DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on January 05, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 1 in independent claim form.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP21184234.9 filed on 07/07/2021
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected because the specification referred to claim 1 in page 3 line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 20 recited in lines 3-4, recited the limitations “wherein the mantle and bowl define a crushing gap between them,” is suggested to be replaced with “wherein a crushing gap defined between the mantle and bowl“.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3,6,8,9-14,19 and 20 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 3 recited in lines 2-3, recited the limitations “the one or more grooves are spaced at regular intervals” is indefinite, Examiner is not sure the limitation of the claim appreciates the one … grooves to be spaced at regular intervals. the word “one” confused the Examiner and clarity is needed.
Claim 6 recited in lines 3-4, recited the limitations “in particular the shape of a V with a rounded bottom” is indefinite, the claim recited broad and narrow limitations at the same time render the mete and bound of the claim unclear.
Claim 8 recited in lines 2-3, recited the limitations “the one or more cavities and/or wear resistant inserts are formed in the crushing surface between the one or more grooves” is indefinite, Examiner is not sure the limitation of the claim appreciates the one or more cavities and/or wear resistance inserts to be formed between one groove. the word “one” confused the Examiner and clarity is needed.
Claim 8 recited in line 3, recited the limitations “as seen” is indefinite, this language of the claim is not understood and renders the claim unclear.
Claim 9 recited in lines 2-3, recited the limitations “one or more cavities and/or wear resistance inserts to be formed…in at least one row” is indefinite, Examiner is not sure the limitation of the claim appreciates the one cavity… to be formed…in at least one row. the word “one” confused the Examiner and clarity is needed. Please revise the other claims.
Claim 9 recited in lines 3-4, recited the limitations “in particular a circumferential row, e.g. in a plane perpendicular to the central axis” is indefinite, the claim recited broad and narrow limitations at the same time render the mete and bound of the claim unclear. Same goes for claims 11 and 12.
Claim 9 recited in line 4, recited the limitations “e.g.” is indefinite, this language of the claim is not understood and renders the claim unclear.
Claim 14 in line 2, recited the limitations “the spacing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be dependent of claim 11.
Claim 19 in line 3, recited the limitations “wherein the lower mantle is a mantle according to claim 1” is indefinite, it is unclear if the lower mantle is defined as the full disclosure of the mantle of claim 1 or a part of the mantle of claim 1 with the cavities and grooves. The limitation is defined as two mantles. Clarity is needed.
Claim 20 recited the limitations “a frame provided with a bowl as a first crushing shell, and a crusher head provided with a mantle as a second crushing shell, wherein the mantle and bowl define a crushing gap between them” is indefinite, the limitations are repetitive language of claim 1 and render the claim unclear if the limitations are the same of claim 1 or new/additional limitations.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 20 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. The limitations of claim 20 are the same in claim 1. 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 § 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 1-5, 7, 9-10, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuo EP publication (0,506,126) hereinafter Mitsuo.
Regarding claim 1,
Mitsuo discloses a mantle for a gyratory or cone crusher (see title), the crusher comprising
a frame (see fig.1) provided with a bowl (4) as a first crushing shell, and a crusher head (see fig.1) provided with the mantle (1 or 8) as a second crushing shell (2, conventionally and inherently gyratory crusher (see title) discloses frame, mantle, gap, bowl, shafts, heads and lining),
wherein the mantle and bowl define a crushing gap (w) between them,
wherein the mantle (1) comprises a central axis (g), a first end (see fig.1 of claim 9) and a second end (see fig.1 of claim 9) along the central axis (g), and
an outer peripheral surface (see col.7 lines 30-31) defined by a generatrix (cone shape) rotating around the central axis (g, see fig.1), the outer peripheral surface constituting a crushing surface (surface of element 2 in fig.1) of the mantle (1), and an outer diameter of the mantle being larger at the second end than at the first end of the mantle (see fig.1 of claim 9, the mantle has different diameter along the generatrix since the shape is conical),
wherein one or more grooves (7) are formed in the crushing surface at the second end of the mantle (see fig.1), and
wherein one or more cavities (3 and 6) for receiving wear resistant inserts (9) are formed in the crushing surface, and/or one or more wear resistant inserts are bonded to or into the crushing surface (see fig.8).
Regarding claim 2,
Mitsuo further discloses wherein the one or more grooves (7) extend along the crushing surface generally in a direction from the second end towards the first end of the mantle (see fig.1 and 8).
Regarding claim 3, (as Best Understood)
Mitsuo further discloses wherein the one or more grooves (7) are spaced at regular intervals in a circumferential direction of the crushing surface (see fig.1 and 8).
Regarding claim 4,
Mitsuo further discloses wherein the one or more grooves (7) are open at the second end of the mantle (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 5,
Mitsuo further discloses wherein the one or more grooves (7) extend substantially along respective generatrices of the crushing surface or substantially parallel to the central axis of the mantle (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 7,
Mitsuo further discloses wherein a width and/or a depth of each of the one or more grooves (7) increases towards the second end of the mantle (see col.8 lines 30-38).
Regarding claim 9, (as Best Understood)
Mitsuo further discloses the one or more cavities (3 or 6) and/or wear resistant inserts are formed in the crushing surface in at least one row, in particular a circumferential row, e.g. in a plane perpendicular to the central axis (g, see fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10,
Mitsuo further discloses the one or more cavities and/or inserts of one row (row marked as 6) are offset in a circumferential direction of the mantle against one or more cavities and/or inserts of another row (row marked as 3, see fig.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15,
Mitsuo further discloses wherein the crushing surface (surface of element 2 in fig.1) comprises a high wear section in an area between the first and second ends of the mantle (1) in which the cavities and/or inserts (inserts are element 9 formed of mild steel (SS41) see col.9 lines 12-13) are formed with a density which is lower than in at least one other section of the crushing surface (surface of element 2 formed of manganese cast steel see col.7 lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 16,
Mitsuo further discloses wherein areas along the crushing surface (surface of element 2 in fig.1) between the grooves (7) and the first end (see fig.1 in claim 9) of the mantle are devoid of cavities and/or inserts (3 and 6), and/or areas along the crushing surface between the grooves and the second end of the mantle are devoid of cavities and/or inserts (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 17,
Mitsuo further discloses wherein one or more cavities and/or inserts (6) are aligned with each of the one or more grooves (7) along a respective generatrix of the mantle (1).
PNG
media_image3.png
556
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, (as Best Understood)
Mitsuo discloses a gyratory or cone crusher (see title) comprising
a frame (see fig.1) provided with a bowl (4) as a first crushing shell, and a crusher head (see fig.1) provided with the mantle (1 or 8) as a second crushing shell (2, conventionally and inherently gyratory crusher discloses frame, mantle, gap, bowl, shafts, heads, shells and lining),
wherein the mantle and bowl define a crushing gap (w) between them,
wherein the mantle is in accordance with claim 1.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo EP publication (0,506,126) hereinafter Mitsuo in view of Lowry US patent (0,475,330) hereinafter Lowry.
Regarding claim 6, (as Best Understood)
The prior art Mitsuo discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Mitsuo discloses wherein the one or more grooves (7) each have a C-, U- or V-shape in a cross section perpendicular to the central axis (see fig.1),
PNG
media_image4.png
695
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Mitsuo is silent about the shape of a V with a rounded bottom.
Mitsuo and Lowry disclose both analogous art in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. gyratory crusher).
Lowry, in a similar art, teaches a cone crusher (fig.1-3) with a mantle (M) having a plurality of grooves with shape of a V with a rounded bottom (see fig.3).
Lowry teaches the grooves with the shape to be V with a rounded bottom to prevent choking and increase on production (see pag.5 lines 61-62), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the mantle of Mitsuo with the groove to be with a V shape and a rounded bottom as taught by Lowry, as it would be beneficiary to Mitsuo to be able to prevent choking and increase on production and render operation more efficient.
Claims 8, 11-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo EP publication (0,506,126) hereinafter Mitsuo in view of Hall et al. US publication (2008/0041995) hereinafter Hall.
Regarding claim 8, (as Best Understood)
The prior art Mitsuo discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Mitsuo discloses the plurality of grooves (7) and cavities (3 and 6, see fig.1) but is silent about the one or more cavities and/or wear resistant inserts are formed in the crushing surface between the one or more grooves as seen along an outer circumference of the mantle (see fig.2).
Mitsuo and Hall disclose both analogous art in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. gyratory crusher).
PNG
media_image5.png
846
764
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hall, in a similar art, teaches a cone crusher (see abstract) with a mantle (105,115) having one or more cavities and/or wear resistant inserts (205) to be formed in the crushing surface between the one or more grooves (see fig.8, according to Para.[0009] lines 1-9) as seen along an outer circumference of the mantle (see fig.8).
Hall teaches the one or more cavities and/or wear resistant inserts (205) to be formed in the crushing surface between the one or more grooves to prevent irregular and substandard final product material (see para.[0003] lines 3-5), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the mantle of Mitsuo with one or more cavities and/or wear resistant inserts to be formed in the crushing surface between the one or more grooves as seen along an outer circumference of the mantle as taught by Hall, as it would be beneficiary to Mitsuo to be able to prevent irregular and substandard final product material and render production more efficient.
Regarding claim 11, (as Best Understood)
The prior art Mitsuo discloses all limitations in claim 9,
Mitsuo discloses the spacing of the cavities and/or inserts in one row (3) and the spacing of the cavities and/or inserts of another row (6), in particular another row (6) further towards the second end of the mantle (1, see fig.1), but Mitsuo is silent about a spacing of the cavities and/or inserts in one row to be wider than the spacing of the cavities and/or inserts of another row.
Hall, in the similar art, teaches a cone crusher (see abstract) with a mantle (105,115) having a spacing of the cavities and/or inserts (205) in one row (row in 802) to be wider than the spacing of the cavities and/or inserts (205) of another row (row in 801, see fig.8 of claim 8).
Hall teaches the design of wider spacing of one row with respect to another row to prevent irregular and substandard final product material (see para.[0003] lines 3-5), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the mantle of Mitsuo with a spacing of the cavities and/or inserts in one row to be wider than the spacing of the cavities and/or inserts of another row as taught by Hall, as it would be beneficiary to Mitsuo to be able to prevent irregular and substandard final product material and render production more efficient.
Regarding claim 12, (as Best Understood)
The prior art Mitsuo discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Mitsuo discloses wherein one or more cavities and/or inserts (3 and 6) are formed in the crushing surface extending from the second end towards the first end of the mantle (see fig.1 of claim 9), in particular along a generatrix of the mantle (see fig.1 of claim 9), but Mitsuo is silent about one or more cavities and/or inserts are formed in the crushing surface in at least one column extending from the second end towards the first end of the mantle.
Hall, in the similar art, teaches a cone crusher (see abstract) with a mantle (105,115) having one or more cavities and/or inserts (205) are formed in the crushing surface (120) in at least one column extending from the second end towards the first end of the mantle (see fig.8).
Hall teaches the design of the extension of the at least one column to be formed by the one or more cavities and/or inserts to prevent irregular and substandard final product material (see para.[0003] lines 3-5), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the mantle of Mitsuo with an extension of the at least one column to be formed by the one or more cavities and/or inserts as taught by Hall, as it would be beneficiary to Mitsuo to be able to prevent irregular and substandard final product material and render production more efficient.
Regarding claim 13, (as Best Understood)
The prior art Mitsuo as modified by Hall discloses all limitations in claim 12,
Mitsuo in view of Hall further discloses wherein one or more cavities and/or inserts (Hall, 205) of one column are offset along a generatrix of the mantle (Hall, 105,115) with respect to one or more cavities and/or inserts of another column (Hall, multiple columns are shown in fig.8 of claim 12. along the generatrix (from second to first ends)).
Regarding claim 14, (as Best Understood)
The prior art Mitsuo as modified by Hall discloses all limitations in claim 12,
Mitsuo in view of Hall further discloses wherein the spacing between adjacent cavities (Hall, 205 see fig.8) in a column becomes wider towards the first end of the mantle (Hall, see spacing of element 801 and 802 of fig.8).
Regarding claim 18,
The prior art Mitsuo discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Mitsuo discloses the mantle (1) but does not disclose the mantle to be configured as a lower mantle for being connected with an upper mantle, with the upper and the lower mantle being aligned along a central axis.
Hall, in the similar art, teaches a cone crusher (see abstract) with a mantle (105,115) to be configured as a lower mantle (801row) for being connected with an upper mantle (802row), with the upper and the lower mantle being aligned along a central axis (see fig.8 of claim 8).
Hall teaches the lower mantle for being connected with the upper mantle and being aligned along a central axis to prevent irregular and substandard final product material (see para.[0003] lines 3-5), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the mantle of Mitsuo with a lower mantle for being connected with the upper mantle and being aligned along a central axis as taught by Hall, as it would be beneficiary to Mitsuo to be able to prevent irregular and substandard final product material and render production more efficient.
Regarding claim 19, (as Best Understood)
The prior art Mitsuo discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Mitsuo discloses a mantle (1) for a gyratory or cone crusher (see abstract),
wherein the mantle (1) but does not disclose a lower mantle and an upper mantle configured to be connected and aligned along a central axis,
wherein the lower mantle is a mantle according to claim 1.
Hall, in the similar art, teaches a cone crusher (see abstract) with a mantle (105,115) to be configured as a lower mantle (801row) and an upper mantle (802row) configured to be connected and aligned along a central axis (see fig.8 of claim 8) wherein the lower mantle (801row discloses the cavities and grooves) is a mantle according to claim 1.
Hall teaches the lower mantle for being connected with the upper mantle and being aligned along a central axis to prevent irregular and substandard final product material (see para.[0003] lines 3-5), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the mantle of Mitsuo with a lower mantle for being connected with the upper mantle and being aligned along a central axis as taught by Hall, as it would be beneficiary to Mitsuo to be able to prevent irregular and substandard final product material and render production more efficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith Oberto BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is 571-272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Christopher TEMPLETON can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
December 20, 2025
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725