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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 5 and 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the…outlet channel extension liner" in the 2nd and 3rd lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 5 to depend from claim 4 so that the limitation has sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 5 will be examined in this manner for compact prosecution purposes.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the top surface of the substantially closed separator body” in the 2nd and 3rd lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claiming use of the classifier as claimed in claim 1 does not claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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.
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.
Claim 1, 6-7, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0133009 A1 by Wark, hereinafter “Wark”.
Regarding claim 1, Wark discloses a classifier (the classifier shown in Figs. 4 and 6; ¶[0016] and [0018]) comprising an annular body (see “Annular Body” annotation to Fig. 6 of Wark reproduced below) having:
a plurality of spaced static vanes extending inwardly from an interior sidewall of the annular body, the plurality of spaced static vanes separating the annular body into a plurality of sections (see “Static Vanes” annotation below), wherein the plurality of spaced static vanes are configured to divide a swirling flow of particles entering the annular body into a plurality of swirling flows of particles circulating about the plurality of sections of the annular body (the Static Vanes are configured to perform the recited function during operation of the classifier),
a deflector ring located interior to the annular body, circumferentially facing the inwardly extending plurality of spaced static vanes (deflector ring classifier skirt 28 in Fig. 6; ¶[0021]), wherein the deflector ring is configured to receive the plurality of swirling flows of particles circulating about the annular body (classifier skirt 28 is configured to performs the recited function during operation of the classifier),
an outlet housing (outlet housing turret 34 in Fig. 6; ¶[0022]) having one or more outlet channels mounted over the deflector ring (outlet channel conduits 44 and 48 in Fig. 6; ¶[0023]), wherein the outlet housing is in fluid communication with the deflector ring (turret 34 is in fluid communication with skirt 28 in Fig. 6), wherein the outlet housing is configured to receive fine particles in the plurality of swirling flows of particles that are directed upward from the deflector ring and guide the fine particles in the plurality of swirling flows into a plurality of controlled flows that are communicated to the one or more outlet channels for discharge (turret 34 is configured to perform the recited function during operation of the classifier), and
a reject cone extending downward from a bottom side of the annular body, wherein the reject cone having an upper region co-planar with the bottom side of the annular body and reject cone opposing sidewalls, each extending inward at an angle away from an edge of the bottom side of the annular body, and a lower region parallel to the upper region (reject cone shield 26 in Fig. 6 has its upper region co-planar with the Annular Body annotated below and has inwardly angled sidewalls; ¶[0021]), wherein the reject cone is configured to receive coarse particles falling out from the plurality of swirling flows of particles in the upper region and direct the falling coarse particles in a direction away from annular body, the deflector ring and the outlet housing towards the lower region of the reject cone for removal therefrom (conical shield 26 is configured to perform the recited function during operation of the classifier), wherein
the deflector ring comprises an interior sidewall liner circumferentially affixed to an interior sidewall of the deflector ring and an exterior sidewall liner circumferentially affixed to an exterior sidewall of the deflector ring (¶[0026] teaches wear plates may be added to deflector ring classifier skirt 28 in Fig. 6 without expressly specifying where the wear plates are located on skirt 28. ¶[0010] teaches wear resistant materials are preferably added to high wear locations to extend life of the assembly. A person of ordinary skill would understand this as teaching wear plates would be added to both the interior sidewall and exterior sidewall of skirt 28 to extend its life.),
the outlet housing comprises a frusto-conical shaped body (outlet housing turret 34 in Fig. 6 has a frusto-conical shaped body), a base region formed on a top surface of the deflector ring (the base region of turret 34 is formed on the top of deflector ring skirt 28), outlet housing opposing sidewalls, each extending outward at an angle away from an edge of the top surface of the deflector ring (the sidewalls of turret 34 extend outwardly at an angle from the top of skirt 28), and a top region parallel to the base region that joins with each of the opposing angled sidewalls extending outward from the edge of the top surface of the deflector ring (top wall 40 in Fig. 6 defines a top region parallel to the base region of turret 34; ¶[0022]), the top region having an upper surface extending thereover with one or more openings formed therein corresponding to the one or more outlet channels (top wall 40 in Fig. 6 has openings corresponding to outlet channel conduits 44 and 48; ¶[0023]),
wherein the outlet housing further comprises an interior sidewall liner affixed to an interior surface of each of the opposing angled sidewalls, each interior sidewall liner extending from a corresponding edge of the top surface of the deflector ring to a respective portion of the top region, and an upper wall liner affixed to an inner wall of the upper surface of the top region, the upper wall liner extending along all of the inner wall of the upper surface of the top region formed between the one or more openings (¶[0026] teaches wear plates may be added to outlet housing turret assembly 34 in Fig. 6 without expressly specifying where the wear plates are located on turret 34. ¶[0010] teaches wear resistant materials are preferably added to high wear locations to extend life of the assembly. A person of ordinary skill would understand this as teaching wear plates would be added to all of the interior surface of turret assembly 34 to extend its life.).
PNG
media_image1.png
994
1425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wark renders the classifier according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Wark further teaches a spout (spout outlet structure 13 in Fig. 4; ¶[0020]) coupled to the lower region of the reject cone (outlet structure 13 is coupled to the lower region of reject conical shield 26 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Wark teaches a pulverizer (pulverizer/classifier 10 Fig. 4; ¶[0016]) comprising:
a substantially closed separator body configured to receive particles of material (see “Separator Body” annotation to Fig. 4 of Wark reproduced below),
a rotatable table located in the interior of the substantially closed separator body configured to receive the particles of material (table 18 in Fig. 4; ¶[0020]), at least one grinding roll configured to grind the particles of material against the rotatable table (grinding roll wheel 20 in Fig. 4; ¶[0020]),
a gas inlet to the substantially closed separator body, wherein the gas inlet is configured to direct an upward flow of gas from circumferential regions of the rotatable table, wherein the upward flow of gas directs pulverized particles of material received at the circumferential regions of the rotatable table due to centrifugal forces of the rotatable table in an upward direction, wherein the pulverized particles are entrained in the upward flow of gas (see “Gas Inlet” annotation below),
a classifier supported in the substantially closed separator body above the rotatable table to receive the upward flow of pulverized particles from the rotatable table, wherein the classifier is configured to sort the particles entrained in the upward flow into particles of a desired size and particles of an undesired size (classifier shown in Fig. 6; ¶[0018]),
wherein the classifier directs the particles of the desired size out from a top surface of the substantially closed separator body and directs the particles of the undesired size back towards the rotatable table for additional grinding with the at least one grinding roll (the classifier shown in Fig. 6 operates as claimed during operation of the pulverizer),
wherein the classifier is as claimed in claim 1 (the classifier shown in Fig. 6 is taught as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
1320
1051
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Wark renders the pulverizer according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. Wark further teaches an inlet channel extends through the substantially closed separator body into the classifier to supply the particles of material to the rotatable table (inlet channel chute 12 in Fig. 4; ¶[0020]), wherein the inlet channel comprises an inverted cone at a lower portion of the inlet channel (see “Inverted Cone” annotation to Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 13, Wark teaches a method of operation of a pulverizer as defined in claim 7, wherein said method comprises providing feed of coal to the pulverizer and obtaining pulverized coal from the pulverizer (¶[0020] discloses pulverizer/classifier 10 in Fig. 4 is a coal pulverizer/classifier).
Regarding claim 14, Wark teaches a use of the classifier as claimed in claim 1 for separating particles of coal in a pulverizer (¶[0020] discloses pulverizer/classifier 10 in Fig. 4 is a coal pulverizer/classifier).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wark in view of Chinese Publication No. CN 106040364 A by Zhou, hereinafter “Zhou”.
Regarding claim 2, Wark renders the classifier according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. ¶[0010] of Wark further teaches wear resistant materials are preferably added to high wear locations to extend life of the assembly. However, Wark does not specifically teach reject cone conical shield 26 in Fig. 4 comprises an interior sidewall liner affixed to each interior surface of the sidewalls of the reject cone and an exterior sidewall liner affixed to each exterior surface of the sidewalls of the reject cone.
In the same field of updraft vertical mills, Zhou teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a replaceable liner to the reject cone of an updraft vertical mill. See the figure and written description.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Zhou to the classifier taught by Wark by extending coverage of Wark’s wear plates to the interior and exterior surfaces of Wark’s conical shield 26. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Zhou to the classifier of Wark would achieve the predictable result of extending the wear plate coverage to other portions of the classifier as Zhou teaches.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Wark in view of Zhou renders the classifier according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Zhou further teaches extending liner 3 the full length of the air guide cone. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend coverage of Wark’s wear plate the full length of Wark’s conical shield 26 as Zhou teaches.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wark in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,341,011 to Prescott, hereinafter “Prescott”.
Regarding claim 4, Wark renders the classifier according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Wark does not specifically disclose an outlet channel extension liner as claimed in claim 4.
In the same field of air classifiers, Prescott teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use liners in conduits extending to and from air classifiers. See col. 2, line 28-34.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Prescott to Wark’s classifier by extending Wark’s wear plates within turret 34 into outflow conduits 44 and 48 of Fig. 6 in the same way Prescott teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Prescott to Wark’s classifier would achieve the predictable result of extending wear resistant liners into conduit channels leading to and from Wark’s classifier.
Regarding claim 5, Wark renders the classifier according to claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Wark further teaches the interior sidewall liner, the exterior sidewall liner, upper wall liner and/or outlet channel extension liner comprises a ceramic liner material, wear resistant plates and/or Hi-Chrome alloy castings. Paragraph [0010] teaches the wear plates referenced in paragraph [0026] are made from cermet, i.e. ceramic-metal, materials.
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wark in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,237,021 to Wood et al., hereinafter “Wood”.
Regarding claim 8, Wark renders the classifier according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. ¶[0010] of Wark teaches wear resistant materials are preferably added to high wear locations to extend life of the assembly. But Wark does not specifically teach affixing an abrasion resistant liner to an interior surface of the top surface of the substantially closed separator body and a portion of sidewalls extending downward therefrom.
In the same field of pulverizer-classifiers, Wood teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a liner to the interior top and side surfaces of the closed separator body of a pulverizer-classifier. See liner 7 in casing A in Fig. 1 and the written description at page 2, column 1, line 36-44.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Wood to Wark’s pulverizer by adding wear plates to Wark’s Separator Body in the same way Wood teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Wood to the pulverizer of Wark would achieve the predictable result of adding a liner to the separator body as Wood teaches.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Wark in view of Wood renders the classifier according to claim 8 unpatentable as explained above. Wood further shows liner 7 in Fig. 1 extends inwardly along the top surface of casing A to classifier K. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when incorporating a liner within Wark’s Separator Body to extend the liner to Wark’s skirt 28 in the same way Wood shows liner 7 extending along the top surface of casing A to classifier K.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Wark in view of Wood renders the classifier according to claim 8 unpatentable as explained above. ¶[0010] of Wark teaches wear resistant materials are preferably added to high wear locations to extend life of the assembly. Wood further shows liner 7 in Fig. 1 extends inwardly along the top surface of casing A to classifier K. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when incorporating a liner within Wark’s Separator Body to extend the liner to Wark’s Annular Body and reject cone conical shield 26 to extend the serviceable life of the Separator Body.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Wark in view of Wood renders the classifier according to claim 8 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0010] of Wark teaches adding cermet, i.e. ceramic-metal, materials to high wear areas. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Wood’s liner 7 from cermet materials as Wark teaches.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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.
/P.D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725