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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The argument are in view of the newly provided limitations of the addition of the flocculation agent occurring in the inlet conduit and that the previously applied reference teaches taking a sample to measure the liquid.
This will be addressed in the new rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 22-26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser et al, USP 3,842,005 in view of Ho, EP 0479569A2 (already of record) in view of Gilmore, US Patent Publication 2016/0122201.
Regarding claim 22, Moser teaches a method for treating green liquor in a green liquor treatment arrangement (see example 20 column 11), the method comprising:
adding a flocculation agent to green liquor (column 11 line 32) to form flocculated green liquor; supplying the flocculated green liquor to a clarifying vessel (column 11 line 33) for separating the flocculated green liquor into flocculated matter and clear green liquor (see example 20); removing flocculated matter through a sludge outlet (column 11 line 58 describes removal of the solids, the sludge outlet is not explicitly mentioned but must be present due the removal step described); and removing clear green liquor from the clarifying vessel (see example 20).
Moser teaches all of the claimed steps of clarifying the green liquor in a pulp process but is silent to the act of measuring the flocculation.
In the same field of endeavor of treating green liquors, Ho teaches that after adding the flocculation agent (example on page 5), measuring a flocculation of the flocculated green liquor (see claim 1 step b).
Ho teaches utilizing an in line measuring system to measure the solids separation or flocculation of the liquid that then takes that measured information to a controller to control the separation process based on the readings (see claim 1 step d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the inline measuring method of Ho in the green liquor flocculation treatment as taught by Moser for the benefit of quantifying the separation process and being able to utilize a controller to control the separation process. The act of measuring and controlling a process is well within the ability of the average artisan and basic engineering practice would see the advantages of measuring and controlling the same process in an active manner.
Ho teaches the claimed steps of measuring and adjusting the flocculating agents based on the measurements, but teaches that the samples measured are collected and not measuring online in the inlet conduit.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring a fluid with flocculating agents, Gilmore teaches a setup that provides for online measurements of the flocculation of the liquid through a use of online measurements at the inlet and again at the outlet of the flocculation process [0009] and states that the benefit of providing online instruments at key locations allows for simultaneous determinations of content calculations of the fluid [0011-0012 and 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the Gilmore placement of online sensors at the inlet of the device for comparison to the outlet of the device in the Ho method of doing the same thing but removing the samples for measurement. This is as Gilmore teaches the advantageous of simulations measurements that occur online in the process [0011-0012]. Additionally MPEP 2144.04 addresses the act of making integral (In re Larson) and making continuous (In re Dilnot) as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 23-26 and 28-29, Ho remains as applied above and further teaches the act of taking multiple measurements through a tube (see page 4) and that a continuous monitoring effect is utilized to control the dosage of the flocculant being fed into the starting liquid (page 4 lines 22-25). While the exact steps of the controller is not given the expected steps as seen by one of ordinary skill in the art would include a comparison to preset standards to make the automatic adjustments that are described. Additionally it has been held that the automation of a manual activity (comparing numbers to a standard or curve) is an obvious action to the average artisan.
Ho also teaches that it has been known in the past to measure before and after measurements of adding flocculant agents (page 2 lines 32-33). Ho teaches that doing this as an individual action can waste time and proposes his invention which is a continuous version to avoid down time (see page 2). Therefore the difference between measuring before addition and then again after addition would be time as it is a continuous action. The entire point of Ho is to have an active monitoring and control system for instant information on the system. The continuous monitoring provides that same real-time information and the monitor keeps track of the changes of before and after modifications occur. The Examiner states that this sufficiently reads on the claims as describing a measurement system before and after addition.
Alternatively, the act of performing a second measurement upstream of the addition to have a real time comparison would have been a simple duplication of parts. Especially in view of Gilmore’s teaching to perform an online measurement at the inlet and outlet of the device [0009].
Even as a duplication of parts has been held to be obvious it would have further provided clarity to the operator to see real time changes in addition to historical changes the monitoring system would have provided.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser et al, USP 3,842,005 in view of Ho, EP 0479569A2 (already of record) in view of Gilmore, US Patent Publication 2016/0122201 in view of Zou et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0197439.
Regarding claim 27, Moser and Ho remain as applied above but are silent to the act of controlling the rotational speed of a stirring device in a flocculation device, said flocculation device being a device in which the flocculation agent is added to the green liquor. Both references simply state to control the addition of the flocculation agent but leaves it up to the average artisan to understand how this occurs. Ho does teach that the addition occurs in a "rapid mx tank" in the examples but is silent to if that includes a stirring mechanism.
In the same field of adding flocculation agents to a wastewater (see figure where starting water comes from a papermaking process), Zou teaches the it is preferred to perform flocculation with a stirring action [041] for the benefit of providing enough agitation to mix the agent without breaking up the flocs [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the conventional stirring action of adding the flocculant agent as taught by Zou in the Moser reference which is simply silent to the state of the flocculation device for the benefit of forming flocs in a conventional manner without breaking them apart.
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 JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748