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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 9/25/2025 has been entered.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godderidge (US 4,700,766) in view of Wesin et al. (“Wesin”)(WO 2019/081815), Bartholic et al. (“Bartholic”)(US 4,818,373), Kift et al. (“Kift”)(US 9,434,887) and legal precedent.
Godderidge (fig. 1) teaches a system and method for cleaning sand comprising
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 14, 16, 21, 22) a cleaning module comprising a cleaning apparatus comprising-
a contain and tumble the sand (col. 6, ln. 44+ teaching rotary drum for tumbling scrap sand);
a heat source (near 6, 9) configured to heat the rotatable oven to thermally clean the sand contained in the rotatable oven (col. 7, ln. 24-col. 9, ln. 28 teaching “precleaning of the scrap sand, the latter is simultaneously dried and heated in the rotary drum by means of blown-in hot air”, wherein hot-air fan 6 blows in hot air);
a rotatable cooling drum (10) configured to cool the thermally clean the sand in the rotatable cooling drum (col. 7, ln. 24-col. 9, ln. 28 teaching cooling sand via rotary drum 10 and cooling air),
an air purification module (filter/purifying unit 22);
a first tube (36) configured to convey, from a first inlet of the first tube toward the air purification module, gases and fine fraction to be removed from the thermally cleaned sand via the air purification module (col. 9, ln. 18-28 teaching that conduit network 36 conveys waste gas from various units to filtering unit 22), and
a second tube (36) configured to convey, from a second inlet of the second tube toward the air purification module, gases and fine fraction to be removed from the rotatable cooling drum via the air purification module, the first inlet being separate from the second inlet (col. 9, ln. 18-28 with fig. 2 showing multiple tubes 36 and inlets),
wherein the first tube and the second tube unite so that hot air from the rotatable oven is coolable with air from the rotatable cooling drum (fig. 2 showing that conduit network of waste gas unite upstream of filtering unit 22),
wherein the system is modular (fig. 1 showing modules I, II and III and col. 4, ln. 50-col. 6 teaching that system has similarly sized elements that allow for easier transport and a variety of configurations of the system elements within the portable containers/modules);
(re: claims 2, 16) a control module (19),
wherein all the modules of the system are operatively connected to each other (fig. 1); and
the control module is configured to control functions of all the other modules of the system (col. 7, ln. 24-col. 9, ln. 28);
(re: certain elements of claim 3) wherein the rotatable cooling drum comprises a filter (near 13) configured to screen the cooled sand;
(re: claim 5) wherein the air purification module comprises a suction device configured to remove gases and fine fraction from the thermally cleaned sand and from the rotatable cooling drum (fig. 1 near 24, 36);
(re: claim 7) a conveyor module (near 4 or 28) arranged to feed the sand to be cleaned to the oven;
(re: claim 8) wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises an abrasive configured to rub the thermally cleaned sand (col. 7, ln. 48+);
(re: claim 12) at least one cover unit inside of which at least one module is placed (col. 6 teaching that modules can be transported in 3 portable containers);
(re: claim 17) wherein the cleaning module is a singular module containing both the heated rotatable oven and the rotatable cooling drum (fig. 1 showing that module II contains the oven 5 and drum 10);
(re: claims 25, 26) wherein the first tube and the second tube unite to form one tube before the air purification module so that the hot air from the heated rotatable oven is coolable with the air from the rotatable cooling drum (fig. 1 showing tubes 36 uniting prior to entrance of purification module 22);
(re: claim 27) wherein the heat source is positioned at an end of the rotatable oven (fig. 1 showing hot-air fan 6 inputting hot-air near left end of rotatable oven);
(re: claim 28) wherein the end of the rotatable oven is opposite to the first tube (fig. 1 showing first ube 36 opposite to end).
(re: claims 9 and 13) Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.02, 2114. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, the device cited above is certainly capable of-
(re: claim 9) wherein all the modules of the system are configured to be replaceable by a module comprising the same function, independently of the other modules;
and/or at least one new module for different function is configured to be addable to the system (fig. 1);
(re: claim 13) wherein the cleaning module is configured to fit on a platform of a truck; and/or an air purification module, and the control module are configured to fit together on a platform of a truck (col. 6 teaching that modules are configured to provide ease of transport—including the purification 22 and control module 19).
(re: claims 15, 18, 20 and 23-24) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Godderidge as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 3) wherein the cooling drum comprises the filtering means;
(re: claim 4) wherein the system further comprises a gravity separator module for separating particles from the cooled sand;
(re: claim 6) wherein the system further comprises a desulphurisation module;
(re: claim 10) wherein the system further comprises at least one sensor to measure properties of the sand and/or air;
(re: claim 11) wherein the system further comprises at least one actuator, wherein the system is arranged to monitor data conveyed by at least one sensor and to control at least one actuator of the system by utilizing the monitored data conveyed by the at least one sensor;
(re: claims 19 and 20) wherein the sand is preheated external to the heated rotatable oven.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, Godderidge may be regarded as not teaching a modular system.
Wesin, however, teaches that it is well-known in the sand cleaning arts to integrate an adaptive control system to monitor key operating variables and make adjustments to optimize cleaning (fig. 2 showing controller 40 receiving sensor inputs from various system elements; p. 8 teaching sensors and actuators related to oven temperature, amount of sand, velocity of sand, temperature of sand and heat losses, wherein controller optimizes system based on sensor data such as sand temperature) and to preheat sand prior to placement in the oven (fig. 4 showing sand pre-heating step 57; p. 6 teaching that temperature of foundry sand must be monitored to optimize cleaning at specific temperatures and p. 11, ln. 8+ teaching that sand may be preheated within charger hopper).
Bartholic further teaches that it is well-known in the recycling arts to integrate a desulfurization module to properly clean exhaust gas (fig. 1 and col. 12, ln. 25-40) and that gravity separators are common separation modules used during sand recycling/cleaning (col. 1, ln. 29-35).
Kift teaches that it is well-known to integrate a screening means within the rotating drum module to remove undersized particles (fig. 1 near 42; col. 5, ln. 30+).
Further, the claimed features relating to configuring known elements as a modular system can be regarded as obvious in view of legal precedent. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements integral or separable/modular, is not a patentable advance).
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, 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., gravity separator, desulfurization, charging hopper with pre-heating element or rotating drum with screen modules) 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 Godderidge for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that Godderidge does not teach the amended feature of a heat source to heat the rotatable oven. The prior art, however, as cited above expressly teaches that the rotary drum (5) is directly connected to the furnace (9) via a hot-air fan to assist with the cleaning process (supra, teaching “precleaning of the scrap sand, the latter is simultaneously dried and heated in the rotary drum by means of blown-in hot air”). In view of this express teaching, it is unclear how Applicant can argue that drum does not “thermally clean” the sand. Indeed, Godderidge teaches a fan that directly blows the hot air from the furnace into the drum (fig. 1), thus it is not relevant that the heat source is physically separate when a physical connection of the heat source is expressly taught. It is again worth noting that it is not relevant that the drum of Godderidge does not reach a specific temperature or thermally clean in the exact same manner as argued by Applicant as said arguments are not commensurate with the claim scope. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments and renders the claimed invention obvious, 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
---
December 1, 2025