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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/25/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “a second mode” should be changed to “the second mode”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “a second mode” should be changed to “the second mode”.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the steps” should be changed to “steps”.
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 1-20 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 size" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in line 13 the phrase “the diverter chute” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the diverter chute” is the same as or different from “a diverter” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 1.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “the diverter chute” is the same as “a diverter” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 1.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “wherein the diverter is a diverter chute” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “wherein the diverter is a diverter chute” is the same as or different from “the diverter chute” that recited in claim 1 which claim 7 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “wherein the diverter is a diverter chute” is the same as “the diverter chute” that recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-17 are rejected because they depend from claim 11.
Regarding claim 11, in line 4 the phrase “the diverter chute” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the diverter chute” is the same as or different from “a diverter” that recited in the same line 4 of the same claim 11.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “the diverter chute” is the same as “a diverter” that recited in the same line 4 of the same claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “wherein the diverter is a diverter chute” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “wherein the diverter is a diverter chute” is the same as or different from “the diverter chute” that recited in claim 11 which claim 15depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “wherein the diverter is a diverter chute” is the same as “the diverter chute” that recited in claim 11.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-19 are rejected because they depend from claim 17.
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson (US20150076264A1).
Regarding claim 17, Robinson discloses 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; and
moving the diverter from the first mode to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 18, Robinson discloses wherein the feed conveyor is operated at an operating speed and the diverter is moved between the first and second modes while the feed conveyor is operated at the operating speed (Robinson discloses the change the position of the conveyer (2)).
Regarding claim 19, Robinson discloses 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 (paragraph 0034).
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 1-19 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 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 feed of aggregate material to the crusher device (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second mode to direct the feed of aggregate material to a bypass location (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)) (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 chute to the second mode upon the detection of the level of the material 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 operable to detect the presence of an undesirable material in the feed of aggregate 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 feed of aggregate material to the crusher device and a second mode (fig.1) to direct the 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 chute to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material while the feed conveyor is operating to move the 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 selectively receive the 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 chute 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 operates at an operating speed and 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 a 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 chute being movable between a first mode to direct the feed of aggregate material to the crusher device (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second mode to direct the feed of aggregate material to a bypass location (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27)) (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 the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate 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 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 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 diverter 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 a 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 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 method comprising the steps of:
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 feed of aggregate material to the crusher device (the chute 34 out the flow of rock (27)) and a second mode to direct the feed of aggregate material to a bypass location (chute 34 into the flow of rock (27));
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).
Etheridge does not disclose detecting the presence of the presence of the undesirable material in the feed of aggregate 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; 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 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 moving 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; and moving the diverter from the first mode to the second mode upon the detection of the undesirable material
Regarding claim 18, Etheridge discloses wherein the feed conveyor is operated at an operating speed and the diverter is moved between the first and second modes while the feed conveyor is operated at the operating speed (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 18.
Regarding claim 19, Etheridge discloses 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 (col.7 last 7 lines-col.8 line 13).
Therefore, the modification of Etheridge in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Conclusion
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