material within the barrel during rotation of thereof (Lazaro: figures 4, 6, 8, and 10).
Regarding claim 16, Jessup discloses each reservoir comprises a pair of opposing sidewalls (see figure 12) having formed therein a channel configured to receive a shaft of the barrel assembly about which the cylinder rotates (shaft seen in figures 1 and 7a), wherein lowering the barrel assembly into the reservoir of the station of the barrel line, further comprises lowering the shaft into the channel (see figure 12).
Regarding claim 17, Jessup discloses after rotating the cylinder in the first direction to process the material (see figure 12), inserting the barrel assembly into a reservoir of a second station of the barrel assembly that comprises a second processing fluid; and rotating the cylinder in the first direction in the reservoir of the second station to perform a second processing operation on the material (column 8, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 18, Jessup is silent to a perforated end wall. Henig is relied upon, as above, to teach perforations, and further to teach a removable screen (see figure 2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Jessup with the perforated ends of Henig for the purpose of opening a path to integrate the peripheral zones of the batch adjacent the end walls of the barrel (Henig: column 11, lines 39-46). With respect to the materials and particles recited in claims 5 and 6, these are materials worked upon by the device, which do not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. The combination of Jessup and Henig would be fully capable of processing material and particles that are of the sizes recited in the claims, and thus the claims are met.
Regarding claim 19, Jessup discloses the barrel assembly comprises a motor (figure 1, motor 18) configured to rotate the cylinder, wherein rotating the cylinder in the first direction to process the material comprises actuating the motor (column 5, lines 28-41).
Regarding claim 20, Jessup discloses the barrel line comprises a motor (figure 1, motor 18) and wherein the barrel assembly comprises a gear assembly (gears 10, 12, 14, and 16) configured to mesh with the motor, wherein rotating the cylinder in the first direction to process the material comprises actuating the motor (column 5, lines 28-41).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessup (US 3674673, hereinafter Jessup) in view of Henig (US 3974057, hereinafter Henig), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hepfer (US 3330753, hereinafter Hepfer).
Regarding claim 15, Jessup discloses the sidewall of the cylinder is a first radial distance from the central axis of the cylinder (see figure 6) and wherein the inner wall of the cylinder defines a curved end region (see region formed by lip 8) that is a second radial distance from the central axis of the cylinder. Jessup is silent to filling the processing fluid as recited. Hepfer teaches a method of material processing in which a barrel is partially submerged in a solution (column 3, line 18). This partial submerging in the combination of Jessup and Henig would allow for the processing fluid to be filled to the claimed level. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have partially submerged the barrel of Jessup and Henig, as in Hepfor, for the purpose of reducing the amount of fluid necessary to perform the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 14 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.
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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights