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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re: claims 1, 15, and 19, “delivered a biomass” should read “delivered to a biomass”. For purposes of examination, the examiner has added this as indicated with [] (brackets).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor et al. (EP 2,362,025) in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561).
Re: claim 1, Proctor et al. teaches a biomass delivery system (Fig. 7) comprising: a vehicle chassis assembly (Fig. 6 – tipper truck 100); a cab assembly (Annotated Fig. 7 – Cab) coupled to the vehicle chassis assembly (Fig. 6 – tipper truck 100); a material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230) coupled to the vehicle chassis assembly (See Fig. 7) and capable of receiving biomass material (Abstract – lines 3-4); an unloading system (Fig. 7 – hopper conveyor 232) capable of removing the biomass material from the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230); and a screening assembly (Fig. 7 – separator 240) capable of receiving biomass material from the biomass unloading system (Fig. 7 – hopper conveyor 232) and filter the biomass material to pass properly-sized biomass material while removing oversize biomass material (Paragraph 0060). Proctor et al. fails to teach one or more scale assemblies configured to define one or more of a weight and a quantity of properly-sized biomass material delivered [to] a biomass processing system.
However, Strayer teaches one or more scale assemblies (Fig. 3 - 32) configured to define one or more of a weight and a quantity of properly-sized material (See Page 3 – Col 1 – Line 70 to Col. 2 – Line 1) delivered [[to]] a processing system (33).
Proctor et al. and Strayer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of material movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s assembly with those of Strayer’s scale(s) in order to provide for a more efficient and cost productive system (i.e., having a specific amount/weight of material being processed at a time allows for a system to not be as strained, lasting a longer time, being more efficient, and reduced the cost for not needing as many repairs/maintenance).
It is noted that the separator (240) comprises star wheels (242), which operate as a material screen wherein smaller material falls through and larger material is moved along and dumped out the front end.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Proctor et al. teaches wherein the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230) is a top load hopper assembly capable of receiving the biomass material through the top of the material hopper assembly (See Fig. 7).
Re: claim 4, Proctor et al. teaches wherein the biomass unloading system (Fig. 7 – hopper conveyor 232) includes a live floor assembly positioned within (See Fig. 7 at hopper conveyor 232) the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230).
Re: claim 7, Proctor et al. teaches further comprising: a grinding assembly (Paragraph 0060 – lines 6-9) (Fig. 7 – waste skip 290) configured to process the oversize biomass material received from the screening assembly (Fig. 7 – separator 240) to produce reduced size biomass material (Paragraph 0043 – lines 8-11).
Re: claim 8, Proctor et al. teaches wherein the grinding assembly (Paragraph 0060 – lines 6-9) (Fig. 7 – waste skip 290) is configured to provide the reduced size biomass material into (Paragraph 0043 – by loading mechanism 220 in Fig. 7 – More detailed view as loading mechanism 120 in Fig. 6) the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230).
Re: claim 11, Proctor et al. teaches comprising: a distribution hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – guide 262) configured to receive the properly-sized biomass material from the screening assembly (Paragraph 0008).
Re: claim 12, Proctor et al. teaches further comprising: a biomass material distribution system (Fig. 7 – separator conveyor 249) configured to receive the properly-sized biomass material from the distribution hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – guide 262) and deliver the properly-sized biomass material to the biomass processing system (Fig. 7 – mixer 250).
It is noted for clarification that when the separator conveyor (249) is unmoving, the guide (262) has the ability to act as a hopper, thereby storing material temporarily within.
Re: claim 13, Proctor et al. teaches wherein the biomass material distribution system is a powered biomass material distribution system (Annotated Fig. 7 – motors 246).
Re: claim 15, Proctor et al. teaches a biomass delivery system (Fig. 7) comprising: a vehicle chassis assembly (Fig. 6 – tipper truck 100); a cab assembly (Annotated Fig. 7 – Cab) coupled to the vehicle chassis assembly (Fig. 6 – tipper truck 100); a material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230) coupled to the vehicle chassis assembly (See Fig. 7) and capable of receiving biomass material (Abstract – lines 3-4); an unloading system (Fig. 7 – hopper conveyor 232) capable of removing the biomass material from the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230); a screening assembly (Fig. 7 – separator 240) capable of receiving biomass material from the biomass unloading system (Fig. 7 – hopper conveyor 232) and filter the biomass material to pass properly-sized biomass material while removing oversize biomass material (Paragraph 0060); and a grinding assembly (Paragraph 0060 – lines 6-9) (Fig. 7 – waste skip 290) configured to process the oversize biomass material received from the screening assembly (Fig. 7 – separator 240) to produce reduced size biomass material (Paragraph 0043 – lines 8-11). Proctor et al. fails to teach one or more scale assemblies configured to define one or more of a weight and a quantity of properly-sized biomass material delivered [to] a biomass processing system.
However, Strayer teaches one or more scale assemblies (Fig. 3 - 32) configured to define one or more of a weight and a quantity of properly-sized material (See Page 3 – Col 1 – Line 70 to Col. 2 – Line 1) delivered [[to]] a processing system (33).
Proctor et al. and Strayer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of material movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s assembly with those of Strayer’s scale(s) in order to provide for a more efficient and cost productive system (i.e., having a specific amount/weight of material being processed at a time allows for a system to not be as strained, lasting a longer time, being more efficient, and reduced the cost for not needing as many repairs/maintenance).
Re: claim 16, Proctor et al. teaches wherein the grinding assembly (Paragraph 0060 – lines 6-9) (Fig. 7 – waste skip 290) is configured to provide the reduced size biomass material into (Paragraph 0043 – By means of loading mechanism 220 in Fig. 7 – More detailed view as loading mechanism 120 in Fig. 6) the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230).
Re: claim 17, Proctor et al. teaches comprising: a distribution hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – guide 262) configured to receive the properly-sized biomass material from the screening assembly (Paragraph 0008).
Re: claim 18, Proctor et al. teaches further comprising: a biomass material distribution system (Fig. 7 – separator conveyor 249) configured to receive the properly-sized biomass material from the distribution hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – guide 262) and deliver the properly-sized biomass material to the biomass processing system (Fig. 7 – mixer 250).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor et al. in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561) in view of Arrez et al. (US 2002/0141854 A1). Re: claim 3, Proctor et al. is silent on whether the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230) is a rear load hopper assembly configured to receive the biomass material through the rear of the material hopper assembly.
However, Arrez et al. teaches the material hopper assembly (Fig. 1 – rear load hopper assembly 26) is a rear load hopper assembly (Fig. 1 – rear load hopper assembly 26) configured to receive the biomass material through the rear of the material hopper assembly (Paragraph 0020).
Proctor et al. and Arrez et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of biomass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s hopper with those of Arrez et al.’s rear load hopper assembly in order to provide for a more efficient and cost productive system (i.e., being able to load the material from the side rather than the top allows for faster loading and reduces the time to load, which saves money over a period of time).
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). A hopper can be loaded from a finite number of positions, it would have been obvious to try and load material into the hopper from positions other than the top. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor et al in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561).
Re: claim 14, Proctor et al. fails to teach wherein the biomass material distribution system is an unpowered biomass material distribution system.
Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
It is noted that having the separator conveyor with a declining angle toward the mixer would allow for the system to be unpowered.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor et al. in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561) in view of Miller (US 2018/0231247 A1).
Re: claim 5, Proctor et al. fails to teach wherein the biomass unloading system includes an auger assembly positioned within the material hopper assembly.
However, Miller teaches wherein the biomass unloading system (Fig. 2 – material delivery system 36) includes an auger assembly (Fig. 1 – auger system 38) positioned within the material hopper assembly (Fig. 2 – hopper system 12).
Proctor et al. and Miller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of biomass production. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s hopper conveyor with those of Miller’s auger system in order to provide for a more efficient and cost productive system (i.e., an auger would allow for harsh inclines should the assembly need to be compact/vertical; along with keeping the material all within the conveyor making it less likely material falls out of the system).
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). See also Paragraph 0007 of Miller.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor et al. in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561) in view of Warf (US 5,387,267).
Re: claim 6, Proctor et al. fails to teach wherein the screening assembly includes a vibrating screening assembly.
However, Warf teaches wherein the screening assembly (Fig. 2c – vibrating screen 36, screen decks 180 & 182) includes a vibrating screening assembly (Fig. 2c – vibrating screen 36, screen decks 180 & 182).
Proctor et al. and Warf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of biomass production. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s separator with those of Warf’s vibrating screen in order to provide for a more efficient and cost productive system (i.e., using a vibrating screen would allow for softer materials to break apart easier and reduce the power being used in place of crushers/grinders).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor et al. in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561) in view of McAlister (US 2013/0205647).
Re: claim 9, Proctor et al. fails to teach comprising: a hopper heating assembly configured to warm the biomass material within the material hopper assembly.
However, McAlister teaches comprising: a hopper heating assembly (Fig. 3b – heat exchanger 312) configured to warm the biomass material within the material hopper assembly (Fig. 3b – hopper 311) (Paragraph 0054).
Proctor et al. and McAlister are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of biomass production. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s hopper with those of McAlister’s heat exchanger in order to provide for a more efficient system (i.e., preheating the biomass allows for better energy conversion).
Re: claim 10, McAlister further teaches wherein the hopper heating assembly (Fig. 3b – heat exchanger 312) is configured to be energized with engine waste heat (Fig. 3b – Waste heat 360).
Re: claim 19, Proctor et al. teaches a biomass delivery system (Fig. 6 & 7) comprising: a vehicle chassis assembly (Fig. 6 – tipper truck 100); a cab assembly (Fig. 6 – front of tipper truck 100 (on marking of element)) coupled to the vehicle chassis assembly (Fig. 6 – tipper truck 100); a material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230) coupled to the vehicle chassis assembly (See Fig. 7) and configured to receive biomass material (Abstract – lines 3-4); a biomass unloading system (Fig. 7 – hopper conveyor 232) configured to remove the biomass material from the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230); a screening assembly (Fig. 7 – separator 240) capable of receiving biomass material from the biomass unloading system (Fig. 7 – hopper conveyor 232) and filter the biomass material to pass properly-sized biomass material while removing oversize biomass material (Paragraph 0060); and a grinding assembly (Paragraph 0060 – lines 6-9) (Fig. 7 – waste skip 290) configured to process the oversize biomass material received from the screening assembly (Fig. 7 – separator 240) to produce reduced size biomass material (Paragraph 0043 – lines 8-11); and a distribution hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – guide 262) configured to receive the properly-sized biomass material from the screening assembly (Paragraph 0008). Proctor et al. fails to teach a hopper heating assembly configured to warm the biomass material within the material hopper assembly; one or more scale assemblies configured to define one or more of a weight and a quantity of properly-sized biomass material delivered [to] a biomass processing system.
However, Strayer teaches one or more scale assemblies (Fig. 3 - 32) configured to define one or more of a weight and a quantity of properly-sized material (See Page 3 – Col 1 – Line 70 to Col. 2 – Line 1) delivered [[to]] a processing system (33). Strayer fails to teach a hopper heating assembly configured to warm the biomass material within the material hopper assembly.
Proctor et al. and Strayer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of material movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s assembly with those of Strayer’s scale(s) in order to provide for a more efficient and cost productive system (i.e., having a specific amount/weight of material being processed at a time allows for a system to not be as strained, lasting a longer time, being more efficient, and reduced the cost for not needing as many repairs/maintenance).
However, McAlister teaches a hopper heating assembly (Fig. 3b – heat exchanger 312) configured to warm the biomass material within the material hopper assembly (Fig. 3b – hopper 311) (Paragraph 0054).
Proctor et al. and McAlister are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of biomass production. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Proctor et al.’s hopper with those of McAlister’s heat exchanger in order to provide for a more efficient system (i.e., preheating the biomass allows for better energy conversion).
Re: claim 20, Proctor et al. further teaches wherein the grinding assembly (Paragraph 0060 – lines 6-9) (Fig. 7 – waste skip 290) is configured to provide the reduced size biomass material into (Paragraph 0043 – by loading mechanism 220 in Fig. 7 – More detailed view as loading mechanism 120 in Fig. 6) the material hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – hopper 230).
Re: claim 21, McAlister further teaches wherein the hopper heating assembly (Fig. 3b – heat exchanger 312) is configured to be energized with engine waste heat (Fig. 3b – Waste heat 360).
Re: claim 22, Proctor et al. teaches further comprising: a biomass material distribution system (Fig. 7 – separator conveyor 249) configured to receive the properly-sized biomass material from the distribution hopper assembly (Fig. 7 – guide 262) and deliver the properly-sized biomass material to the biomass processing system (Fig. 7 – mixer 250).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 7, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Proctor et al. (EP 2,362,025) in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561) for claims 1 and 15, and Proctor et al. (EP 2,362,025) in view of Strayer (Patent No. 2,269,561) in view of McAlister (US 2013/0205647) for claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cope discloses a truck mounted scale apparatus.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612