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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 10-11 and 19-20 have been withdrawn. The prior art rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delwel (US 4,582,263) in view of Seo (KR 20120000774).
Regarding claim 1, Delwel discloses a material handling system (drum granulator, abstract, Fig. 2) comprising a rigid frame (outer steel layer 34, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2) and a moveable liner (inner rubber layer 35, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2), wherein the frame comprises at least one aperture having an area (apertures 36-39, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2) and wherein the system comprises an actuator system for applying a force to a surface of the liner in the area of the aperture (deforming roller drops into apertures 36-39 to press on rubber layer 35, col. 2 ll. 50 to col. 3 ll. 2, Figs. 1-2).
Delwel teaches a system substantially as claimed. Delwel does not disclose wherein the system further comprises an inclination adjustment system for adjusting an angle of the rigid frame and/or the moveable liner to the ground.
However, in the same field of endeavor of handling granulated material in a rotating drum (abstract), Seo teaches an inclination adjustment system for adjusting an angle of the rigid frame and/or the moveable liner to the ground (lifting device 70 lifts structure and thereby inclines rotary drum member 10, p. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Delwel to incorporate lifting device 70 of Seo to lift rectanguloid framework 11 of Delwel because p. 4 of Seo teaches that doing so enables the adjustment of the moving speed of the granulated material through the rotary drum.
Regarding claim 2, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the moveable liner is a flexible liner (inner rubber layer 35, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2), optionally an elastomeric or rubber liner (inner rubber layer 35, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the moveable liner comprises a rigid or resilient member flexibly or elastically mounted to the frame (inner rubber layer 35 is resilient because it is rubber that is elastically mounted to the frame, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the moveable liner is not a mesh (inner rubber layer 35 is not a mesh, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the actuator system applies a force to the liner (deforming roller drops into apertures 36-39 to deform rubber layer 35, the deformation is indicative that the deforming roller is applying a force to rubber layer 35, col. 2 ll. 50 to col. 3 ll. 2, Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 6, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the force applied to the liner is substantially perpendicular to a surface of the liner (deforming roller drops into apertures 36-39 to press on rubber layer 35, as shown this force is going to be perpendicular because it is pressing in a direction opposite of a radial direction, col. 2 ll. 50 to col. 3 ll. 2, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the force applied to the liner is a tapping force (deforming roller drops into apertures 36-39 to press on rubber layer 35, col. 2 ll. 50 to col. 3 ll. 2, Figs. 1-2; the nature of this force constitutes a tapping force).
Regarding claim 8, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the rigid frame is in the form of a rotatable drum (outer steel layer 34 of a drum rotating on rotatable shaft 15, col. 2 ll. 29-36, Fig. 2; col. 2 ll. 50 to col. 3 ll. 2, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the rotatable drum has a longitudinal axis of rotation (axis of shaft 15, Fig. 2), wherein the axis of rotation is inclined to the horizontal at an angle of from 0° to about 30° (depicted as horizontal, which is inclined 0° or at least close to it, Fig. 2; further, as modified, lifting device 70 of Delwel would be capable of inclining the axis of rotation).
Regarding claim 12, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the actuator system comprises a rotatable shaft having at least one actuator arm mounted radially thereto (rotatable shaft 15 with cam rollers 14 mounted radially thereto connected to deforming means 13, col. 2 ll. 7-28, Fig. 1), wherein the or each actuator arm is arranged to bear against the moveable liner (deforming means 13 deform the liner col. 2 ll. 50 to col. 3 ll. 2, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Delwel as modified teaches a prime mover for rotating the rotatable shaft (external power source drives a wheel, which rotates the drum, which rotates shaft 15, col. 2 ll. 7-28, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the actuator system comprises at least one actuator arm pivotally mounted adjacent an area of an aperture (arm 28 is so mounted, col. 2 ll. 37-49, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Delwel as modified teaches wherein the or each arm comprises a distally-mounted wheel or roller (deforming roller mounted to arm 28, col. 2 ll. 37-49, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delwel (US 4,582,263) in view of Seo (KR 20120000774) as applied to claims 12 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Webster (US 2,812,541).
Regarding claim 16, Delwel as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Delwel does not disclose wherein at least one of the or each arms is cranked.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing adhering particles from the edge of a rotating drum with a flexible liner (Fig. 3), Webster teaches wherein at least one of the or each arms is cranked (oblique plate 54 is cranked, Fig. 2; separately, connection between support brace 58 and oblique plate 54 is also bent and therefore cranked, Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Delwel such that the structure of an arm is cranked because Fig. 2 of Webster teaches an arm that is cranked performing the same task in the same technical context, namely supporting a structure for deforming a flexible liner in a rotating drum of particulate.
Regarding claim 17, Delwel as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Delwel does not disclose wherein the actuator system comprises at least one linear actuator adapted to bear against the moveable liner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing adhering particles from the edge of a rotating drum with a flexible liner (Fig. 3), Webster teaches wherein the actuator system comprises at least one linear actuator adapted to bear against the moveable liner (mechanical flexing device 49, col. 4 ll. 15-40, Figs. 2-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Delwel to replace cam roller 24 with mechanical flexing device 49 of Webster because mechanical flexing device 49 of Webster performs the same function in the same technical context to deform a flexible liner in a rotating drum of particulate.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delwel (US 4,582,263) in view of Seo (KR 20120000774) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baker (US 3,254,801).
Regarding claim 18, Delwel as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Delwel does not disclose load cells for weighing material in or passing through the system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of particular material in a rotary cylinder (col. 1 ll. 10-20), Baker teaches load cells for weighing material in or passing through the system (col. 5 ll. 19-30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Delwel to include load cells because col. 5 ll. 19-30 of Baker teaches that load cells can measure the weight of material in the drum at a period of time, and the change in weight over time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 102 or USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seo (KR 20120000774).
Applicant argues that a modification of Delwel to include an inclination adjustment system for adjusting an angle of the rigid frame and/or the moveable liner to the ground would have made the reference unsuitable for its intended purpose. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it depends on requiring an inclination of outer steel layer 34 but not framework 11. Applicant does not offer any justification for such a narrow view. As noted above, the modification in view of Seo includes inclining the entire framework 11, which would in turn incline the outer steel layer 34 and the inner rubber layer 35. Such a modification is in keeping with the teachings of lifting device 70 of Seo to incline and thereby increase the speed at which material passes through the rotating drum. Applicant’s argument entails adding an engineering problem that would not occur to a person of ordinary skill in the art relative to the more straightforward application of Seo. To do otherwise would, as Applicant correctly conveys, create all sorts of problems that would frustrate the functionality of Delwel. Applicant’s argument would be more applicable if the inclination adjustment system adjusted the angle of the moveable liner relative to the rigid frame, but that is not, at least presently, the case.
Of note, Applicant’s concern would not apply to the modification in view of Webster. By using a linear actuator instead of the falling arm, the linear actuator would deform the flexible liner (inner rubber layer 35 of Delwel) by being lined up with the aperture.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights