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 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20020088885A1) in view of Jerome (US3076612A).
Regarding claim 1, Van discloses a liner (fig.1: (62)) for a gyratory or conical crusher (abstract and paragraph 0020), comprising:
a first concave and a second concave, wherein each of the first concave and the second concave comprise: a front face for providing a crushing surface (see fig.1 below),
a top face proximate to the front face or adjacent to the front face (see fig.1 below),
wherein a first internal angle measured around a top front edge of the concave, and between the front face and the top face, is greater than 90 degrees (see fig.1 below).
wherein the first concave and second concave are arranged such that a top face of the first concave is facing towards and substantially parallel to a bottom face of the second concave (see fig.1 below),
Van does not disclose wherein the bottom face of the second concave overhangs the top face of the first concave.
Jerome teaches a gyratory crusher comprising:
a bottom face (fig.4: (32)) of a second wear component (fig.4: (24)) overhangs a top face (fig.4: (30)) of a first wear component (fig.4: (26)).
Both of the prior arts of Van and Jerome are related to a gyratory crusher;
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 configuration of the bottom face and the top face of Van to have the configuration of the bottom face overhangs the top face as taught by Jerome in order to have the wearing parts automatically self-tightening (Jerome: col.1 lines 3-4). Thereby having wherein the bottom face of the second concave overhangs the top face of the first concave.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Van discloses wherein the top face is adjacent to front face such that the front face meets the top face at the top front edge, wherein the first internal angle is measured around the top front edge and between
1) a point on the front face adjacent to the top front edge; and
2) a point on the top face adjacent to the top front edge (see fig.1 above).
Therefore, the modification of Van in view of Jerome teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Van discloses wherein a second internal angle measured around a bottom front edge of the concave and between the front face and the bottom face is less than 90 degrees (see fig.1 above).
Therefore, the modification of Van in view of Jerome teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Van discloses wherein a third internal angle measured around a top rear edge of the concave, and between a point on a rear face of the concave adjacent to the top rear edge, and a point on the top face adjacent or proximate to the top rear edge, is less than 90 degrees, wherein the top rear edge is either an edge where the top face meets the rear face, or where a continuation of the top face meets a continuation of the rear face (see fig.1 above).
Therefore, the modification of Van in view of Jerome teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Van discloses wherein the front face of the first concave is substantially parallel to the front face of the second concave (see fig.1 above).
Therefore, the modification of Van in view of Jerome teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Van discloses wherein the first internal angle is greater than 90 degrees by x-degrees, and wherein the second internal angle is less than 90 degrees by y-degrees,
Van in view of Jerome does not disclose wherein x-y <10 degrees or wherein x-y<5 degrees or wherein x=y.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Van in view of Jerome to try to have wherein x-y <10 degrees or wherein x-y<5 degrees or wherein x=y; since it has held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Van discloses the gyratory or conical crusher comprising: a shell; and the liner according to claim 1(abstract and paragraph 0020).
Therefore, the modification of Van in view of Jerome teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Van in view of Jerome does not disclose wherein the first concave and the second concave are arranged such that the first concave overhangs the second concave by an overhang distance that is less than 20 mm,
However, choosing the dimensions of the parts is very known in art and would have resulted from routine engineering practices that depend on the general design of the crusher and specific requirements of the crushing process as desired;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the first concave and the second concave are arranged such that the first concave overhangs the second concave by an overhang distance that is less than 20 mm in order to obtain the crusher having parts with specific size as desired.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20020088885A1) in view of Jerome (US3076612A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bruns (US3380674A).
Regarding claim 3, Van in view of Jerome does not disclose wherein the top face is proximate to the front face, and the concave further comprising a chamfer between the top face and the front face, wherein the chamfer is a flat chamfer or a curved chamfer, and wherein the top front edge is an edge where the continuation of the front face intersects the continuation of the top face, and the first internal angle is measured around the top front edge and between
1) a point on the front face that is adjacent to the chamfer; and
2) a point on the top face that is adjacent to the chamfer.
Bruns teaches a liner for a crusher, the liner comprising a chamfer (fig.1: (42)) between a top face and a front face, wherein the chamfer is a flat chamfer.
Both of the prior arts of Van and Bruns are related to a liner for a crusher;
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 concave of Van to be the configuration of a chamfer between a top face and a front face, wherein the chamfer is a flat chamfer as taught by Bruns, 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)].
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
