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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swanson (WO 2020/012369).
Regarding claim 1, Swanson teaches a method for forming and processing an agricultural slurry (agricultural samples in a samples that produces a slurry, ABS), the method comprising:
adding water and agricultural solids to a mixing chamber of a mixing device (sample preparation sub-system 3002 generally performs the functions of receiving the soil sample cores in a mixer-filter apparatus 100, see ¶340);
agitating the water and agricultural solids at a first speed with the mixing device to form a slurry (mixing the soil and water mixture to produce a soil sample slurry, removing or transferring the slurry from mixer-filter apparatus, see ¶340);
discharging the slurry from the mixing device into a filter unit via a flow conduit fluidly coupled therebetween (the sample preparation sub-system 3002 generally performs the functions of receiving the soil sample cores in a mixer-filter apparatus 100, see ¶340; a filter assembly including a partially threaded filter retainer 145 and a detachable annular filter 146 is provided to filter the slurry extracted from the mixing chamber 102, see ¶356; see Fig. 6);
coarsely filtering the slurry through the filter screen of a coarse filter to remove particles in the slurry larger than a predetermined first maximum particle size (the sample preparation sub-system 3002 generally performs the functions of receiving the soil sample cores in a mixer-filter apparatus 100, see ¶340; a filter assembly including a partially threaded filter retainer 145 and a detachable annular filter 146 is provided to filter the slurry extracted from the mixing chamber 102, see ¶356; see Fig. 6); and
receiving the filtered slurry from the filter unit in a stirring chamber of a stirring device defining a stirring chamber (the filtered slurry is transferred to a centrifuge, see Fig. 2) and ¶407; and
agitating the slurry at a second speed different than the first speed in the stirring device (this is implied because the mixer-filter apparatus 100 is structurally different than the centrifuge, therefore the speeds will be different).
Regarding claim 3, Swanson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first speed is faster than the second speed (centrifuge speeds are inherently higher than mixing speeds).
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.
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 2, 4-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (WO 2020/012369) in view of Thomas (US 2008/053221).
Regarding claim 2, Swanson teaches the method according to claim 1.
Swanson does not teach wherein the mixing device includes a rotatable first blade mechanism which is rotated during the agitating the water and agricultural solids step to form the slurry, and the stirring device includes a rotatable second blade mechanism which is rotated during the agitating the slurry step.
In a related field of endeavor, Thomas teaches a method for determining absolute density of cement slurry (see ABS) comprising a mixing device (slurry mixer 16) includes a rotatable first blade mechanism (Thomas uses a cement slurry mixer, cement mixers are designed to have at least one rotatable blade) which is rotated during the agitating the water and agricultural solids step to form the slurry, and the stirring device includes a rotatable second blade mechanism (stirrer 20) which is rotated during the agitating the slurry step (see ¶59-¶61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson by incorporating the mixing device and stirring device of Thomas because it is the simple addition of known devices for a mixing operation in order to achieve the proper density of slurry (Thomas, see ¶61).
Regarding claim 4, Swanson teaches the method according to claim 1.
Swanson does not teach wherein the stirring chamber of the stirring device forms an integral part of a closed slurry recirculation flow loop fluidly coupled to the coarse filter unit.
In a related field of endeavor, Thomas teaches a method for determining absolute density of cement slurry (see ABS) wherein the stirring chamber of the stirring device forms an integral part of a closed slurry recirculation flow loop fluidly coupled to the coarse filter unit (see ¶59-¶61 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson by forming an integral part of a closed slurry recirculation flow loop as disclosed by Thomas because it has the benefit of enhanced effiency, consistency and convenience.
Regarding claim 5, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 4, wherein the slurry recirculation flow loop comprises a slurry recirculation pump which circulates the slurry through the slurry recirculation flow loop and the stirring device (Thomas, see ¶59-¶61).
Regarding claim 6, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 5, wherein the slurry recirculation flow loop is fluidly isolated from the mixing device when the slurry is circulating through the slurry recirculation flow loop (Thomas, see ¶59-¶61).
Regarding claim 7, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 5, wherein the stirring device is operable to maintain the slurry in a mixed homogenous state as the slurry circulates through the slurry recirculation flow loop (Thomas, see ¶59-¶61).
Regarding claim 8, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 7, further comprising measuring a density of the slurry in the mixed homogenous state concurrently with circulating the slurry through the slurry recirculation flow loop (Thomas, see ¶59-¶61).
Regarding claim 9, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 8, wherein the slurry recirculation flow loop comprises a density measurement device which measures the density of the slurry (Thomas, see ¶59-¶61).
Regarding claim 11, Swanson teaches the method according to claim 1,
Swanson does not teach wherein the slurry recirculation flow loop is fluidly coupled to a slurry chemical analysis sub-system configured to analyze the slurry for an analyte of agricultural- related significance.
In a related field of endeavor, Thomas teaches a method for determining absolute density of cement slurry (see ABS) wherein the slurry recirculation flow loop is fluidly coupled to a slurry chemical analysis sub-system (densitometer) configured to analyze the slurry for an analyte of agricultural- related significance (Thomas, see ¶59-¶61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson by incorporating a slurry chemical analysis as disclosed by Thomas because it is the simple addition of a known device for provide continuous density and pressure measurements (Thomas, see ¶61).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (WO 2020/012369) in view of Thomas (US 2008/053221) and further in view of Schollenberger (USPN 9,383,242).
Regarding claim 10, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 9.
Thomas further discloses a densitometer to provide continuous density and pressure measurements (see ¶61).
The combination of references does not teach wherein the density measurement device is a U-tube vibrational density meter configured to measure slurry in a dynamic flowing state through the meter or a stagnant flow state.
In a related field of endeavor, Schollenberger teaches a fluid characteristic determination (see ABS) wherein the density measurement device (sensor assemblies 101, 102) is a U-tube vibrational density meter (see Fig. 1 of U-shaped assemblies, these assemblies work by exciting a U-shaped tube to oscillate at its natural frequency therefore the vibrational function is an inherent characteristic of the device) configured to measure slurry in a dynamic flowing state through the meter or a stagnant flow state (during the measurements, the fluid may be flowing or stationary, see C6/L35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson by incorporating the U-shaped density measurement device as disclosed by Schollenberger because it is the simple addition of a known density meter for the benefit of providing continuous density and pressure measurements.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (WO 2020/012369) in view of Thomas (US 2008/053221) and further in view of Slager (US 2007/0056914).
Regarding claim 12, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 11.
The combination of references does not teach further comprising finely filtering the slurry through a fine filter unit fluidly disposed within the slurry recirculation flow loop before a step of flowing filtered slurry from the fine filter unit to the slurry chemical analysis sub-system.
In a related field of endeavor, Slager teaches an agricultural cleaning and treatment apparatus and method (see ABS) comprising a fine filter assembly to receive intermediate slurry (see claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson by incorporating the fine filter as disclosed by Slager because it is the simple addition of a known fine filter assembly for the benefit of filtering to ready for return to a municipal sewer service or other uses in an agricultural installation (Slager, see ¶24).
Regarding claim 13, Swanson, Thomas and Slager according to claim 12, wherein the fine filter unit is configured to remove solid particle in the slurry having a predetermined second maximum particle size smaller than the predetermined first maximum particle size of the coarse filter unit (Slager, this is an inherent characteristic of the fine filter assembly).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (WO 2020/012369) in view of Ritchie (USPN 2,757,799).
Regarding claim 14, Swanson teaches the method according to claim 1.
Swanson does not teach further comprising pressurizing the flow conduit with air between the mixing device and stirring device to drive the slurry through the coarse filter unit and into the stirring device.
In a related field of endeavor, Ritchie teaches an automatic filtration equipment (see ABS) comprising pressurizing the flow conduit with air to drive the slurry (high-pressure air line 98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson as disclosed by Ritchie because it is the simple addition of a known fine filter assembly for the benefit of filtering to ready for return to a municipal sewer service or other uses in an agricultural installation (Ritchie, see C3/L40-50).
Regarding claim 15, Swanson and Ritchie teach the method according to claim 14, wherein the mixing device is fluidly isolated from the flow conduit during the pressurizing step (Ritchie, the pressurized line is isolated with two-way valve 102).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (WO 2020/012369) in view of Gonzalez (EP 3 636 602).
Regarding claim 16, Swanson teaches the method according to claim 1.
Swanson does not teach further comprising injecting pressurized air and water forming an aerated stream through the coarse filter unit during the coarsely filtering step to prevent solid particles larger than the predetermined first maximum particle size from blocking the filter screen.
In a related field of endeavor, Gonzalez teaches a filter (see ABS) comprising injecting pressurized air and water (pressurized air through line 42 and pressurized water through line 43) forming an aerated stream (pressurized fluid) through the coarse filter unit (filter tank 1) during the coarsely filtering step to prevent solid particles larger than the predetermined first maximum particle size from blocking the filter screen (see ¶39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson by injecting pressurized air and water into the filter as disclosed by Gonzalez because it in cleaning the filter device (Gonzalez, see ¶41).
Regarding claim 17, Swanson and Gonzalez teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the coarsely filtering step comprises flowing the slurry in a first direction through the filter screen and flowing the aerated stream through the filter screen in a second direction opposite to the first direction (Gonzalez, see Fig. 1 and ¶39-45).
Regarding claim 18, Swanson and Gonzalez teach the method according to claim 17, wherein the slurry enters a first cavity in the coarse filter unit on a first side of the filter screen and the pressurized air and water are injected into a second cavity in the filter unit on a second side of the screen opposite the first side (Gonzalez, see Fig. 1 and ¶39-45).
Regarding claim 19, Swanson and Gonzalez teach the method according to claim 18, wherein the coarse filter unit comprises a slurry inlet configured to flow the slurry in a linear flow path through the first cavity, a waste outlet configured to discharge the oversized particles from the first cavity in the same linear flow path, and a slurry outlet configured to discharge the filtered slurry in a direction transverse to the linear flow path (Gonzalez, see Fig. 1 and ¶39-45).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (WO 2020/012369) in view of Thomas (US 2008/053221) and further in view of Forell (USPN 3,605,815).
Regarding claim 20, Swanson and Thomas teach the method according to claim 5.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the slurry recirculation flow loop further comprises an accumulator positioned upstream of the slurry pump, the accumulator configured to dampen pressure surges in the slurry recirculation flow loop.
In a related field of endeavor, Forell teaches a pressure accumulator (see ABS) comprising an accumulator (tubular body 10) positioned upstream of the slurry pump, the accumulator configured to dampen pressure surges (this is an inherent characteristic of the accumulator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Swanson (as modified by Thomas) by incorporating pressure accumulator as disclosed by Forell on the recirculation loop on Thomas because it is the simple addition of a known pressure accumulator device for the benefit of providing effective capacity for high pressure fluid lines (Forell, see C2/L15-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at (571) 270-3960. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773