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 .
Election/Restrictions
The remarks specifically regarding the restriction requirement mailed 1/21/2026 has been considered and persuasive in light of the amendment to the claims. Therefore, the restriction requirement is withdrawn. However, the remarks regarding the exit outlet on demand configuration have been considered and are not persuasive. U.S. Publication 2018/0369762 to Hunter teaches a control valve (paragraph 34 item 40) and is considered capable of delivering material on demand, which affects the material out of outlet item 17. Additionally, the remarks regarding the delivery of additives have been considered and are not persuasive. Paragraph 36 teaches delivering additives and therefore the container items 12 are considered capable of delivering additives.
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.
Claim 1 is considered invoking a means plus function for “dispersion means” since the generic placeholder uses the term means, includes functional language “for adding, or not adding, the inhibitor” and does not recite sufficient structure for the generic placeholder. Paragraph 24 of the specification teaches a nozzle as sufficient structure for the dispersion means.
Claim 1 is considered invoking a means plus function for “control means” since the generic placeholder uses the term means, includes functional language “for feeding inhibitor” and does not recite sufficient structure for the generic placeholder. Paragraph 30 of the specification teaches a valve as sufficient structure for the control means.
Claim 7 is considered invoking a means plus function for “control means” since the generic placeholder uses the term means, includes functional language “for feeding inhibitor” and does not recite sufficient structure for the generic placeholder.
Claim 8 is not considered invoking a means plus function for “control means” since the claim recites a valve, which is considered sufficient structure.
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 means 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 dispersion means selectively receives for adding or not adding, the inhibitor by operation of the control means for feeding the inhibitor to the dispersion means 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 dispersion means 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 dispersion means 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 dispersion means (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 dispersion means (the materials are considered intended use, paragraph 12 teaches solid, sand and particulate and is considered capable).
Regarding claim 7, Hunter teaches wherein the dispersion means comprise a control means for feeding the inhibitor to the dispersion means 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).
Regarding claim 20, Hunter teaches wherein the dispersion means is in the form of a valve or crusher that is able to be turned on or off (paragraph 34 teaches a control valve and is considered capable of being turned on or off).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nelson (U.S. Publication 2019/0257632) teaches a system for delivering explosives (paragraph 26) and pouring the resulting blend into a blasthole (paragraph 53) using control valves (paragraph 38) and a control system (item 70) to vary the flow rate of streams (paragraph 50 items 25 and 47) including an inhibited emulsion (paragraph 63).
Major (U.S. Publication 2020/0408495) teaches using storage tanks for delivering different types of explosive material (paragraph 4) including the use of processing unit including a microprocessor or microcontroller (paragraph 123), and a conveying system for selective delivery of one or more explosive materials into one or more blastholes (paragraph 84).
Smith (U.S. Patent 6,125,761) teaches providing inhibited emulsion explosive (column 3 lines 2-4) conveying using an auger or other suitable delivery mechanism into a mixing bowl (column 5 lines 33-41) and pumping the desired ratio of mixing fuel into a borehole site (column 4 lines 3-12).
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