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
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated October 17, 2025 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated August 11, 2025.
Cancelation of claims 8 and 9 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the Non-final Rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1 distinguishing the claim. However, claim 1 remains unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
Response to Arguments
In the paragraph spanning from page 7 to 8 of the Amendment, applicant argues both Hong (Chinese Patent No. CN 109395664 A by Hong et al.) and Ebbert (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 601 316 A1 by Ebbert et al.) fail to disclose mounting a vibrator below the respective screening machines. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits paragraph [0030] of Ebbert discloses screening machine 36 includes a vibratory device made up of the two adjustable unbalanced motors described therein which provide vibrative motion to the screening deck through the unbalanced design of the motors.
Applicant then argues, in the first full paragraph of page 8, claim 1 has been amended to also claim a vibrator mounted on one side of the metering tank. While it is true neither Hong nor Ebbert teaches mounting a vibrator mounted on one side of a metering tank in a production line as claimed in claim 1, Hong does teach it was known to mount a vibrator on a side surface of silo 6. See paragraphs [0043] and [0044]. As was explained in the rejection of claim 8 in the Non-final Rejection, it would have been obvious to also mount a vibrator on a side of metering tank measuring silo 11 to ensure material being metered within the metering tank is maintained in a loose, flowable state in the same way Hong teaches regarding silo 6.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. CN 109395664 A by Hong et al., hereinafter “Hong”, in view of European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 601 316 A1 by Ebbert et al., hereinafter “Ebbert”.
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a granulation system capable of being used to produce microbial repairing agent, comprising a feeder (1) (feeder pneumatic conveying main pipe 1 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0040]), wherein the feeder (1) is connected to a storage bin (3) (storage bin buffer silo 6 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0041]), the bottom of the storage bin (3) is connected to a metering tank (5) (metering tank weighing silo 11; ¶[0042]), the metering tank (5) is in communication with a granulator (6) (rolling granulator 23 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0049]), a screening device (7) is arranged below the granulator (6) (screening machine 24 is located below granulator 23 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0054]), and a discharge port of the screening device (7) is connected to one end of a conveyor belt (8) (screening machine 24 is connected to conveyor 25 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0065]).
Hong does not disclose a vibrator mounted on one side of metering tank weighing silo 11. However, Hong does disclose it was known to mount a vibrator on a side surface of storage bin buffer silo 6 to evenly distribute the material and ensure it is in a loose state which is easily flowable. See paragraphs [0043] and [0044].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also mount a vibrator on a side of metering tank measuring silo 11 to ensure material being metered within the metering tank is maintained in a loose, flowable state in the same way Hong teaches regarding storage bin buffer silo 6. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of using a vibrator on buffer silo 6 to ensure flowability of material therein would be equally applicable to measuring silo 11 to maintain the flowable state of the material created in buffer silo 6.
Hong also does not disclose screening machine 24 employs multiple layers of screens having different particles sizes with a second vibrator mounted below the screening device.
In the same field of granulation systems, Ebbert teaches a multi-phase fertilizer granulation plant. Ebbert’s production line shown in Figs. 1 and 2 (¶[0018]) comprises feed hopper 2 (¶[0019]) connected to storage bin silos 6, 7 and 8 (¶[0021]). The bottom of the storage bin silos are connected to turbo mixer 10 used as a metering tank to ensure uniform dosing of the individual material components (¶[0022]). Turbo mixer 10 is in communication with granulator pelletizing drum 16 (¶[0023]). Screening machine 36 is connected to pelletizing drum 16 via conveyor 17 and box feeder 18 (¶[0024] and [0030]). The oversized discharge of screening machine 36 is connected to conveyor 42 shown in Fig. 2 (¶[0031]).
Paragraphs [0030] and [0031] of Ebbert teach details of screening machine 36. Screening machine 36 has one screen layer which screens oversized overflow 40 in Fig. 2 from the flow of the pellets and a second screen layer which screens undersized throughflow 41 from the flow of pellets such that a largely homogeneous grain size is produced as described in paragraph [0014]. The two adjustable unbalanced motors described are used as vibrators which provide vibration to the screen deck.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount a second vibrator below Hong’s screening machine 24 in the same way Ebbert teaches to provide vibration to Hong’s screening machine. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Ebbert to Hong’s production line would achieve the predictable result of adding vibratory motion to Hong’s disclosed screening device.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Hong in view of Ebbert renders the production line of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hong further discloses a dust removal device is mounted at the top of the storage bin (3) (dust collector 15 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0043]), and a vibrator is mounted on a side surface of the storage bin (silo wall vibrator 16 in Figs. 1 and 2).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Ebbert and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,611,922 to Eirich, hereinafter “Eirich”.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Hong in view of Ebbert renders the production line according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hong discloses using a rolling granulator in the production line, and thus does not disclose the further limitations claimed in claim 2 regarding details of the granulator used in the claimed production line.
In the same field of granulators, Eirich teaches a mixing machine for mixing building material powders, i.e., granulated material. See col. 3, line 28-48. The mixing machine shown in Figs. 3-6 comprises cylindrical container 1 (col. 6, line 62-66) topped by a cover. The bottom of container 1 is provided with discharge port opening 3 (col. 6, line 46-47) which is connected to closure cover member 16 (col. 7, line 25-30) as a discharging mechanism. Shaft 18 (col. 7, line 16-24) provides a transmission system arranged in container 1 to rotate rotating tools 6. Scrapper assembly 2 (col. 6, line 40-41) is arranged on an inner wall of container 1 as best shown in Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Eirich’s mixing machine as the granulator in Hong’s granulation plant. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Eirich to the granulation plant disclosed by Hong would achieve the predictable result of Hong’s granulation plant using a granulator structured according to Eirich teaching.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Hong in view of Ebbert and further in view of Eirich renders the production line according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Eirich further teaches wherein the transmission system comprises a rotor transmission system (11) (shaft 18 in container 1 is a rotor transmission system) and a granulation tray transmission system (10) (friction wheel 8 shown in Figs. 3 and 4; col. 6, line 62-66), and the granulation tray transmission system (10) and the rotor transmission system (11) are opposite in transmission directions (Fig. 3 shows container 1 is rotated clockwise by friction wheel 8 and rotating tools 6 are rotated counter-clockwise by shaft 18).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Hong in view of Ebbert and further in view of Eirich renders the production line according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Eirich further teaches wherein the scraper assembly (13) comprises a side scraping plate blade and a bottom scraping plate blade. Fig. 2 shows scraper 2 has a side scraping plate blade and a bottom scraping plate blade.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Ebbert and further in view of Eirich and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0314296 A1 by Lindner et al., hereinafter “Lindner”.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Hong in view of Ebbert and further in view of Eirich renders the production line according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Eirich further teaches discharging mechanism closure cover member 16 in Fig. 5 swings back and forth on pivot point 29 and is driven by an arm as shown in the figure. However, Eirich is silent regarding what type of drive the illustrated arm uses to swing member 16 about point 29.
In the analogous field of tub-shredders, Linder teaches it is known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hydraulics to open and close a discharge opening in tub-shredders. See paragraph [0034] referencing discharge pusher 108.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hydraulic system to drive the arm which opens and closes Eirich’s member 16 in the same way Lindner teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Lindner to Eirich’s mixing machine would achieve the predictable result of using hydraulics to drive Eirich’s arm which opens and closes member 16.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Ebbert and further in view of Eirich and Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 113663601A by Huang et al., hereinafter “Huang”.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Hong in view of Ebbert and further in view of Eirich renders the production line according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. However, neither Ebbert nor Eirich disclose details of a granulator cover as claimed in claim 6.
Huang teaches it was known to provide the granulator cylinder cover of a granulator (sealing cover 11 in Fig. 2; ¶[n0028]) with an observation port (observation camera 22 in Fig. 2; ¶[n0028] and [n0038]), feed port (feed pipe 12 in Fig. 2; ¶[n0028]), and liquid addition port (spray pipe joint 16 in Fig. 2; ¶[n0028]) where the feed port is connected to a pneumatic conveying apparatus (see ¶[n0036]) and the liquid addition port is connected to a water supply system (see ¶[n0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Eirich’s granulation cylinder cover with an observation port, feed port and liquid addition port in the same way Huang teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Huang to the granulator taught by Eirich would achieve the predictable result of Eirich’s granulator lid being provided with the structural details taught by Huang.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebbert in view of Hong.
Regarding claim 10, Ebbert discloses a production process comprising:
(i) conveying a raw material to a storage bin through a feeder (raw material is conveyed by air conveyor 5 to storage bin silo 6 as shown in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0020]);
(ii) adding the raw materials in the storage bin to a metering tank in sequence through a spiral or pneumatic conveying apparatus, and metering and weighing the raw materials (raw material is added from silo 6 to turbo mixer scale 10 by screw conveyor 9; ¶[0022]);
(iii) conveying metered raw materials into a granulator (the metered material is conveyed from scale 10 to granulator pelletizing drum 16), and controlling a water addition amount and granulation time to obtain the desired product (¶[0023] discloses spirit level 15 adds required water to obtain the desired fertilizer);
(iv) discharging the desired product through a discharging system at the bottom of the granulator after granulation is completed (the desired product is discharged from granulator 16 by way of conveyor 17); and
(v) screening the desired product through a screening device to obtain a desired product having a required particle size, and collecting and maintaining the desired product through a conveyor belt (the desired product is then screened in screening machine 36 and transferred by a conveying device to bagging system 37; ¶[0030]).
However, Ebbert does not disclose the production process is based upon the production line according to claim 1 as amended. But, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the production line taught by the prior art reference combination of Hong in view of Ebbert as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above to carry out the production process disclosed by Ebbert. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized Ebbert’s disclosed process may be carried out using the taught production line with predictable results.
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P.D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725