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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a concave according to claim 1” should be changed to “the concave according to claim 1”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “a concave according to claim 1” should be changed to “the concave according to claim 1”.
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 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “a third internal angle” render the claim indefinite because claim 5 is depended from claim 1; and claim 1 recited only a first internal angle; so, it is unclear why having “a first internal angle and a third internal angle” without “a second internal angle’
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the continuation" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the continuation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a gyratory crusher” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a gyratory crusher” is the same as or different from “a gyratory or conical crusher” that recited in claim 1 which claim 6 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “a gyratory crusher” is the same as “a gyratory or conical crusher” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “a gyratory crusher” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a gyratory crusher” is the same as or different from “a gyratory or conical crusher” that recited in claim 1 which claim 7 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “a gyratory crusher” is the same as “a gyratory or conical crusher” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 14 and 16-17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “a gyratory or conical crusher” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a gyratory or conical crusher” is the same as or different from “a gyratory or conical crusher” that recited in claim 1 which claim 15 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “a gyratory crusher” is the same as “a gyratory or conical crusher” that recited in claim 1.
Claims 16-17 are rejected because they depend from claim 15.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first concave" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second concave" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “the first concave, and the second concave” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the first concave, and the second concave” is the same as or different from “a concave” that recited in claim 1 which claim 16 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “the first concave, and the second concave” is the same as “a concave” that recited in claim 1 which claim 16 depends from.
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 1-2, 4-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van (US20020088885A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van discloses a concave (fig.1: (62)) for a gyratory or conical crusher (abstract and paragraph 0020),
the concave comprising: 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).
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).
Regarding claim 4, Van discloses the concave further comprising a bottom face, 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).
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).
Regarding claim 6, Van discloses a liner for a gyratory crusher comprising a plurality of concaves (abstract and paragraph 0020), wherein each concave of the plurality of concaves is a concave according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Van discloses a liner for a gyratory crusher comprising a first concave and a second concave (paragraph 0020); wherein the first concave is a concave according to claim 1,
wherein the second concave comprises: a front face for providing a crushing surface and a bottom face, wherein a second internal angle measured around a bottom front edge of the second concave and between the front face and the bottom face is less than 90 degrees (see fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Van discloses wherein the first concave and second concave are arranged such that the top face of the first concave is facing towards and substantially parallel to the bottom face of the second concave, and the front face of the first concave is substantially parallel to the front face of the second concave (see fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Van discloses a liner for a gyratory or conical crusher having a shell (abstract and paragraph 0020), the liner comprising a first concave and a second concave (fig.1: (62)), wherein the first concave is arranged axially above and adjacent to the second concave such that:
a top face of the second concave is substantially parallel to a bottom face of the first concave (see fig.1 below),
the substantially parallel faces defining a joining surface that is at an angle Y with respect to the vertical direction (see fig.1 below), and a front face of the first concave and a front face of the second concave are substantially parallel and define a surface having an angle M with respect to the vertical direction (see fig.1 below), wherein M+Y>90 degrees (see fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
717
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Van discloses wherein the second concave includes a front face for providing a crushing surface, a top face proximate to the front face or adjacent to the front face, 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 above).
Regarding claim 12, Van discloses further comprising a third concave configured to be located axially above and adjacent to the first concave within the shell, such that a top surface of the first concave is substantially parallel to a bottom surface of the third concave, such that the substantially parallel surfaces define a second joining surface, wherein an angle Z between the joining surface and the vertical direction exists such that M+Z>90 degrees (see fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Van discloses wherein the first concave is separated from the second concave by a clearance gap (fig.1: the gaps between the elements (62)), preferably wherein the clearance gap is between 1 mm and 15 mm, or wherein the first concave is in contact with the second concave.
Regarding claim 15, Van discloses a gyratory or conical crusher comprising: a shell; and the liner according to claim 6 (abstract and paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 16, Van discloses wherein the first concave is separated from the second concave by a clearance gap (fig.1: the gaps between the elements (62)), preferably wherein the clearance gap is between 1 mm and 15 mm, or wherein the first concave is in contact with the second concave.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US20020088885A1).
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 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 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 13, Van does not disclose wherein angle Z is within 10 degrees of angle Y, optionally within 5 degrees, and further optionally wherein angle Z is equal to angle Y.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Van to try to have wherein angle Z is within 10 degrees of angle Y, optionally within 5 degrees, and further optionally wherein angle Z is equal to angle 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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US20020088885A1) in view of Bruns (US3380674A).
Regarding claim 3, Van 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)].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US20020088885A1) in view of YU (CN115364928A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Van does not disclose wherein the first concave and second concave are arranged such that the first concave overhangs the second concave, preferably wherein an overhang distance of the overhang is less than 20mm.
YU teaches a liner for a crusher, the liner comprising a first concave (fig.1: (2)) and a second concave (fig.1: (3)) are arranged such that the first concave overhangs the second concave.
Both of the prior arts of Van and YU 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 first concave overhangs the second concave of Van to be wherein the first concave and second concave are arranged such that the first concave overhangs the second concave as taught by YU, 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
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