DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunter (U.S. Publication 2018/0369762).
Regarding claim 1, Hunter teaches an apparatus for selectively outputting either one at a time of two alternative outputs (apparatus shown in figures 1 and 3), the alternative outputs consisting of: an uninhibited bulk explosive or oxidizer and an inhibited bulk explosive or oxidizer (the material being worked upon is considered intended use of the apparatus, since the preamble states “for selectively outputting either one at a time of two alternative outputs”), comprising: an outlet for streaming an output of bulk explosive (outlet item 17); and one or more dispersion nozzles for adding, or not adding, an inhibitor on demand into a stream of uninhibited bulk explosive exiting the outlet so as to convert uninhibited bulk explosive into inhibited bulk explosive when the inhibitor is added during output of the bulk explosive (item 20 outlet is considered reading on a nozzle along with flow regulating mechanism 40, which is taught as a valve in paragraph 38, the materials are considered intended use) wherein the one or more dispersion nozzles selectively receives for adding or not adding, the inhibitor by operation of the control valve or a crusher, the control valve or crusher capable of being turned on and off for feeding the inhibitor to the one or more dispersion nozzles on demand (see figure 1 item 20, which is considered reading on a nozzle, is at the bottom most portion of item 40 control valve, and the nozzle is considered capable selectively receiving material from the control valve based on the operation of the control valve).
Regarding claim 3, Hunter teaches wherein the one or more dispersion nozzles is configured to handle dry, substantially dry, or particulate inhibitor added is substantially is dry to the uninhibited bulk explosive (the material is considered intended use, paragraph 12 teaches solid, sand and particulate and is considered capable of handling dry or substantially dry material).
Regarding claim 4, Hunter teaches wherein the one or more dispersion nozzles is adjacent to or at the outlet so that the selective addition and dispersion of the inhibitor into streamed output of bulk explosive occurs at or adjacent to the outlet (item 20 is considered adjacent item 17).
Regarding claim 5, Hunter teaches wherein the one or more dispersion nozzles (item 20) is upstream of the outlet (item 17) such that the inhibitor is able to selectively added on demand and dispersed in the stream of bulk explosive before being output at the outlet (the materials being worked upon are considered intended use, material from items 20 and 40).
Regarding claim 6, Hunter teaches wherein the uninhibited bulk explosive or oxidizer and the inhibited bulk explosive or oxidizer further comprises a feed of particulate inhibitor to the one or more dispersion nozzles (the materials are considered intended use, paragraph 12 teaches solid, sand and particulate and is considered capable).
Regarding claim 7, Hunter teaches wherein the one or more dispersion nozzles comprise a control valve for feeding the inhibitor to the one or more dispersion nozzles on demand (paragraph 34 item 40 control valve is considered reading on a control means).
Regarding claim 8, Hunter teaches wherein the control means comprises a valve (flow regulating mechanism 40, which is taught as a control valve in paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 17, Hunter teaches wherein the output streams bulk explosive directly into the blast hole (trailer 90 is a trailer and is considered capable of being transported to a blast hole where material from item 17 feeds directly into the blast hole, the blast hole is not considered positively claimed).
Response to Arguments
The remarks regarding the means plus function interpretation have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to claim 1. Therefore, the means plus interpretation of the claims is withdrawn.
The remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) rejection have been considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that mixing occurs within the mulling device before material reaches the outlet, not as the material exits the outlet. However, claim 1 does not necessitate the mixing occurs as the material exits the outlet. Applicant additionally argues that the art of record does not teach converting uninhibited bulk explosive into inhibited bulk explosive. However, the material being worked upon is considered intended use of the apparatus claim 1. Hunter (US Publication 2018/0369762) teaches item 40 is a control valve (paragraph 34) and is considered capable of selectively controlling the flow of material towards item 17. Applicant argues that the art of record does not teach one or more dispersion nozzles for adding, or not adding, an inhibitor on demand into a stream of uninhibited bulk explosive exiting the outlet. Item 20 is considered a nozzle shape and is an outlet for material flowing from item 40. The material being fed through item 20 is considered intended use. Positively claiming the uninhibited bulk explosive oxidizer or inhibited bulk explosive would overcome the art of record and necessitate further search and consideration.
The remarks regarding the remaining claims are based off the claim 1 rejection and are rejected accordingly.
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 ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights