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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 19 November 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of patent No. 11,833,500 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 27-31, 37-39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin (US 9,637,325).
Regarding claim 21, the reference Albin discloses an addition system (100) for introducing particulate material into an industrial process (see Abstract; Fig. 6), the addition system (100) comprising:
(a) a vessel (i.e., transport pot 180) for holding the particulate material, wherein the vessel has a top (18a) and a bottom (18b) (see col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 6);
(b) one or more weighing devices (56) (see col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 6);
(c) a controller (60) for controlling operation of the addition system (see col. 8, lines 10-40; col. 11, lines 10-13; Fig. 4);
(d) a base plate (19a) (i.e., as shown in Fig. 6, the base or platform structure 19a upon which vessel 180 is supported) to support the vessel (180) and optionally the controller (60) (see col. 10, lines 16-51); and
(e) three or more legs (20), each leg (20) having an uppermost section that connects to the vessel (180) and a foot that is connected to the base plate (19a), wherein the one or more weighing devices (56) are mounted on the base plate (19a) and support the legs (20) of the vessel (180), such that the legs (20) of the addition system (100) connect to the base plate (19a) through the weighing devices (56) (see col. 10, lines 44-51; Figs. 3-6); and the widest diameter of the vessel (180) is less than the diameter of a circle drawn through the feet of the legs (20) (see col. 10, lines 44-51; Figs. 3-6).
The reference Albin is, however, silent with respect to the vessel (i.e., the transport pot 180) comprising a quick release hatch at the top of the vessel or on a side of the vessel. However, as evidenced the reference Albin (see col. 4, lines 20-27; Fig. 1), it is well-known the art to provide a quick release hatch (33, 34) on a vessel (e.g., the dust collector vessel 16, as shown in Fig. 1) to facilitate a quick access into the interior of the vessel.
Accordingly, 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 addition system of Albin to include a quick release hatch at a top or on a side of the vessel (180) of Albin in application where it is desired to have a quick access into the interior of the vessel (180), for any reason, such as for maintenance, inspection, and/or cleaning, as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 23, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the bottom (18b) of the vessel (180) is cone-shaped (see col. 7, lines 1-7; col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 24, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the one or more weighing devices (56) comprises load cells (see col. 10, lines 44-51; Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 27, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the addition system comprises a jacking system (62) (see col. 7, lines 43-58; col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 28, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the foot of each leg (20) is connected to a jacking system (62) which comprises an extension piece (57) that extends from the foot of each leg (20), and the extension piece (57) accommodates a jacking bolt (62a) that may be secured to a securing mount that is supported on the base plate (19a) (see col. 7, lines 43-58; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the jacking system (62) additionally comprises a locking bolt (62a) that is capable of securing the extension piece (57) to the securing mount (see col. 7, lines 43-58; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the locking bolt (62a) is capable of being secured to a locking nut (62b) on the securing mount (see col. 7, lines 43-58; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 31, The reference Albin teaches that the addition system (100) includes: a dust collector (160) arranged above the vessel (180) (see col. 6, lines 23-33; col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 6); and a filter (32) mounted within the dust collector (160) to collect dust generated by a flow of particulate material into the dust collector (160) (see col. 5, lines 21-27; col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 6). The reference Albin further teaches that a piping (58) is used to equalize pressures within an internal volume (26) of the dust collector (160) and an internal volume (50) of the vessel (180) while loading of the particulate material into the vessel (180) (see col. 8, lines 3-14; col. 9, lines 30-35; Fig. 6). The reference Albin further teaches that in alternative embodiments, the addition system can be equipped with additional filters (32) (see col. 4, lines 27-29; col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 6). Accordingly, 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 addition system of Albin to include a filter (32) within the vessel (180) to similarly collect dust generated by the flow of the particulate material from the dust collector (160) into the vessel (180), since the reference Albin teaches that alternative embodiments of the addition system can be equipped with more than one filters (32) (see col. 4, lines 27-29; col. 10, lines 16-31; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 37, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the vessel (180) further comprises a vacuum ejector (30) to depressurize the vessel (see col. 5, lines 5-57; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 38, the reference Albin discloses that the addition system has three legs (20) (see col. 7, lines 32-38; col. 10, lines 44-51; Fig. 6). Further, as illustrated in Figs. 1-4 and 6 of Albin, it is typical in the art to arrange the legs such that a radius (r2) of a circle in a horizontal plane through the feet of the three legs is larger than a radius (r1) of a circle in a horizontal plane through the uppermost section of the legs which are connected to the vessel (180) in order to properly support the vessel above the weighing devices (i.e., load cells) (56). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to spread the three legs of Albin to have any suitable ratio r2:r1 sufficient to properly support the vessel above the weighing devices, including a ratio r2:r1 within the range 1.1 to 1.3, as claimed by applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 39, the reference Albin discloses that the addition system further comprises a metering device interfaced with the vessel (180) and configured to provide a metric indicative of an amount of particulate material transferred from the vessel to the industrial process (see col. 8, line 40 to col. 9, line 29).
Regarding claim 40, the reference Albin discloses the addition system, wherein the industrial process is a fluid catalytic cracking process (see col. 11, lines 30-32).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Rolfe et al. (US 4,287,997).
Regarding claim 25, the reference Albin does not specifically specify that the base plate (19a) is comprised of a solid plate of metal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base plate (19a) of Albin comprised of a solid plate of metal, since the reference Albin teaches that the base plate (19a) can be constructed as part of a cabinet structure to protect the addition system from damaging elements in the environment, e.g., plant dust, rain, direct sunlight, as well as to serve as a shipping container (see col. 3, lines 33-61; col. 10, lines 39-43; Figs. 3-4). Furthermore, as evidenced by the reference Rolfe et al. (see col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 15; Figs. 1-3), it is typical in the art to construct a shipping container from solid metal plates.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Evans et al. (US 8,146,414).
Regarding claim 32, the reference Albin discloses that the filter (32) can be installed in the horizontal orientation (see col 4, lines 17-31; Fig. 6). The reference Albin, however, does not specifically specify that the filter (32) is a sintered metal filter element. However, as evidenced by the reference Evans et al. (see col. 12, lines 49-56), it is typical in the art to construct a filter from a sintered metal material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the filter(s) (32) of Albin from a sintered metal filter element because, as evidenced by the reference Evans et al. (see col. 12, lines 49-56), it is typical in the art to construct a filter from a sintered metal material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims, 33-35 the claims would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein the vessel comprises a first and a second opening, the first opening of the vessel is connected to an exhaust path exiting the vessel and the filter is installed and sealed in the first opening in the vessel, the filter is installed and sealed such that exhaust passes through the filter before passing to the exhaust path and then being exhausted to atmosphere; the second opening is installed on the vessel directly opposite the first opening and is utilized to support the filter in a horizontal manner within the vessel, as recited in claim 33.
Regarding claim 36, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein the vessel comprises a first opening, the first opening of the vessel is connected to an exhaust path exiting the vessel and the filter is installed and sealed in the first opening in the vessel, the filter is installed and sealed such that exhaust passes through the filter before passing to the exhaust path and then being exhausted to atmosphere, wherein the filter is supported by two or more rigid support bars surrounding the horizontal filter element, with one end of each support bar being attached into a securing plate of the first opening and the other end of the support bar attached to an end cap at the opposite end of the horizontal filter, as recited in claim 36.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, as evidenced the reference Albin (see col. 4, lines 20-27; Fig. 1), it is well-known in the art to install a quick release hatch (33, 34) on a vessel (e.g., the dust collector vessel 16, as shown in Fig. 1) to facilitate a quick access into the interior of the vessel. Thus, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in application where it is desired to have access into the interior of the vessel (180), for any reason, such as for maintenance, inspection, and/or cleaning, to modify the addition system of Albin to include a quick release hatch, similar to that taught by Albin, at a top or on a side of the vessel (180) of Albin, as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Applicant argues that the reference Albin cannot properly be said to disclose or suggest a base plate as required by Applicant's claim 21, i.e., "a base plate to support the vessel... wherein the one of more weighing devices are mounted on the base plate and support the legs of the vessel, such that the legs of the addition system connect to the base plate through the mounted weighing devices." (see Remarks, pages 7-8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 21 is written in an open ended format and does not exclude the presence of other structural elements (e.g., footings) between the legs of the vessel and the one or more weighing devices, such that the legs of the addition system can ultimately connect to the base plate through the weighing devices. For ease of reference, Figs. 5 and 6 of the reference Albin are reproduced below with added annotations to show how the structures illustrated in the Figures read on the claim limitation with respect to how the legs of the addition system connect to the base plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the examiner maintains the position that reference Albin meets the claim limitation: wherein the one of more weighing devices are mounted on the base plate and support the legs of the vessel, such that the legs of the addition system connect to the base plate through the mounted weighing devices, as recited in claim 21.
Applicant also argue:
There is nothing in Albin that would suggest that the claimed system design would allow small addition system vessels to be used to add much larger amounts of catalyst, more reliably and accurately than previously possible. Nor does the prior art teach or suggest that the base plate configuration of Applicant's system would be a much simpler design than the complex metal beam support frame that is more conventionally used. As discussed in the present application (and shown in the Albin cabinet), the conventional addition system design has a support frame completely surrounding the vessel. This is done to provide structural stability, and to provide support for ancillary equipment. However, such a support frame is expensive to manufacture, and Applicant has recognized that it provides insufficient structural stability to keep the weight readings stable enough for accurate control of additions. As also discussed in the present application, the base plate of the present invention helps to provide stability of the weight readings and is suitable for transporting the addition system without buckling the plate (even permitting the addition of cross members to improve transportation stability). (see Remarks, page 9).
These arguments are not found persuasive. The instantly claimed addition system is open ended and is not closed to addition of additional, unrecited structural elements, such as a support frame to provide support for ancillary equipment. Further, as no structural distinction is seen between the base plate configuration recited in claim 21 and the base plate structure (19a) taught by Albin, the base plate structure of Albin is considered capable of providing stability of the weight readings and transporting the addition system without buckling the plate. This is because, according to the teachings of Albin (see col. 7, lines 43-58), the base plate structure (19a) is design to support the weight of the addition system.
Conclusion
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 Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774