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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "15" and "16" have both been used to designate the separator (see specification at pg. 3, lines 17-18 and 31-33). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because reference characters “”11”, “12” and “13” appear to be in the wrong place in the specification; as written, “11” appears to represent axial movement, “12” appears to designate the mill, and “13” appears to designate mill capacity (see specification at pg. 4, lines 2-6). Based on Fig. 1, it appears that “(11)” should be after “low speed coupling”, “(12)” should be after “gear box”, and “(13)” should be after “a motor”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “A” and “B” (see Fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-8 include multiple grammatical, punctuation, capitalization and/or typographical errors including the following:
In claims 1 and 2, “Method” should read “A method”, and in claims 2-8, “Method” should read “The method” (see claims 1-8 each at line 1).
In claims 1 and 2, “cement manufacturing process” should read “a cement manufacturing process” (see claims 1 and 2 each at line 2).
In claim 1, line 3, there should not be a period at the end of the line; “ball mill.” should read “ball mill;”.
In claims 1 and 2, the first word of each step should not be capitalized (see claim 1 at lines 3, 4, 7, 12 and 15 and claim 2 at lines 3, 4, 10, 12 and 16).
In claim 1, line 8, there should be a comma after “system”.
In claims 1 and 3, “where” should read “wherein” (see claim 1 at line 11 and claim 3 at line 4).
In claims 1 and 3, there should be a comma after “heteroatoms” (see claim 1 at line 11 and claim 3 at line 3).
In claim 2, there should be a space between numbers and their units; “1mm” should read “1 mm” (see claim 2 at line 7).
In claims 6 and 7, “the said” should read either “the” or “said”, not both (see claims 6 and 7 each at line 2).
In claim 8, “is carried out into” should read “are carried out in” (see claim 8 at line 2).
Appropriate correction is required
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “fresh feed” as recited in claims 1, 2 and 6 (see claim 1 at lines 1 and 3-5, claim 2 at lines 1, 3 and 5-6 and claim 6 at lines 2-3) is interpreted as meaning a material that has not yet entered the ball mill.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 2 recite the limitation "the grinding efficiency" (see claims 1 and 2 each at line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 1 and 2 each recite the limitation “50% or less” (see claim 1 at line 5 and claim 2 at line 6), but do not specify whether this is a measurement on the basis of weight or volume, rendering the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated 50% as recited in claims 1 and 2 as meaning 50% by weight. Clarification is requested.
Claims 1 and 2 recite the limitations "the fresh feed’s particles" and “said particles” (see claim 1 at lines 4-5 and claim 2 at lines 6-7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Further, claims 1 and 2 each recite the limitation "the particles" twice (see claim 1 at lines 12-13 and claim 2 at lines 13-14). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Further, claims 4, and 5 recite the limitation "the particles to be ground" (see claim 4 at line 3 and claim 5 at lines 2-3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is not clear to what unrecited particles or to what method step this limitation is meant to refer.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claims 1 and 2 as though they each recite a fresh feed comprising particles. Examiner treated “the particles to be ground” as recited in claims 4 and 5 as referring to the particles of the fresh feed. Clarification is requested.
Claims 1 and 2 each recite the limitation "the material" four times (see claim 1 at lines 12 and 15 and claim 2 at lines 12-13 and 16). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, claim 1 recites the limitation "the return grits" (see claim 1 at line 8) and claim 2 recites the limitation “the grits return” (see claim 2 at line10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claims 1 and 2 also recite the limitation "the return grits line" (see claim 1 at line 8 and claim 2 at line 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Limitations may not be imported into the claims from the specification; no grits or return of any kind is previously positively recited in the methods of claims 1 or 2, so it cannot be determined from the claims as written to what materials or objects in the claims these limitations are meant to refer, and it cannot be determined where or to what the second grinding agent system is being added in either claim. Further, the meaning of “grits” as claimed is not clear; e.g., it is not clear what particle size of material would be required to be considered to meet the limitation of “grits” as claimed.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 1 as though step b) recites adding a first grinding agent system to the fresh feed to obtain a first material, step c) recites adding a second grinding agent system to a second feed material comprising particles to obtain a second material, and step d) recites grinding the first material and second material together to obtain a third material.
Similarly, for purposes of examination, claim 2 is treated as though step b) recites adding a first grinding agent system and second grinding agent system to the fresh feed to obtain a first material, step c) recites optionally adding the second grinding agent to a second feed material comprising particles to obtain a second material, and step d) recites grinding the first material and optionally the second material to obtain a third material.
Clarification is requested.
Claims 1, 2 and 3 recite the limitation "the grinding agents" (see claim 1 at lines 8-9, claim 2 at line 8 and claim 3 at lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The plural “grinding agents” would also appear to mean that more than one grinding agent is required for each grinding agent system, however pg. 17-18 of the present specification indicate that each grinding aid system only requires one or more grinding aids, so it is not clear in the present claims whether at least one grinding agent is required or at least two grinding agents are required for each grinding agent system.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claims 1 and 2 as though they recite a first grinding agent system comprising one or more grinding agents, and a second grinding agent system comprising one or more grinding agents, and treated “the grinding agents” as meaning one or more grinding agents. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second grinding agent system added in step c)” (see claim 1 at line 9); this limitation is recited as a part of step c, but implies that step c has already taken place. A limitation referring to step c within step c makes it unclear whether or not this limitation is meant to be a part of step c, or is meant to be a part of another, separate step, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated step c of claim 1 as though it does not recite “added in step c)”, i.e., as all being one step rather than two separate steps. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one of them" (see claim 1 at line 11); it is not clear to what “them” is meant to refer, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated “them” as recited in claim 1 as meaning the heteroatoms. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the total weight % of the said first and/or second grinding agent systems is added to the fresh feed” (see claim 6 at lines 1-3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what weight the recited “total weight %” is meant to be based on, i.e., what it is a percentage of, or if it is just meant to refer to refer to the total weight of the first and/or second grinding agent system.
Further, it is not clear how the total weight of the second grinding agent system is added to the fresh feed, as claim 1 requires that the second grinding agent system is added to a material that is not the fresh feed in step c).
Claim 6 also recites the limitation “the weight feeder/conveyor belt(s)” (see claim 6 at line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is not clear whether “weight feeder/conveyor belt(s)” means weight feeder and conveyor belt(s), weight feeder or conveyor belt(s), or weight feeder and/or conveyor belt(s). Further, it is not clear whether “belt(s)” requires one belt or multiple belts.
Further, claim 6 recites the limitation “the mill fresh feed chute" (see claim 6 at line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 6 as meaning that the total amount of the first grinding agent system is added to the fresh feed and/or the total amount of the second grinding agent system, subsequent to step c), is added to the fresh feed, in a weight feeder and/or in one or more conveyor belts and/or in a fresh feed chute. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the total weight % of the said first and second grinding agent systems " (see claim 7 at lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what weight the recited “total weight %” is meant to be based on, i.e., it is not clear which material from which method step in claim 1 this is meant to be a percentage of.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation in claim 7 as referring to the total weight % of the first and second grinding agent systems added based on the weight of the fresh feed. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first and second chamber" (see claim 8 at line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, claim 8 recites “a two-chamber cement ball mill” (see claim 8 at line 2), and it is not clear from this language whether or not this is meant to refer to the same cement ball mill as the “multi-chamber cement ball mill” recited in claim 1 (see claim 1 at line 3).
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 8 as though it recites the method according to claim 1, wherein the cement ball mill is a two-chamber cement ball mill comprising a first and second chamber. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oytun, et al. (U.S. 2022/0162130-A1) (hereinafter, “OYTUN”).
Regarding claim 1, OYTUN teaches a method to increase grinding efficiency of a fresh feed during a cement manufacturing process (see OYTUN generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0067]-[0071]), comprising:
providing a fresh feed comprising particles to a multi-chamber cement ball mill (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraph [0017], teaching introducing a hydraulic binder into a first chamber of a multi-chamber horizontal grinder including a first and last chamber, wherein the grinder is a ball mill);
adding a first grinding agent system comprising one or more grinding agents to the fresh feed to obtain a first material (see OYTUN at Abstract, teaching that grinding aid B is added to the hydraulic binder which is then introduced to the first chamber of the grinder);
adding a second grinding agent system, which is different from the first grinding agent system, comprising one or more grinding agents to a second feed material comprising particles to obtain a second material (see OYTUN at Abstract, paragraphs [0052]-[0053], [0072], [0074] and [0160], and Fig. 8, teaching adding grinding aid A, which is different from grinding aid B, at the outlet of the second chamber of the grinder, after which the material comprising grinding aid A is sent to a separator, then separator rejects comprising grinding aid A are returned and added to the feed comprising the hydraulic binder to be re-ground);
wherein the grinding agents that comprise the second grinding agent system are characterized in that they have a molecular weight between 45 g/mol and 110 g/mol and they have a maximum of 3 heteroatoms, wherein at least one of the heteroatoms is oxygen (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraph [0048], teaching grinding aid A comprising an aminoalcohol, wherein the aminoalcohol comprises 2-8 carbon atoms and 1, 2 or 3 alcohol functions, which includes compounds falling within the claimed ranges; e.g., an aminoalcohol with 2 carbon atoms and 1 alcohol function is ethanolamine, which has a molecular weight of 61.08 g/mol and two heteroatoms, one nitrogen and one oxygen; as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).);
grinding the material obtained in step b) and c) to obtain a third material until the material reaches a desired fineness (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraphs [0015] and [0184], teaching grinding in the first chamber until it reaches a desired fineness which is of sufficient reduced size for finer grinding in the following chamber); and
further grinding the material obtained in step d) until the material reaches a desired fineness (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraphs [0073] and [0174], teaching further grinding the material in the last chamber to obtain ground composition C having a desired fineness).
OYTUN fails to explicitly mention (i) that the particles of the fresh feed have a fineness characterized in that 50% or less of said particles pass through a 1 mm sieve; (ii) that the material obtained in step d) has a fineness characterized in that not more than 1 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 1 mm sieve and not more than 50 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 90 μm sieve; or (iii) that the material obtained in step d) is further ground until the material reaches a fineness of 40 wt.% retained on a 45 μm sieve.
Regarding (i)-(iii) above, OYTUN teaches that the hydraulic binder provided to the first chamber has a large particle size, and teaches that the particles in the first chamber are ground to a Blaine fineness of, e.g., 1,100 to 1,200 cm2/g, and that the particles in the second chamber are ground to a Blaine fineness of, e.g., 2,200 cm2/g (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0015], [0035], [0107] and [0155] and Fig. 7). Applicant’s specification discloses that the particle size obtained in step d) having a fineness characterized in that not more than 1 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 1 mm sieve and not more than 50 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 90 μm sieve corresponds to a Blaine fineness of 800 to 3,200 cm2/g (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 21, lines 12-17 and Table 5), and discloses that the particle size obtained in step e) having a fineness of 40 wt.% retained on a 45 μm sieve corresponds to a Blaine fineness of approximately 2,200 g/cm2 (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 3, lines 23-25); therefore, the particles of OYTUN would be expected to have fineness lying within or overlapping with the claimed ranges in (ii)-(iii) above as they can have the same corresponding Blaine fineness values for steps d) and e) as those disclosed in Applicant’s specification, and the particles of step (i) above would be expected to overlap with the claimed range as these particles must be larger than the particles of steps d) and e). MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Further regarding (i)-(iii) above, OYTUN teaches that that the particle size of the hydraulic binder affects reactivity and rheological properties, that the specific surface area of the cement particles and hence their particle size governs the interactions between the grinding aids and the cement, that particles in the first chamber must be ground until they are of sufficient reduced size for finer grinding in the following chamber, and that the parameters of the grinder should be optimized to reach the desired fineness (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0002], [0007], [0015], [0035], [0043], [0144] and [0184]). OYTUN therefore explicitly teaches that the particle sizes at each stage (including the particle size of the feed to the grinder, the particle size after the first stage of grinding, and the particle size after the second stage of grinding, corresponding to (i)-(iii) above) are result-effective variables which should be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the particle sizes of the fresh feed material, the material of step d), and the material of step e), including particle sizes meeting the limitations of (i)-(iii) above, in order to optimize process parameters, such as amount of grinding aid needed and interactions between the grinding aids and the binder, extent of grinding required in each stage to achieve the desired product, amount of separator rejects returned to the feed, etc., and to obtain desired hydraulic binder characteristics including improved quality, increased reactivity and desired rheological properties as taught by OYTUN (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0002], [0007], [0015], [0035], [0043], [0144] and [0184]).
Regarding claim 2, OYTUN teaches a method to increase grinding efficiency of a fresh feed during a cement manufacturing process (see OYTUN generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0067]-[0071]), comprising:
providing a fresh feed comprising particles to a multi-chamber cement ball mill (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraph [0017], teaching introducing a hydraulic binder into a first chamber of a multi-chamber horizontal grinder including a first and last chamber, wherein the grinder is a ball mill);
adding a first grinding agent system comprising one or more grinding agents (see OYTUN at Abstract, teaching that grinding aid B is added to the hydraulic binder which is then introduced to the first chamber of the grinder) and a second grinding agent system, which is different from the first grinding agent system, comprising one or more grinding agents, to the fresh feed to obtain a first material (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and [0074], teaching adding separator rejects comprising grinding aid A, which is different than grinding aid B, to the hydraulic binder feed comprising grinding aid B);
wherein the grinding agents that comprise the second grinding agent system are characterized in that they have a molecular weight between 45 g/mol and 110 g/mol (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraph [0048], teaching grinding aid A comprising an aminoalcohol, wherein the aminoalcohol comprises 2-8 carbon atoms and 1, 2 or 3 alcohol functions, which includes compounds falling within the claimed range; e.g., an aminoalcohol with 2 carbon atoms and 1 alcohol function is ethanolamine, which has a molecular weight of 61.08 g/mol; as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).);
grinding the material obtained in step b) to obtain a third material until the material reaches a desired fineness (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraphs [0015] and [0184], teaching grinding in the first chamber until it reaches a desired fineness which is of sufficient reduced size for finer grinding in the following chamber); and
further grinding the material obtained in step d) until the material reaches a desired fineness (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraphs [0073] and [0174], teaching further grinding the material in the last chamber to obtain ground composition C having a desired fineness).
OYTUN fails to explicitly mention (i) that the particles of the fresh feed have a fineness characterized in that 50% or less of said particles pass through a 1 mm sieve; (ii) that the material obtained in step d) has a fineness characterized in that not more than 1 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 1 mm sieve and not more than 50 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 90 μm sieve; or (iii) that the material obtained in step d) is further ground until the material reaches a fineness of 40 wt.% retained on a 45 μm sieve.
Regarding (i)-(iii) above, OYTUN teaches that the hydraulic binder provided to the first chamber has a large particle size, and teaches that the particles in the first chamber are ground to a Blaine fineness of, e.g., 1,100 to 1,200 cm2/g, and that the particles in the second chamber are ground to a Blaine fineness of, e.g., 2,200 cm2/g (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0015], [0035], [0107] and [0155] and Fig. 7). Applicant’s specification discloses that the particle size obtained in step d) having a fineness characterized in that not more than 1 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 1 mm sieve and not more than 50 wt.% of the particles are retained on a 90 μm sieve corresponds to a Blaine fineness of 800 to 3,200 cm2/g (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 21, lines 12-17 and Table 5), and discloses that the particle size obtained in step e) having a fineness of 40 wt.% retained on a 45 μm sieve corresponds to a Blaine fineness of approximately 2,200 g/cm2 (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 3, lines 23-25); therefore, the particles of OYTUN would be expected to have fineness lying within or overlapping with the claimed ranges in (ii)-(iii) above as they can have the same corresponding Blaine fineness values for steps d) and e) as those disclosed in Applicant’s specification, and the particles of step (i) above would be expected to overlap with the claimed range as these particles must be larger than the particles of steps d) and e). MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Further regarding (i)-(iii) above, OYTUN teaches that that the particle size of the hydraulic binder affects reactivity and rheological properties, that the specific surface area of the cement particles and hence their particle size governs the interactions between the grinding aids and the cement, that particles in the first chamber must be ground until they are of sufficient reduced size for finer grinding in the following chamber, and that the parameters of the grinder should be optimized to reach the desired fineness (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0002], [0007], [0015], [0035], [0043], [0144] and [0184]). OYTUN therefore explicitly teaches that the particle sizes at each stage (including the particle size of the feed to the grinder, the particle size after the first stage of grinding, and the particle size after the second stage of grinding, corresponding to (i)-(iii) above) are result-effective variables which should be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the particle sizes of the fresh feed material, the material of step d), and the material of step e), including particle sizes meeting the limitations of (i)-(iii) above, in order to optimize process parameters, such as amount of grinding aid needed and interactions between the grinding aids and the binder, extent of grinding required in each stage to achieve the desired product, amount of separator rejects returned to the feed, etc., and to obtain desired hydraulic binder characteristics including improved quality, increased reactivity and desired rheological properties as taught by OYTUN (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0002], [0007], [0015], [0035], [0043], [0144] and [0184]).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, OYTUN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the grinding agents that comprise the first grinding agent system added in step b) are characterized in that they have a molecular weight above 110 g/mol and have 4 or more heteroatoms, wherein at least one of the heteroatoms is oxygen (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0021]-[0028], teaching that grinding aid B may comprise an aminoalcohol or salt thereof, e.g., triethanolamine (TEA), which has a molecular weight of 149.19 g/mol and has 4 heteroatoms, one nitrogen and 3 oxygens).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, OYTUN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the first grinding agent system is added in step b) in a dosage overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of between 0.01% and 0.5% by weight, based on the weight of the particles of the fresh feed (see OYTUN at paragraph [0033], teaching introducing grinding aid B into the first chamber in a proportion of 50 to 2,500 grams per tonne of hydraulic binder, i.e., 0.005% to 0.25% by weight). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, OYTUN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the second grinding agent system is added in a dosage overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of between 0.01 % and 0.5% by weight, based on the weight of the particles of the fresh feed (see OYTUN at paragraph [0056], teaching adding grinding aid A in a proportion of 50 to 2,500 grams per tonne of hydraulic binder, i.e., 0.005% to 0.25% by weight). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, OYTUN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the total weight of the first grinding agent system is added to the fresh feed and/or the total amount of the second grinding agent system, subsequent to step c), is added to the fresh feed, in a weight feeder and/or in one or more conveyor belts and/or in a fresh feed chute (see OYTUN at paragraph [0109] and Figs. 1 and 8, teaching adding grinding aid B to the fresh feed inlet line to the cement ball mill grinder, i.e., the feed chute).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, OYTUN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the total weight % of the first and second grinding agent systems overlaps with and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of between 0.02% and 1.0% by weight, based on the weight of the particles of the fresh feed (see OYTUN at paragraphs [0033] and [0056], teaching adding grinding aids A and B each in a proportion of 50 to 2,500 grams per tonne of hydraulic binder, i.e., 0.005% to 0.25% by weight, i.e., the total amount of both grinding agent systems added is 0.01% to 0.5% by weight). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, OYTUN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the cement ball mill is a two-chamber cement ball mill comprising a first and second chamber, and wherein the grinding of step d) and further grinding of step e) are carried out in the first and second chamber, respectively (see OYTUN at Abstract and paragraphs [0086]-[0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on (571) 270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731