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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 7c and Fig. 7d, section portions are shown without using hatchings. 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) says “Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty.”
Fig 7, 9, and 10 use lowercase letters to denote subviews. 937 CFR 1.84(u)(1) says “Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter.”
Applicant appears to include measurements in Fig. 10 and Fig. 12. Such measurements should be written in an American format and labelled by units to avoid confusion with reference characters.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 are 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 limitations “wherein the shell liner is configured to be releasably fitted to the inside of a shell of the mill within a grinding chamber thereof, and wherein at least a part of a surface of the shell liner that is configured to be exposed within the grinding chamber constitutes a wear surface,” in the preamble of the claim. It is unclear if these limitations are being positively claimed.
Claim 1 includes the phrase “wherein the shell liner comprises:” in the fourth line of the claim. It is unclear which word is the transitional phrase in the claim. The transitional phrase defines the scope of the claim and without a clear transitional phrase, the claim in indefinite.
Claim 1 includes the phrase “within a grinding chamber thereof”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the grinding chamber is in the mill or the shell of the mill.
The term “releasably fitted” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “releasably” and “fitted” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claims 12 and 14.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such a[s]" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “essentially horizontal” and “essentially vertical” in claim 17 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urbinatti et al. (US2019/0118185), hereinafter referred to as “Urbinatti”.
Re Claim 1, Urbinatti discloses a shell liner (liner 10, 20, 80) for a stirred grinding mill, wherein the shell liner is configured to be releasably fitted (“As a result, the protective liner 10 can be easily replaced, without there being the necessity to release any permanent connections such as welded connections” [0072]) to the inside of a shell of the mill within a grinding chamber thereof , and wherein at least a part of a surface of the shell liner that is configured to be exposed within the grinding chamber constitutes a wear surface (“at least a part of an outwardly directed surface of the protective liner constituting a wear surface”[0011]), wherein the shell liner comprises: at least one polymer-ceramics panel (protective liner 10) comprising an elastic material layer and wear resistant inserts retained by the elastic material layer (“Each of the protective liners includes an elastic material layer which has wear-resistant parts embedded at least in a surface area thereof which forms a wear surface” [0056]), wherein exposed surfaces of the wear resistant inserts form part of the wear surface of the shell liner (“at least a part of an outwardly directed surface of the protective liner constituting a wear surface”[0011]).
Re Claim 2, Urbinatti discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Urbinatti above), wherein the shell liner is curved into the shape of a segment of a hollow cylinder (“More particularly, the bottom shell liner 10 is made up from several sections 10 ′ arranged adjacent to each other about the inner wall of the bottom shell 2, so that the sections 10 ′ together define a cylindrical shape” [0063]).
Re Claim 3, Urbinatti discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Urbinatti above), further comprising a reinforcement plate (extending stiffening elements 19) supporting the at least one polymer-ceramics panel (Fig. 4).
Re Claim 4, Urbinatti discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Urbinatti above), further comprising a plurality of polymer-ceramics panels (first element 30 and third element 50) disposed in at least one row and/or at least one column (Fig. 5).
Re Claim 5, Urbinatti discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Urbinatti above), further comprising at least two polymer-ceramics panels panels (first element 30 and third element 50) spaced apart from one another in a height direction of the panel (Fig. 9).
Re Claim 12, Urbinatti discloses a stirred grinding mill comprising: a shell (bottom shell 2); a grinding chamber (crushing gap G); a stirring assembly arranged in the grinding chamber for rotating therein (crushing head 3); and at least one shell liner (liner 10, 20, and 80) including at least one polymer-ceramics panel including an elastic material layer (rubber plate 16) and wear resistant inserts (ceramic inlays 18) retained by the elastic material layer (“Each of the protective liners includes an elastic material layer which has wear-resistant parts embedded at least in a surface area thereof which forms a wear surface” [0056]), wherein exposed surfaces of the wear resistant inserts form part of the wear surface of the shell liner (“at least a part of an outwardly directed surface of the protective liner constituting a wear surface”[0011]), wherein the at least one shell liner is releasably fitted to the inside of the shell within the grinding chamber thereof (“As a result, the protective liner 10 can be easily replaced, without there being the necessity to release any permanent connections such as welded connections” [0072]).
Re Claim 13, Urbinatti discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the shell liner is releasably fitted to an inside of the shell of the mill by fastening the elastic material layer of the at least one polymer-ceramics panel of the liner to the inside of the shell (“the protective liner can be releasably fastened within the crusher by fastening the elastic material layer as such within the crusher. The elastic material layer can be releasably fastened to the crusher by any releasable fastening means known in the art, e.g. by means of a screw or bolt connection, by clamping or the like” [0025]).
Re Claim 14, Urbinatti discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12, wherein the shell liner further comprises the reinforcement plate (carrier structure), and the shell liner is releasably fitted to an inside of the shell of the mill by fastening the reinforcement plate of the liner to the inside of the shell (“the protective liner may further comprise a carrier structure for supporting the elastic material layer, e.g. a metal carrier frame. If so, the protective liner can also be releasably fitted within the crusher by fastening the carrier structure within the crusher. The carrier structure can in turn be fastened by any releasable fastening means known in the art, e.g. by means of a screw or bolt connection, by clamping or the like, or simply by being seated onto a supporting structure, i.e. in a form-fitting manner” [0026]).
Re Claim 16, Urbinatti discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12, wherein the stirring assembly comprises: a drive shaft with a number of rotor disks disposed along the length of the drive shaft, or an agitator screw (crushing head 3) arranged concentrically with and inside the grinding chamber for rotating therein (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 17, Urbinatti discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12, wherein the grinding chamber is arranged essentially vertically, or essentially horizontally (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torma (EP4260941).
Re Claim 1, Torma discloses a shell liner (liner 10) for a stirred grinding mill, wherein the shell liner is configured to be releasably fitted (liner can be fitted using bolts which is a releasable fit [0039]) to the inside of a shell of the mill within a grinding chamber thereof (Fig. 1), and wherein at least a part of a surface of the shell liner that is configured to be exposed within the grinding chamber constitutes a wear surface (“outwardly directed surfaces of the wear resistant inserts form part of a wear surface of the wear protection component” [0022]), wherein the shell liner (liner 10) comprises: at least one polymer-ceramics panel (Fig. 2a) comprising an elastic material layer (layer of elastic material 12) and wear resistant inserts (ceramic inserts 18) retained by the elastic material layer (“Ceramic inserts 18 are embedded into the layer of elastic material 12” [0054]), wherein exposed surfaces of the wear resistant inserts form part of the wear surface of the shell liner (“Each wear resistant insert 18 has an outwardly directed surface forming part of the wear surface of the protective liner 10” [0054]).
Re Claim 2, Torma discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the shell liner is curved into the shape of a segment of a hollow cylinder (Fig. 3a).
Re Claim 3, Torma discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a reinforcement plate (steel plate 14) supporting the at least one polymer-ceramics panel (“the steel plate 14 has substantially the same size as the layer of elastic material 12 and therefore supports and reinforces the layer of elastic material 12 as a whole” [0053]).
Re Claim 4, Torma discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a plurality of polymer-ceramics panels disposed in at least one row and/or at least one column (Fig. 1 shows liner 10 arranged in a row).
Re Claim 5, Torma discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising at least two polymer-ceramics panels spaced apart from one another in a height direction of the panel (see Fig. 1 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
852
1093
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Torma, annotated
Re Claim 12, Torma discloses a stirred grinding mill comprising: a shell (bottom shell 2); a grinding chamber (Fig. 1); a stirring assembly arranged in the grinding chamber for rotating therein (“A crushing head is mounted upon a vertically extending main shaft (both not illustrated). At its lower end, the main shaft is mounted within a central hub 4. At its upper end, the main shaft is coupled with the crushing head” [0044]); and at least one shell liner (liner 10) including at least one polymer-ceramics panel including an elastic material layer (elastic layer 12) and wear resistant inserts retained by the elastic material layer (ceramic inserts 18), wherein exposed surfaces of the wear resistant inserts form part of the wear surface of the shell liner (“outwardly directed surfaces of the wear resistant inserts form part of a wear surface of the wear protection component” [0022]), wherein the at least one shell liner is releasably fitted to the inside of the shell within the grinding chamber thereof (liner can be fitted using bolts which is a releasable fit [0039]).
Re Claim 13, Torma discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the shell liner is releasably fitted to an inside of the shell of the mill by fastening the elastic material layer of the at least one polymer-ceramics panel of the liner to the inside of the shell (liner can be fitted using bolts which is a releasable fit [0039]).
Re Claim 14, Torma discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the shell liner further comprises the reinforcement plate (steel plate 14), and the shell liner is releasably fitted to an inside of the shell of the mill by fastening the reinforcement plate of the liner to the inside of the shell (“A row or array of such liners 10 would be replaceably mounted to the crusher in a manner known per se” [0052]).
Re Claim 17, Torma discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the grinding chamber is arranged essentially vertically, or essentially horizontally (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbinatti (US2019/0118185) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malmberg (US2003/0062372).
Re Claim 6, Urbinatti discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Urbinatti above), but fails to disclose at least one mounting hole for fixing stator elements, such a stator rings, or segments thereof.
Malmberg teaches forming the shell liner of polymer panels (lining element 1) shaped such that mounting holes (recesses 10) are formed by two adjacent plates (Fig. 3) in order to mount the polymer panels (“At each of the two other lateral edges, the wear-resistant lining element 1 has recesses 10 for holding fixing elements” [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Urbinatti to incorporate the teaching of Malmberg by shaping the polymer-ceramic panels of Urbinatti to form mounting holes to yield the predictable result of securing the position of the polymer-ceramic panels.
Re Claim 7, Urbinatti, in view of Malmberg, discloses the shell liner of claim 6, and Urbinatti, in view of Malmberg, further discloses at least two polymer-ceramics panels (Urbinatti, first element 30 and third element 50) spaced apart from one another in a height direction of the panel (Urbinatti, Fig. 5 and “Immediately adjacent to the first element 30 is a third element 50” [0082]), wherein the at least one mounting hole is disposed in the spacing between the two panels (In the rejection to claim 6 by Urbinatti, in view of Malmberg, the first element 30 and third element 50 of Urbinatti were re-shaped, as taught by Malmberg, to form a mounting hole between them in order to secure the position of the polymer-ceramic panels).
Claim(s) 8-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbinatti (US2019/0118185) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaeffer (US 4,231,528).
Re Claim 8, Urbinatti discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Urbinatti above), but fails to disclose that a thickness of a first polymer-ceramics panel of the shell liner is larger than a thickness of a second polymer-ceramics panel of the shell liner, the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels.
Schaeffer teaches that a thickness of a first panel (intermediate section) of the shell liner is larger than a thickness of a second panel (discharge section) of the shell liner (“the intermediate section tapering to a smaller thickness from said optimum thickness, the taper continuing along the discharge end of the liner to a predetermined final thickness” Col. 3, Lines 18-22), the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts (segments 26, 27) with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Urbinatti to incorporate the teachings of Schaeffer by making the thickness of the wear-resistant insert greater near the inlet end of the shell than the thickness of the wear-resistant grater is at the outlet. Schaefer teaches that “the section of maximum thickness is located where grinding by impact is very vigorous and where substantial wearing of the liner occurs” (Col. 3, Lines 23-26) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 9, Urbinatti discloses the shell liner of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the at least one of the polymer-ceramics panel of the liner has a bulge or other thickened area where the thickness of the elastic material layer and/or the dimension of the wear resistant inserts in the thickness direction of the panel is larger than in other areas of the panel.
Schaefer teaches that the at least one of the panel of the liner (intermediate section) has a bulge (Fig. 9 shows the intermediate section has a bulge near the interface with the feed section) or other thickened area where the thickness of the elastic material layer and/or the dimension of the wear resistant inserts in the thickness direction of the panel is larger than in other areas of the panel (“the intermediate section tapering to a smaller thickness from said optimum thickness, the taper continuing along the discharge end of the liner to a predetermined final thickness” Col. 3, Lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Urbinatti to incorporate the teachings of Schaeffer by making the thickness of the wear-resistant insert greater near the inlet end of the shell than the thickness of the wear-resistant grater is at the outlet. Schaefer teaches that “the section of maximum thickness is located where grinding by impact is very vigorous and where substantial wearing of the liner occurs” (Col. 3, Lines 23-26) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 10, Urbinatti, in view of Schaefer, discloses the shell liner of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 by Urbinatti, in view of Schaefer, above), and further discloses that the bulge or other thickened area is positioned where the at least one polymer-ceramics panel is configured (Urbinatti, Fig. 1) to face a rotor disk (Urbinatti, crushing head 3) configured to rotate in the grinding chamber of the mill
Re Claim 11, Urbinatti, in view of Schaefer, discloses the shell liner of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 by Urbinatti, in view of Schaefer, above), and further discloses that the bulge or other thickened area extends along a width of the liner and thereby along an inner circumference of the shell in the shell-mounted state of the liner (When Urbinatti is modified by Schaefer to have a bulge in the liner near the inlet so the section of maximum thickness of the liner is located in the region of maximum wear as taught by Schaefer, the liner of Urbinatti is modified along the entire inner circumference of the shell so the entirety of the feed section is protected).
Re Claim 15, Urbinatti discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), and further discloses several shell liners (lines 10, 20, 80), but fails to disclose that a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the bottom or inlet end of the shell is larger than a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the top or outlet end of the shell, the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels.
Schaeffer teaches that a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the bottom or inlet end of the shell is larger than a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the top or outlet end of the shell (“the intermediate section tapering to a smaller thickness from said optimum thickness, the taper continuing along the discharge end of the liner to a predetermined final thickness” Col. 3, Lines 18-22), the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts (segments 26, 27) with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Torma to incorporate the teachings of Schaeffer by making the thickness of the wear-resistant insert greater near the inlet end of the shell than the thickness of the wear-resistant grater is at the outlet. Schaefer teaches that “the section of maximum thickness is located where grinding by impact is very vigorous and where substantial wearing of the liner occurs” (Col. 3, Lines 23-26) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torma (EP4260941) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malmberg (US2003/0062372).
Re Claim 6, Torma discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose at least one mounting hole for fixing stator elements, such a stator rings, or segments thereof.
Malmberg teaches forming the shell liner of polymer panels (lining element 1) shaped such that mounting holes (recesses 10) are formed by two adjacent plates (Fig. 3) in order to mount the polymer panels (“At each of the two other lateral edges, the wear-resistant lining element 1 has recesses 10 for holding fixing elements” [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torma to incorporate the teaching of Malmberg by shaping the polymer-ceramic panels of Torma to form mounting holes to yield the predictable result of securing the position of the polymer-ceramic panels.
Re Claim 7, Torma, in view of Eriksson, discloses the shell liner of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and further discloses further discloses at least two polymer-ceramics panels spaced apart from one another in a height direction of the panel (see Fig. 1 of Torma, illustrated above) wherein the at least one mounting hole is disposed in the spacing between the two panels (In the rejection to claim 6 by Torma, in view of Malmberg, the two polymer-ceramic panels on either side of the space between two plates in the height direction of Torma were re-shaped, as taught by Malmberg, to form a mounting hole between them in order to secure the position of the polymer-ceramic panels).
Claim 8-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torma (EP4260941) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Schaeffer (US 4,231,528).
Re Claim 8, Torma discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that a thickness of a first polymer-ceramics panel of the shell liner is larger than a thickness of a second polymer-ceramics panel of the shell liner, the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels.
Schaeffer teaches that a thickness of a first panel (intermediate section) of the shell liner is larger than a thickness of a second panel (discharge section) of the shell liner (“the intermediate section tapering to a smaller thickness from said optimum thickness, the taper continuing along the discharge end of the liner to a predetermined final thickness” Col. 3, Lines 18-22), the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts (segments 26, 27) with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Torma to incorporate the teachings of Schaeffer by making the thickness of the wear-resistant insert greater near the inlet end of the shell than the thickness of the wear-resistant grater is at the outlet. Schaefer teaches that “the section of maximum thickness is located where grinding by impact is very vigorous and where substantial wearing of the liner occurs” (Col. 3, Lines 23-26) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 9, Torma discloses the shell liner of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the at least one of the polymer-ceramics panel of the liner has a bulge or other thickened area where the thickness of the elastic material layer and/or the dimension of the wear resistant inserts in the thickness direction of the panel is larger than in other areas of the panel.
Schaefer teaches that the at least one of the panel of the liner (intermediate section) has a bulge (Fig. 9 shows the intermediate section has a bulge near the interface with the feed section) or other thickened area where the thickness of the elastic material layer and/or the dimension of the wear resistant inserts in the thickness direction of the panel is larger than in other areas of the panel (“the intermediate section tapering to a smaller thickness from said optimum thickness, the taper continuing along the discharge end of the liner to a predetermined final thickness” Col. 3, Lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Torma to incorporate the teachings of Schaeffer by making the thickness of the wear-resistant insert greater near the inlet end of the shell than the thickness of the wear-resistant grater is at the outlet. Schaefer teaches that “the section of maximum thickness is located where grinding by impact is very vigorous and where substantial wearing of the liner occurs” (Col. 3, Lines 23-26) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 10, Torma, in view of Schaefer, discloses the shell liner of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 by Torma, in view of Schaefer, above), and further disclose that the bulge or other thickened area is positioned where the at least one polymer-ceramics panel is configured (Torma, Fig. 1) to face a rotor disk (Torma, “arms of the crusher” [0047]) configured to rotate in the grinding chamber of the mill.
Re Claim 11, Torma, in view of Schaefer, discloses the shell liner of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 by Torma, in view of Schaefer, above), and further discloses that the bulge or other thickened area extends along a width of the liner and thereby along an inner circumference of the shell in the shell-mounted state of the liner (When Torma is modified by Schaefer to have a bulge in the liner near the inlet so the section of maximum thickness of the liner is located in the region of maximum wear as taught by Schaefer, the liner of Torma is modified along the entire inner circumference of the shell so the entirety of the feed section is protected).
Re Claim 15, Torma discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), comprising several shell liners (Fig. 1), but fails to discloses that a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the bottom or inlet end of the shell is larger than a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the top or outlet end of the shell, the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels.
Schaeffer teaches that a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the bottom or inlet end of the shell is larger than a thickness of at least one polymer-ceramics panel of a shell liner disposed further towards the top or outlet end of the shell (“the intermediate section tapering to a smaller thickness from said optimum thickness, the taper continuing along the discharge end of the liner to a predetermined final thickness” Col. 3, Lines 18-22), the variation in thickness resulting from the panels having elastic material layers with different thicknesses and/or wear-resistant inserts (segments 26, 27) with different dimensions in a thickness direction of the panels (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Torma to incorporate the teachings of Schaeffer by making the thickness of the wear-resistant insert greater near the inlet end of the shell than the thickness of the wear-resistant grater is at the outlet. Schaefer teaches that “the section of maximum thickness is located where grinding by impact is very vigorous and where substantial wearing of the liner occurs” (Col. 3, Lines 23-26) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torma (EP4260941) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Belke et al. (WO2018138405), hereinafter referred to as “Belke”.
Re Claim 16, Torma discloses the stirred grinding mill of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the stirring assembly comprises: a drive shaft (“A crushing head is mounted upon a vertically extending main shaft (both not illustrated)” [0044]), but fails to discloses a number of rotor disks disposed along the length of the drive shaft, or an agitator screw arranged concentrically with and inside the grinding chamber for rotating therein.
Belke teaches that the stirring assembly (mill rotor 10) comprises: a drive shaft (shaft 11) with a number of rotor disks disposed along the length of the drive shaft (grinding discs 12)
Torma differs from the claimed invention by not having a number of rotor disks disposed along the length of the drive shaft. Belke teaches a number of rotor disks disposed along the length of the drive shaft to stir the grinding media (Belke, Col. 1 Lines 12-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the drive shaft of Torma for the shaft of Belke to yield the predictable result of providing grinding discs to grind material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eriksson et al. (US 4,848,681).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 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.
/WILLIAM DOUGLAS DICKSTEIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725