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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0025, line 3 “roller50” should read --roller50--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: driving device in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) (C.N. 110665570 A).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a green, safe and efficient mining device (see modified Figure 1 above) for a mine, comprising:
a support frame (21);
a crushing bin (20);
a fixed jaw plate (6);
a movable jaw plate (5);
a cam roller (4);
a movable jaw back plate (9);
a driving device (3);
wherein the support frame is provided with an opening (14);
the crushing bin (20) is installed on the support frame (21) and located above the opening (14);
the movable jaw back plate (9) is installed at one side of the movable jaw plate (5);
the cam roller (4) is rotatably connected with the inside of the crushing bin (20) and is slidably connected with the movable jaw back plate (9);
the driving device (3) is in transmission connection with the cam roller (4).
Wang discloses a first spring (16); a first end of the first spring (the end of the spring 16 that connects with the movable jaw plate 5) being fixedly connected with the movable jaw plate; and a second end of the first spring (the other end of the spring) being fixedly connected with the inside of the crushing bin; a bottom end of the movable jaw plate hinged to a right side of the crushing bin (when viewed from the opposite side); that the first spring is located at a top end of the movable jaw plate; and the fixed jaw plate is vertically installed on a left side of an inside of the crushing bin (when viewed from the opposite side).
Wang does not disclose a top end of the movable jaw plate hinged to a right side of the crushing bin, a pair of first springs located at both sides of the bottom end of the movable jaw plate; a top end of the movable jaw plate is hinged to the crushing bin; the pair of first springs are located at both sides of a bottom end of the movable jaw plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of springs to add additional stability to the structure, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Duplicating the springs does not change the intended use of the prior art.
After modification, modified Wang would teach a pair of first springs; the first ends of the pair of first springs would be fixedly connected with the movable jaw plate; and second ends of the pair of first springs would be fixedly connected with the inside of the crushing bin.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the springs and the hinge so that the springs are at the bottom and the hinge is at the top instead of the springs at the top and the hinge at the bottom, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and does not change the function of the device. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
After modification, Wang would teach a top end of the movable jaw plate being hinged to a right side of the crushing bin; the pair of first springs would be located at both sides of a bottom end of the movable jaw plate; and the fixed jaw plate being vertically installed on a left side of and inside of the crushing bin.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Quan et al. (hereinafter “Quan”) (CN 113976213 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
810
993
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 (see Figure 2 above), modified Wang discloses the green, safe and efficient mining device for the mine according to claim 1. Wang fails disclose a dust removal device comprising a dust removal cover, and the dust removal cover installed at a top end of the crushing bin and above the fixed jaw plate and the movable jaw plate.
Quan teaches a similar mining device comprising a dust removal device, wherein the dust removal device comprises a dust removal cover (2), and the dust removal cover is installed at a top end of the crushing bin (4) and above the fixed jaw plate (5) and the movable jaw plate (6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the mining device of modified Wang with a dust removal device as taught by Quan above in order to reduce dust pollution (see para. 31 of Description in translation, pg. 17).
Regarding claim 6 (see Figure 2 above), modified Wang teaches the green, safe and efficient mining device for the mine according to claim 5. Modified Wang fails to teach a dust removal curtain arranged in the dust removal cover.
Quan teaches a dust removal curtain (3) arranged in the dust removal cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the dust removal device of modified Wang with a dust removal curtain as taught by Quan above in order to further reduce dust pollution. (see para. 31 of Description in translation, pg. 17)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Quan, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (hereinafter “Hong”) (CN 108325722 A).
PNG
media_image3.png
457
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang teaches the green, safe and efficient mining device for the mine according to claim 5, and a dust removal device. Modified Wang does not disclose the dust removal device which further comprises a cyclone separation device, a side wall of the crushing bin is provided with a dust removal opening, and the cyclone separation device is communicated with the dust removal opening.
Hong teaches a grinding device with a dust removal device which further comprises a cyclone separation device (23) (see Figure 3 above), a side wall of the crushing bin (1) is provided with a dust removal opening (22), and the cyclone separation device is communicated with the dust removal opening (see Figure 3 above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the dust removal device of Modified Wang in view of Quan with the cyclone separation device as taught by Hong in order to collect fine particles from the air to avoid wasting mined resources. (paras. 31 and 38 of Description in translation).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Marsden et al. (hereinafter “Marsden”) (US 0230304 A).
PNG
media_image4.png
509
857
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang discloses the green, safe and efficient mining device for the mine according to claim 1. Modified Wang fails to teach a back of the fixed jaw plate is provided with reinforcing brackets.
Mardsen teaches a mining device wherein a back of the fixed jaw plate (Q’) (see Figure 4 above) is provided with reinforcing brackets (g’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the mining device of Modified Wang with the reinforcing brackets on the fixed jaw plate of the crushing device as taught by Mardsen to better secure the fixed jaw plate in place (see page 2, lines 3-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the mining device comprising “a screening device, wherein the screening device comprises a sieve plate, a pair of second springs and a sieve plate shaft, the sieve plate shaft is fixedly connected with an end of the sieve plate, two ends of the sieve plate shaft pass through the crushing bin and are rotatably connected with the crushing bin; and the pair of second springs are located at both sides of the sieve plate, and first ends of the pair of second springs are fixedly connected with a bottom end of the fixed jaw plate, the second ends of the pair of second springs are fixedly connected with the sieve plate.”, inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Therefore claims 2-4 are indicated allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 112337535 A teaches a pair of springs on a plate connected to a bin.
US 5799888 A teaches a fixed and movable jaw.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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 5712701477. 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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725