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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 arguments filed 10/15/2015 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elmore et al. (“Elmore”)(US 4,955,482).
Elmore (fig. 1-3) teaches a leaching tank configured for use in an interstage screening process comprising
(re: claims 1, 10) a tank (near 10);
an outflow pipe (15);
a draft tube (near 20) configured to be mounted to at least one of tan interstage screening tank and a screen basket located in the tank such that a lower end of the draft tube extends into an interior of the tank, wherein an upper end of the draft tube is connected to the outflow pipe (fig. 4 showing upper end of draft tube connected with outflow pipe 15; col. 3, ln. 65+);
a rotatable drive shaft (22) that extends through an interior of the draft tube to a location adjacent the lower end of the draft tube; and
an impeller (near 21) mounted to the drive shaft such that when the drive shaft and the impeller are rotated, the impeller causes fluid or slurry to move from the lower end of the draft tube and to be expelled from the tank via the outflow pipe (col. 4);
(re: claims 2, 11) a motor (23) that is operatively connected to the [drive] shaft and that is configured to cause the drive shaft to rotate (col. 4, ln. 5+);
(re: claims 3, 12) a gearing assembly (near 24) that operatively couples the motor to the drive shaft.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmore et al. (“Elmore”)(US 4,955,482) in view of Dong et al. (“Dong”)(CN 202246785)(with text citations to English translation); Sugifune et al. (“Sugifune”)(US 2021/0101090) and legal precedent.
Elmore as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 4, 13) wherein a rotational speed of the motor can be selectively varied to selectively vary a flow rate of fluid or slurry through the draft tube;
(re: claims 5, 14) comprising a controller that is operatively connected to the motor, wherein the controller provides signals to the motor to control a rotational speed of the motor to selectively vary a flow rate of fluid or slurry passing through the draft tube;
(re: claims 7, 15) a draft tube mounting assembly that is configured to selectively position the draft tube at differing heights within the tank;
(re: claims 9, 17, 18) wherein at least one of the rotatable drive shaft and the impeller can be selectively re-positioned to different heights within the draft tube; or
with respect to the draft tube to locate the impeller at differing positions with respect to the lower end of the draft tube;
(re: claims 19, 20) wherein a nozzle is located at a lower end of the draft tube and is removably mounted to the lower the end of the draft tube such that different shaped or sized nozzles can be mounted to the lower end of the draft tube.
Dong, however, teaches that it is well-known in the leach tank arts to integrate dynamic elements, such a motor speed controller and an adjustable nozzle at the end of the impeller element, to optimize the leaching process (fig. 1 showing nozzles near 2 at bottom of adjustable impeller shaft 6 and motor with speed controller 4; p. 2-3 teaching the speed control allows process optimization).
Sugifune also teaches that it is well-known in the fluid handling arts to integrate adjustable features, such as a variable motor speed, nozzles and/or adjustable drive shaft/impeller (fig. 1 showing adjustable drive shaft 32 connected to motor 38 and drive circuit and nozzles near 36; para. 33-35) in combination with a control device, nozzles and various sensors for greater control over the fluid handling/extraction process (fig. 3 showing control device for optimizing speed of motors 38, 73 and managing fluid flow through nozzles; para. 40-43, 60-80 teaching various sensors and valves that allow oversight over fluid handling process).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the mere re-configuration of well-known structural elements, such as the draft tube, drive shaft or nozzle, or the varying of common operating parameters, such as the motor speed, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the fluid handling arts. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.04.V.C.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable or separable, is not a patentable advance); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above, in legal precedent as described above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., adjustable shaft or nozzles) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Elmore for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8 and 16 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 that the prior art fails to teach the claim features are unpersuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that the prior art—Elmore—fails to teach an outflow pipe and a draft tube, where the upper end of the draft tube is connected to the outflow pipe. Applicant argues that although the draft tube element and the outflow pipe are both located within a fluid tank, these elements are separate and cannot be regarded as connected. Examiner disagrees and states that it is entirely reasonable to regard two fluidly connected elements as “connected” as claims are interpreted as broadly as reason allows. Moreover, Elmore describes the outflow pipe as “being connected” and as functioning to provide slurry to the slurry inlet of a connected tank (col. 3, ln. 45-col. 5, ln. 13 teaching that thanks are “interconnected” and slurry outlet “being connected”). Further, Applicant’s own arguments admit that that the screen body attached to the slurry outlet functions to allow “more of the fluid in the tank can pass into the interior of the screen body 26 and then downward and out through the outflow pipe 15” (p. 3). Thus, it is entirely reasonable to regard the outflow tank as being connected as claim 1 merely requires that “an upper end of the draft tube is connected to the outflow pipe” and does not place a structural limitation defining a specific structural connection that would avoid the prior art. Applicant’s further argument that Elmore does not teach that the impeller “causes fluid or slurry to move from the lower end of the draft tube to the upper end of the draft tube” (claim 1) is also misplaced. Elmore teaches that the draft tube and impeller function to facilitate “the circulation of slurry and/or particles within the tank 10 through the bottom of the tube 20 and then upwardly through the top thereof” (col. 4, ln. 1+). Consequently, as reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805. The Official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
January 4, 2026