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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “the combination of Etheridge and Robinson does not render obvious the limitations of claims 1 and 11 that require the diverter divert the entire feed of aggregate away from the crusher in the second mode to prevent the entire feed of aggregate material from reaching the crusher and that the diverter is moved to the second mode while the feed conveyor is operating at the operating speed. The combination of Etheridge and Robinson would require the termination of the material feed while the entire material feed is diverted away from the crusher”.
In response to this argument, the prior art of Etheridge is clearly and explicitly disclose positioned adjacent diverting a portion of or all of the flow of the rock intended to be fed into the crusher (col.3 lines 62-64).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that " Claim 17 is directed to a method that does not require the conveyor belt to stop operating as the diverter moves to the second mode. This feature and limitation is not shown or obvious in view of the cited Robinson reference”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case: claim 17 is rejected over Etheridge (US4804148A) in view of Robinson (US20150076264A1);
The main prior art of Etheridge discloses moving the diverter from the first mode to the second mode while the conveyor belt is operating at the operating speed to move the feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end (Etheridge discloses the change applied only to the feeder (22) and chute (34) and no change to the conveyer (24));
The main prior art of Etheridge does not disclose detecting the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material on the conveyer belt; and upon the detection of the undesirable material;
So, the only missing limitations are “detecting the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material on the conveyer belt; and upon the detection of the undesirable material”;
The prior art of Robinson is a secondary art is used by the Examiner to teach the missing limitation of “moving the diverter from the first mode to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material”; then modifying the main prior art of Etheridge by only limitation of “detecting the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material on the conveyer belt”;
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-17 and 19 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 1 recites the limitation "the entire " in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the entire " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-16 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the entire " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected because it depends from claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etheridge (US4804148A) in view of Robinson (US20150076264A1).
Regarding claim 1, Etheridge discloses a crushing machine for processing a feed of aggregate material (abstract; col.1 line 33-col.6 line 18), the crushing machine comprising:
a feed conveyor (fig.1: (24)) extending between an infeed end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (24) at close to the element (22)) and a discharge end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (24) at close to the element (26)), the feed conveyor being positioned to receive the feed of aggregate at the infeed end and operable at an operating speed (the conveyer (24) is moving at an operating speed) to move the feed of aggregate to the discharge end;
a crusher device (fig.2: (10)) positioned to receive the feed of aggregate and operable to reduce the size of the aggregate material;
a diverter (fig.1: (34)) positioned at the discharge end of the feed conveyor, the diverter being operable in a first mode to direct the entire feed of aggregate material to the crusher device (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second mode to direct the entire the feed of aggregate material to a bypass location (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)) such that the feed of aggregate material does not reach the crusher device (col.3 lines 62-64 and col.6 line 38-col.8 line 13);
a detector (fig.1: (70)) operable to detect a level of the material; and a control unit (fig.1: (92)) operable to move the diverter to the second mode upon the detection of the level of the material while the feed conveyor is operating at the operating speed (Etheridge discloses the change applied only to the feeder (22) and chute (34) and no change to the conveyer (24)) to move the entire feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end (col.6 line 38-col.8 line 13).
Etheridge does not disclose a detector operable to detect a presence of an undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material; and upon the detection of the undesirable material.
Robinson teaches a crushing machine for processing a feed of aggregate material (abstract and paragraphs 0027-0034), the crushing machine comprising:
a feed conveyor (fig.1: (2)) extending between an infeed end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) and a discharge end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (2) close to the element (3)), the feed conveyor being positioned to receive the feed of aggregate at the infeed end and operable to move the feed of aggregate to the discharge end;
a crusher device (fig.1: (3)) positioned to receive the feed of aggregate and operable to reduce the size of the aggregate material;
a diverter (figs.1-2: the discharge opening of the conveyer (2)) positioned at the discharge end of the feed conveyor, the diverter being operable in a first mode (fig.1) to direct the entire feed of aggregate material to the crusher device and a second mode (fig.1) to direct the entire feed of aggregate material to a bypass location;
a detector (figs.1-2: (19)) operable to detect the presence of an undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material; and
a control unit operable to move the diverter to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material (paragraph 0034).
Both of the prior arts of Etheridge and Robinson are related to a crushing machine for processing a feed of aggregate material;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Etheridge to have a detector operable to detect the presence of an undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material as taught by Robinson, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having a detector operable to detect the presence of an undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material; and a control unit operable to move the diverter to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material while the feed conveyor is operating at the operating speed to move the entire feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end
Regarding claim 2, Etheridge discloses a bypass chute (fig.1: (32)) positioned to receive the entire feed of aggregate from the feed conveyor when the diverter chute is in the second mode.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Etheridge discloses wherein the control unit moves the diverter to the second mode for a determined time period after the detector no longer detects the presence of the undesirable material (col.7 last 7 lines-col.8 line 13).
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Etheridge discloses wherein the feed conveyor does not deviate from the operating speed as the diverter chute is moved between the first and second modes (Etheridge discloses the change applied only to the feeder (22) and chute (34) and no change to the conveyer (24)).
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Robinson teaches wherein the detector is a metal detector (figs.1-2: (19)) that is located at a position along the length of the feed conveyor and is operable to detect the presence of a metallic material in the feed of aggregate material.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Etheridge discloses wherein the crusher device (fig.1: (10)) is a cone or gyratory crusher.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Etheridge discloses wherein the diverter is a diverter chute (fig.1s-2: (34)) movable between a first position in the first mode (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second position in the second mode (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)), further comprising a chute actuator (fig.2: (48)) coupled to the diverter chute, wherein the chute actuator is operable to move the diverter chute between the first and second positions.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Etheridge discloses wherein the control unit (fig.1: (92)) is operable to control the actuation of the chute actuator.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Etheridge discloses wherein the diverter chute is aligned with a longitudinal axis of the feed conveyor in the first position (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and positioned at an angle (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)) relative to the longitudinal axis is in the second position.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Etheridge discloses wherein the bypass chute is spaced laterally from the longitudinal axis of the feed conveyor (fig.1).
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Etheridge discloses a system for protecting a crusher device (fig.1: (10)) included in a feed of aggregate material being fed to the crushing device by a feed conveyor (fig.1: (24)) that includes a moving conveyor belt (the conveyer (24) is a belt with two actuating rollers) extending from an infeed end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (24) at close to the element (22)) to a discharge end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (24) at close to the element (26)), the system comprising:
a diverter (fig.1: (34)) positionable at the discharge end of the feed conveyor, the diverter being movable between a first mode to direct the entire feed of aggregate material to the crusher device (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second mode to direct the entire feed of aggregate material to a bypass location (the chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)) such that the feed of aggregate material does not reach the crusher device (col.3 lines 62-64 and col.6 line 38-col.8 line 13);
a detector (fig.1: (70)) operable to detect a level the material; and a control unit operable to move the diverter to the second mode upon the detection of the level of the material and while the feed conveyor is operating to move the feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end (col.6 line 38-col.8 line 13).
Etheridge does not disclose a detector positionable at a location along a length of the feed conveyor and operable to detect a presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material; and upon the detection of the undesirable material.
Robinson teaches a system for protecting a crusher device (fig.1: (3)) from receiving undesirable material included in a feed of aggregate material being fed to the crushing device by a feed conveyor (fig.1: (2)) that includes a moving conveyor belt (fig.1: (9)) extending from an infeed end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) to a discharge end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (2) close to the element (3)) (abstract and paragraphs 0027-0034), the system comprising:
a diverter (figs.1-2: the discharge opening of the conveyer (2)) positionable at the discharge end of the feed conveyor, the diverter being movable between a first mode (fig.1) to direct the feed of aggregate material to the crusher device and a second mode (fig.2) to direct the feed of aggregate material to a bypass location;
a detector (figs.1-2: (19)) positionable at a location along a length of the feed conveyor and operable to detect the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material; and
a control unit operable to move the diverter to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material (paragraph 0034).
Both of the prior arts of Etheridge and Robinson are related to a crushing machine for processing a feed of aggregate material;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Etheridge to have a detector positionable at a location along a length of the feed conveyor and operable to detect the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material as taught by Robinson, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having a system for protecting a crusher device from receiving undesirable material included in a feed of aggregate material being fed to the crushing device by a feed conveyor that includes a moving conveyor belt extending from an infeed end to a discharge end; a detector operable to detect a presence of an undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material; and a control unit operable to move the diverter to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material and while the feed conveyor is operating to move the feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end.
Regarding claim 12, Etheridge discloses a bypass chute (fig.1: (32)) positioned to selectively receive the feed of aggregate from the feed conveyor when the chute is in the second mode.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Etheridge discloses wherein the control unit moves the diverter to the second mode for a determined time period after the detector no longer detects the presence of the undesirable material (col.7 last 7 lines-col.8 line 13).
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Robinson teaches wherein the detector (figs.1-2: (19)) is a metal detector that is operable to detect the presence of a metallic material in the feed of aggregate material.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Etheridge discloses wherein the diverter is a diverter chute (fig.1s-2: (34)) movable between a first position in the first mode (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second position in the second mode (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)), further comprising a chute actuator (fig.2: (48)) coupled to the diverter chute, wherein the chute actuator is operable to move the diverter chute between the first and second positions.
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Etheridge discloses wherein the diverter chute is aligned with a longitudinal axis of the feed conveyor in the first position (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and positioned at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis is in the second position (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)).
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Etheridge discloses a method of protecting a crusher device (fig.1: (10)) included in a feed of aggregate material being fed to the crushing device by a feed conveyor (fig.1: (24)) that includes a conveyor belt (the conveyer (24) is a belt with two actuating rollers) extending from an infeed end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (24) at close to the element (22)) to a discharge end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (24) at close to the element (26)), the method comprising:
operating the conveyor belt at an operating speed (the conveyer (24) is moving at an operating speed) to move the feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end;
positioning a diverter (fig.1: (34)) at the discharge end of the feed conveyor, the diverter being movable between a first mode to direct the entire feed of aggregate material to the crusher device (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second mode to direct the entire feed of aggregate material to a bypass location (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)) (col.3 lines 62-64 and col.6 line 38-col.8 line 13);
detecting (fig.1: (70)) a level the material; and moving the diverter from the first mode to the second mode upon the detection of the level of the material (col.6 line 38-col.8 line 13) while the conveyor belt is operating at the operating speed to move the feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end (Etheridge discloses the change applied only to the feeder (22) and chute (34) and no change to the conveyer (24)).
Etheridge does not disclose detecting the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material on the conveyer belt; and upon the detection of the undesirable material
Robinson teaches a method of protecting a crusher device (fig.1: (3)) from receiving undesirable material included in a feed of aggregate material being fed to the crushing device by a feed conveyor (fig.1: (2)) that includes a moving conveyor belt (fig.1: (9)) extending from an infeed end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) to a discharge end (fig.1: the end of conveyer (2) close to the element (3)) (abstract and paragraphs 0027-0034), the method comprising the steps of:
positioning a diverter (figs.1-2: the discharge opening of the conveyer (2)) at the discharge end of the feed conveyor, the diverter being movable between a first mode (fig.1) to direct the feed of aggregate material to the crusher device and a second mode (fig.2) to direct the feed of aggregate material to a bypass location;
detecting (figs.1-2: (19)) the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material on the conveyer belt; and
moving the diverter from the first mode to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material (paragraph 0034).
Both of the prior arts of Etheridge and Robinson are related to a method of protecting a crusher device;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Etheridge to have detecting the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material on the conveyer belt as taught by Robinson, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having method of protecting a crusher device from receiving undesirable material included in a feed of aggregate material being fed to the crushing device by a feed conveyor that includes a conveyor belt extending from an infeed end to a discharge end; detecting the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate material on the conveyer belt; and moving the diverter from the first mode to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material while the conveyor belt is operating at the operating speed to move the feed of aggregate material from the infeed end to the discharge end.
Regarding claim 19, Etheridge discloses wherein the diverter is moved back from the second mode to the first mode after a specific time delay (col.7 last 7 lines-col.8 line 13).
Robinson teaches wherein the diverter is moved back from the second mode to the first mode after the undesirable material is no longer detected and after a specific time delay;
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 19.
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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights