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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference characters #114’, 114b, 124, 154 in Fig. 1
Reference character #410 in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 22-23, 26-28 and 33-34 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.
Claims 22-23 and 33-34 recite “configured to move the chute…on moving the screen support frame”, wherein the phrase “on moving” is unclear.
Claims 26-28 recites the limitation "the transportable screening system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 35 is identical to claim 24, and therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 16-27 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronson et al. (US 4598875) in view of Zimmerman (US 5551776).
Regarding claim 16, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 10-25), comprising:
a screen support frame (Fig. 2 see frame of #50) configured to receive and support a multideck screen (Fig. 2 #50) that comprises a plurality of stacked screen decks (Fig. 6 #50A, 50B, 50C) configured to output different size fractions at a discharge end of the screen decks (Fig. 6 see different size fractions at lower end of #50A, 50B, 50C);
a dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) comprising a reception configured to receive from the multideck screen, when installed, the output different size fractions (Fig. 6 #45 configured to receive different size fractions from #50A, 50B, 50C) and further comprising a chute (Fig. 6 #70, 72) configured to guide at least one of the different size fractions to a chute output position (Col. 7 line 58-Col. 8 line 7); and
a platform frame (Fig. 1 #16) configured to movably support the screen support frame (Fig. 2 #16 configured to movably support frame of #50) so that the screen support frame and the multideck screen are movable between an elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position) and to a lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position);
wherein the chute output position laterally resides outside a lateral footprint bordered by the platform frame (Fig. 1 see output of #70, 72 residing outside a lateral footprint bordered by #16); and
wherein the chute is configured to be in a chute transport state (Fig. 4 see #70, 72 in chute transport state) and a chute operating state (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 in chute operating state) so that at least a portion of a weight of the chute is carried by the dividing hopper in and between these states (Figs. 4, 6 portion of weight of #70, 72 is carried by #45).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching wherein the chute is configured to be movable between a chute transport state and a chute operating state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) is configured to be movable between a chute transport state and a chute operating state (Col. 4 lines 53-60).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is configured to be movable between a chute transport state and a chute operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 17, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #70, 72) is further configured to be connected to the dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 connected “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) in both the chute transport state and the chute operating state (Fig. 4 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute transport state, Fig. 6 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute operating state).
Regarding claim 18, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute is telescopically movable.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) is telescopically movable (Col. 4 lines 53-66).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is telescopically movable as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 19, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute comprises two parts.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) comprises two parts (Fig. 6 #22, 23).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute comprises two parts as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 20, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 19, wherein the chute comprises a fixed part attached to the dividing hopper and a movable part that is telescopically movable along the fixed part.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) comprises a fixed part (Fig. 6 #22) attached to the dividing hopper (Fig. 6 #22 attached to #40, Col. 5 line 60-Col. 6 line 10) and a movable part (Fig. 6 #23) that is telescopically movable along the fixed part (Col. 5 lines 3-10).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute comprises a fixed part attached to the dividing hopper and a movable part that is telescopically movable along the fixed part as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 21, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute is lockable to the operating state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 9 #20) is lockable to the operating state (Fig. 9 see #39 “clamp” holding #35 “cable” in a fixed location; Col. 5 lines 21-25).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is lockable to the operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 22, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising moving the screen support frame to the lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute retraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 43-53).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 23, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising moving the screen support frame to the elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute extraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 25-30).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 24, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising two or more of the chutes (Fig. 6 #70, 72).
Regarding claim 25, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the dividing hopper is supported by the screen support frame (Fig. 6 see “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45 supported by frame of #50).
Regarding claim 26, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a towing base (Fig. 5 #12) for towable movement of the transportable screening system (Col. 8 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 27, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a support leg base (Fig. 2 #20) for fixed installation of the transportable screening system (Col. 3 lines 27-34).
Regarding claim 29, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a crusher (Fig. 2 #40).
Regarding claim 30, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches a method for adapting a mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 10-25) between operating and transport configurations (Col. 3 lines 27-36), comprising:
receiving and supporting by a screen support frame (Fig. 2 see frame of #50) a multideck screen (Fig. 2 #50) that comprises a plurality of stacked screen decks (Fig. 6 #50A, 50B, 50C) configured to output different size fractions at a discharge end of the screen decks (Fig. 6 see different size fractions at lower end of #50A, 50B, 50C);
receiving by a dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) different size fractions from the multideck screen (Fig. 6 #45 configured to receive different size fractions from #50A, 50B, 50C) and guiding by a chute (Fig. 6 #70, 72) the different size fractions to a chute output position (Col. 7 line 58-Col. 8 line 7);
movably supporting by a platform frame (Fig. 1 #16) the screen support frame (Fig. 2 #16 configured to movably support frame of #50) so that the screen support frame and the multideck screen are movable between an elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position) and a lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position);
wherein the chute output position laterally resides outside a lateral footprint bordered by the platform frame (Fig. 1 see output of #70, 72 residing outside a lateral footprint bordered by #16); and
providing the chute in a chute transport state (Fig. 4 see #70, 72 in chute transport state) and a chute operating state (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 in chute operating state)so that at least a portion of a weight of the chute is carried by the dividing hopper in and between these states (Figs. 4, 6 portion of weight of #70, 72 is carried by #45).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching providing movement of the chute between a chute transport state and a chute operating state.
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching wherein the chute is configured to be movable between a chute transport state and a chute operating state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a method for adapting a mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) comprising providing movement of the chute (Fig. 2 #20) between a chute transport state and a chute operating state (Col. 4 lines 53-60).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include providing movement of the chute between a chute transport state and a chute operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 31, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising maintaining the chute connected to the dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 connected “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) in both the chute transport state and the chute operating state (Fig. 4 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute transport state, Fig. 6 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute operating state).
Regarding claim 32, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 17, wherein the chute is telescopically movable.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) is telescopically movable (Col. 4 lines 53-66).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is telescopically movable as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 33, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 17, further comprising moving the screen support frame to the lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute retraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 43-53).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 34, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 18, further comprising moving the screen support frame to the elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute extraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 25-30).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 35, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising two or more of the chutes (Fig. 6 #70, 72).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronson et al. (US 4598875) in view of Zimmerman (US 5551776) and further in view of Andersen (US 9808834).
Regarding claim 28, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a track base for self-propelling movement of the transportable screening system.
Andersen (US 9808834) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-10) further comprising a track base (Fig. 3 #34) for self-propelling movement of the transportable screening system (Col. 9 lines 20-29).
Andersen (US 9808834) explains that in general, mobile screening apparatus include a centrally located power plant that is used to drive the driving tracks, vibratory screen motors, or other equipment (Col. 1 lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a track base for self-propelling movement of the transportable screening system as taught by Andersen (US 9808834) in order to transport the transportable screening system by a centrally located power source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653