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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 with respect to the prior art of YU (CN107597292A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Yu does not disclose or suggest any structure capable of positioning the fixing ring at a designated position of the first box. Therefore, Yu does not disclose or suggest that "the surface of the first box facing the second box is provided with a fixing groove, the fixing ring is located in the fixing groove, a shape of the fixing ring matches a shape of the fixing groove, a size of the fixing ring matches a size of the fixing groove".
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structure capable of positioning the fixing ring at a designated position of the first box) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and
these limitations of claims 1, 4, 7-8 and 20 are just to assemble the elements of the pulverizer; the limiting protrusions and limiting grooves are just a fixing mechanism for fixing the rotor; and
The prior art of YU (CN107597292A) discloses the first box (4) including a housing, a fixing mechanism to assemble the first box (fig.1: (4)) to the second box (fig.1: (3)); wherein the fixing mechanism having a fixing ring and a hole to receive a screw (see fig.1 below);
Further; the prior art of YU discloses that the stator (5) is fixed to the first box (4) (paragraphs 0007 and 0029),
So, the prior art of YU (CN107597292A) must have a fixing mechanism for fixing the stator (5) to the first box (4); and
It appears both of the configuration of the fixing mechanism of the Applicant’s disclosure and the prior art of YU lead to the same result of assembling the elements of the pulverizer;
Furthermore, having a configuration of a fixing mechanism would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the configuration of the fixing mechanism as desired, as a matter of routine engineering design choice; in order to assemble the elements of the pulverizer;
Or, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the fixing mechanism of YU by any equivalent fixing mechanism in order to assemble the elements of the pulverizer. (MPEP 2143).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argued that “the Office has neither properly determined the scope and content of the cited references nor properly ascertained the differences between the claimed invention and the cited references.
In response to this argument, the examiner properly determined the scope and content of the cited references and properly ascertained the differences between the claimed invention and the cited references (last office action pages 7-8);
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “the Office has articulated no reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed combination obvious in view of the references, despite these differences”.
In response to this argument, the Examiner clearly give a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed combination obvious in view of the references, despite these differences (last office action pages 7-8).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 22-23, there is no written description regarding “a radial width of the fixing groove is greater than a width of the mounting groove”, the entire specification submission on 11/07/2023 is silent regrading “a radial width of the fixing groove is greater than a width of the mounting groove”;
Applicant has not pointed out where the claims are supported in Applicant's specification, nor does there appear to be a written description of the following claim limitations in Applicant’s specification as filed.
Therefore, the applicant does not have written support to show that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing based on the applicant’s original disclosure.
Therein, the amended claims 22-23 has introduce a new matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU (CN107597292A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7-8, YU discloses a pulverizer (paragraphs 0001-0004 and 0029-0038), comprising:
a support frame (fig.1: (1));
a stator (fig.1: (5)) connected to the support frame, the stator having a stator pulverizing surface (fig.3: (51)); and
a rotor (fig.1: (6)) connected to the support frame, the rotor being rotatable, and the rotor having a rotor pulverizing surface (fig.1: (61)); wherein: the stator pulverizing surface is opposite to the rotor pulverizing surface,
a pulverizing chamber is formed between the stator pulverizing surface and the rotor pulverizing surface (fig.2: the chamber between elements (5) and (6)), and
a distance between the stator pulverizing surface and the rotor pulverizing surface is adjustable (paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0038).
a first box (fig.1: (4)) connected to the stator (fig.1: (5)),
a second box (fig.1: (3)) arranged opposite the first box, the first box being connected to the second box (fig.2), and
a distance between the first box and the second box being adjustable in an arrangement direction of the first box and the second box (paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0038),
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7-8 does not disclose a fixing ring located between the stator and the second box, the fixing ring being fixedly connected to a surface of the first box facing the second box and the surface of the first box facing the second box is provided with a fixing groove, the fixing ring is located in the fixing groove, a shape of the fixing ring matches a shape of the fixing groove, a size of the fixing ring matches a size of the fixing groove, and in an arrangement direction of the first box and the second box, a lower surface of the fixing ring is above a lowermost surface of the first box facing the second box; wherein the first box further comprises: a housing, the mounting groove being located in the housing, and the mounting groove running through an end surface of the housing away from the second box; and an end cover for covering the end surface of the housing away from the second box, the end cover being detachably connected to the housing; and wherein: the plurality of limiting protrusions are a plurality of first limiting protrusions, the plurality of limiting grooves are a plurality of first limiting grooves; the end surface of the housing away from the second box is provided with an annular boss, and a projection of an inner ring of the annular boss on the first plane is located within a projection of an inner ring of the mounting groove on the first plane; and an end surface of the stator facing the annular boss is provided with a second limiting protrusion, an end surface of the annular boss facing the stator is provided with a second limiting groove, and the second limiting protrusion is located in the second limiting groove.
However; these limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7-8 are just to assemble the elements of the pulverizer; the limiting protrusions and limiting grooves are just a fixing mechanism for fixing the rotor; and
YU discloses the first box (4) including a housing, a fixing mechanism to assemble the first box (fig.1: (4)) to the second box (fig.1: (3)); wherein the fixing mechanism having a fixing ring and a hole to receive a screw (see fig.1 above);
Further; the prior art of YU discloses that the stator (5) is fixed to the first box (4) (paragraphs 0007 and 0029),
So, the prior art of YU must have a fixing mechanism for fixing the stator (5) to the first box (4); and
It appears both of the configuration of the fixing mechanism of the Applicant’s disclosure and the prior art of YU lead to the same result of assembling the elements of the pulverizer;
Furthermore, having a configuration of a fixing mechanism would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the configuration of the fixing mechanism as desired, as a matter of routine engineering design choice; in order to assemble the elements of the pulverizer;
Or, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the fixing mechanism of YU by any equivalent fixing mechanism in order to assemble the elements of the pulverizer. (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses wherein a distance between the stator and the support frame is adjustable (paragraphs 00017).
Regarding claim 10, YU discloses wherein the side of the first box (fig.1: (4)) away from the second box (fig.1: (3)) is provided with a feed opening (fig.1: (7)), a discharge opening (fig.1: (14)) is formed between the first box and the second box, and the feed opening and the discharge opening are both in communication with the pulverizing chamber.
Regarding claim 11, YU discloses wherein the rotor (fig.1: (6)) is of a truncated conical structure, the rotor pulverizing surface is an outside surface of the rotor,
the stator (fig.1: (5)) is internally provided with a truncated conical groove matching the shape of the rotor (fig.1: see the internal groove of the stator (5)), an inside surface of the stator is the stator pulverizing surface, and the rotor is located in the truncated conical groove (fig.1: see the internal truncated conical groove of the stator (5) that received the truncated conical rotor (6)) (paragraphs 0030-0032).
Regarding claim 12, YU does not disclose wherein the pulverizer satisfies at least one of following conditions: a first included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the rotor is greater than or equal to 65° and less than or equal to 80°; and a second included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the truncated conical groove is greater than or equal to 65° and less than or equal to 80°;
However, YU concerns about the forming angles of the stator and the rotor for the purpose achieving gradually fine grinding of the material (paragraph 0030);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of YU by making a first included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the rotor is greater than or equal to 65° and less than or equal to 80°; and a second included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the truncated conical groove is greater than or equal to 65° and less than or equal to 80° for the purpose achieving gradually fine grinding of the material (YU: paragraph 0030), since it has been held that “where 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, YU discloses wherein the second included angle is less than or equal to the first included angle (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 14, YU discloses wherein the rotor is provided with a plurality of rotor blades, and the rotor blades form the rotor pulverizing surface (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claims 15-17, YU does not disclose wherein the plurality of rotor blades comprise a first blade set and a second blade set, wherein a number of blades of the first blade set is less than a number of blades of the second blade set; wherein a distance between the first blade set and the support frame is greater than a distance between the second blade set and the support frame; wherein the stator is provided with a plurality of stator blades, the plurality of stator blades form the stator pulverizing surface, and the stator blade has a thickness greater than that of the rotor blade.
However, choosing the configuration of the shape, numbers and the arrangement of the blades of the stator and the rotor is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the pulverizer and specific requirements of the pulverizing process as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the plurality of rotor blades comprise a first blade set and a second blade set, wherein a number of blades of the first blade set is less than a number of blades of the second blade set; wherein a distance between the first blade set and the support frame is greater than a distance between the second blade set and the support frame; wherein the stator is provided with a plurality of stator blades, the plurality of stator blades form the stator pulverizing surface, and the stator blade has a thickness greater than that of the rotor blade in order to meet a specific requirement of the general design of the pulverizer and specific requirements of the pulverizing process as desired as desired.
Regarding claim 18, YU does not disclose wherein at least one of the rotor blade and the stator blade is a ceramic blade.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to YU to have wherein at least one of the rotor blade and the stator blade is a ceramic blade, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its properties for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 19, YU discloses a driving mechanism (fig.1: (2)) connected to the support frame, an output shaft (fig.1: (80)) of the driving mechanism being connected to the rotor.
Regarding claim 20, YU discloses a pulverizer (paragraphs 0001-0004 and 0029-0038), comprising:
a support frame (fig.1: (1));
a stator (fig.1: (5)) connected to the support frame, the stator having a stator pulverizing surface (fig.3: (51)); and
a rotor (fig.1: (6)) connected to the support frame, the rotor being rotatable, and the rotor having a rotor pulverizing surface (fig.1: (61)); wherein the stator pulverizing surface is opposite to the rotor pulverizing surface,
a first box (fig.1: (4)) connected to the stator (fig.1: (5)),
a second box (fig.1: (3)) arranged opposite the first box, the first box being connected to the second box (fig.2), and
a distance between the first box and the second box being adjustable in an arrangement direction of the first box and the second box (paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0038),
a pulverizing chamber is formed between the stator pulverizing surface and the rotor pulverizing surface (fig.2: the chamber between elements (5) and (6)), and
a distance between the stator pulverizing surface and the rotor pulverizing surface is adjustable (paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0038);
the rotor (fig.1: (6)) is of a truncated conical structure, the stator (fig.1: (5)) is internally provided with a truncated conical groove matching the shape of the rotor (fig.1: see the internal groove of the stator (5)), and the rotor is located in the truncated conical groove (fig.1: see the internal truncated conical groove of the stator (5) that received the truncated conical rotor (6)) (paragraphs 0030-0032);
YU does not disclose and a second included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the truncated conical groove is equal to a first included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the rotor;
However, YU concerns about the forming angles of the stator and the rotor for the purpose achieving gradually fine grinding of the material (paragraph 0030);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of YU by making a second included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the truncated conical groove is equal to a first included angle between a generatrix and a bottom surface of the rotor for the purpose achieving gradually fine grinding of the material (YU: paragraph 0030), since it has been held that “where 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
YU does not disclose a fixing ring located between the stator and the second box, the fixing ring being fixedly connected to a surface of the first box facing the second box, an end surface of the fixing ring facing the stator is provided with a plurality of limiting grooves evenly arranged along a circumference of the fixing ring, and each of the plurality of first limiting protrusions is located in a corresponding one of the plurality of first limiting grooves; and the surface of the first box facing the second box is provided with a fixing groove, the fixing ring is located in the fixing groove, a shape of the fixing ring matches a shape of the fixing groove, a size of the fixing ring matches a size of the fixing groove, and in an arrangement direction of the first box and the second box, a lower surface of the fixing ring is above a lowermost surface of the first box facing the second box;
However; these limitations are just to assemble the elements of the pulverizer; the limiting protrusions and limiting grooves are just a fixing mechanism for fixing the rotor; and
YU discloses the first box (4) including a housing, a fixing mechanism to assemble the first box (fig.1: (4)) to the second box (fig.1: (3)); wherein the fixing mechanism having a fixing ring and a hole to receive a screw (see fig.1 above);
Further; the prior art of YU discloses that the stator (5) is fixed to the first box (4) (paragraphs 0007 and 0029),
So, the prior art of YU must have a fixing mechanism for fixing the stator (5) to the first box (4); and
It appears both of the configuration of the fixing mechanism of the Applicant’s disclosure and the prior art of YU lead to the same result of assembling the elements of the pulverizer;
Furthermore, having a configuration of a fixing mechanism would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the configuration of the fixing mechanism as desired, as a matter of routine engineering design choice; in order to assemble the elements of the pulverizer;
Or, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the fixing mechanism of YU by any equivalent fixing mechanism in order to assemble the elements of the pulverizer. (MPEP 2143).
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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights