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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-4, 6, 9-10, 13 and 16-17 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.
The terms “tough” and “hard” in claim 2 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “tough” and “hard” 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. Therefore the type of steel used is indefinite. Claim 2 will be interpreted as reciting “steel” without qualification for examination purposes to advance compact prosecution.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “2-8 units”, and the claim also recites “3-6 units” and “3-5 units” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 4 is also separately rejected for the same reason.
Similarly, claim 6 is indefinite because the broad range of “less than 20 mm” is recited together with narrower ranges “less than 15 mm” and “less than 10 mm”.
Claims 9-10 and 16-17 are indefinite because broad ranges of rotational speed are recited together with narrower ranges.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the blades” and "the central cone" in the 5th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitation “the pins” in line 6 and line 8 of the claim also lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the apparatus”, "the piping", and “the cover”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Great Britian Patent Document No. GB 967962 A by Auer, hereinafter “Auer”.
Regarding claim 1, Auer discloses an apparatus for crushing material (apparatus shown in Figs. 1 and 2; page 2, line 8-12), the apparatus comprising
an upper rotor (upper rotor cover 5 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 21-26) and
a lower rotor (lower rotor 7 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 14), the rotors rotating in a horizontal plane in opposite directions around a vertical axis of rotation (Fig. 1 shows rotor 5 and rotor 7 rotating in a horizontal plane. Page 1, line 16-22 discloses the rotors may be configured to rotate in opposite directions.),
whereby in the center of the upper rotor there is an opening for feeding material between the upper rotor and the lower rotor (opening inlet passage 10 in Figs. 1-2 feeds material between rotors 5 and 7; page 2, line 21-26), and
pins on the outer rim of the upper rotor (pin annular bodies 6 on upper rotor 5 in Fig. 1; page 2, line 41-51),
whereby the lower rotor comprises pins (pin rings 8 in Fig. 1; page 2, line 36-40 and 46-51) and a central cone (cone-shaped nut 11 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 62-66 and 74-79) with blades (blades 13 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 59-73), wherein the pins of the lower rotor are mechanically fastened in a detachable manner to the lower rotor for individually replacing the pins (pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are separate bodies fixed in grooves of lower rotor 7 such that they may each individually be replaced; page 2, line 36-40), and
in that the pins are installed in series in the radial direction of the lower rotor (Fig. 1 shows pin rings 8 are installed in series in the radial direction of lower rotor 7) and all the pins of the lower rotor are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than the pins of the upper rotor (Fig. 1 shows all of pin rings 8 are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than pin bodies 6 of upper rotor 5).
Regarding claim 3, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. Auer further discloses there are 3-5 units of pin rings 8 in a series as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. Auer further discloses the series of pins are located at regular intervals on the lower rotor (pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are located at regular intervals in the radial direction on lower rotor 7), in which case the lower rotor is in balance, and in that there are 3-4 in series on the lower rotor (three pin rings 8 are shown in Fig. 1 of lower rotor 7).
Regarding claim 5, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. Auer further discloses the pins of a series on the lower rotor are located attached to each other. Fig. 1 shows pin rings 8 are attached to each other.
Regarding claim 7, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. Auer further discloses the series of pins on the lower rotor (series of pin rings 8 in Fig. 1) is located to start from the outer rim of the lower rotor towards the axis of rotation of the lower rotor (the outermost pin ring 8 in Fig. 1 starts from the outer rim of lower rotor 7).
Regarding claims 9-10, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. The limitations of claims 9 and 10 recite a manner of operating the apparatus according to claim 1, i.e. the intended rotational operating speed of the rotors. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See M.P.E.P. 2114,II. In the instant case, Auer anticipates all of the structural limitations of claims 9 and 10 in that the structural limitations are contained within claim 1 and Auer anticipates claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claim 12, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. Auer further discloses the apparatus comprises a cover provided with piping, through which piping pneumatic impacts and/or water and/or other liquid or chemicals can be supplied from the top and/or from the side of the apparatus. Cover upper rotor 5 in Fig. 1 is provided with piping which is capable of supplying water from the top side of the apparatus. See “Piping” annotation to Fig. 1 of Auer reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Auer discloses a method for crushing lumpy material, the method comprising
an upper rotor rotatable in a horizontal plane around a vertical axis of rotation (upper rotor cover 5 in Figs. 1-2 is shown as being rotatable in a horizontal plane. Page 1, line 16-22 discloses the rotors may be configured to rotate in opposite directions.), and
a lower rotor rotatable in the opposite direction around the same axis of rotation (lower rotor 7 in Figs. 1-2), between which rotors material is fed from an opening in the center of the upper rotor (opening inlet passage 10 in Figs. 1-2 feeds material between rotors 5 and 7) onto a central cone of the lower rotor (cone-shaped nut 11 in Figs. 1-2),
whereby blades of a central cone pre-crush the material (blades 13 of cone-shaped nut 11 in Fig. 1 pre-crush material as it passes through inlet 10),
wherein the pins fastened to the lower rotor form a series (pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are fastened to lower rotor 7 is series in the radial direction), which series causes the material to move in a bouncing manner in front of the pins (page 1, line 37-43 discloses the apparatus shown in Figs. 1 and 2 uses bouncing action between the teeth of the rotors to comminute the material), and
in that when leaving from the top of the lower rotor the material collides with the pins of the upper rotor (the material collides with pin annular bodies 6 of upper rotor 5 when it bounces from lower rotor 7), and
in that all the pins of the lower rotor are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than the pins of the upper rotor (all of pin rings 8 on lower rotor 7 are closer to the axis of rotation than pin annular bodies 6 of upper rotor 5 as shown in 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,229,923 to Conley et al., hereinafter “Conley”.
Regarding claim 2, Auer anticipates the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Auer further discloses portion 81 of pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are polygonal in cross-sectional shape. However, Auer does not disclose pin rings 8 are sleeved with steel as claim 2 claims.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Conley teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sleeve components of the rotors in hardened steel . See column 6, line 67 through column 7, line 2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sleeve Auer’s pin rings 8 in hardened steel to prevent wear in the same way Conley teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Conley to the apparatus of Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s apparatus with hardened sleeves over the comminuting surfaces to prevent wear as Conley teaches.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer.
Regarding claim 6, Auer anticipates the apparatus of claim 5 as explained above. Auer further discloses the pins of a series on the lower rotor are located at a distance from each other. That is, the portion 81 of pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 of Auer extending above the surface of lower rotor 7 are located at a distance from each other to receive portion 61 of pin annular bodies 6. See page 2, line 46-51. But, Auer is silent regarding the distance between the comminuting surfaces of pin rings 8. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distance the comminuting surfaces of pin rings 8 less than 10 mm apart since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, Auer’s apparatus would not perform differently with the claimed distance. Further, it appears applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply it is advantageous to distance the pins within the claimed range. See applicant’s written description at page 6, line 4-11.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of Great Britian Patent Document No. GB 1,002,877 by Doyle et al., hereinafter “Doyle”.
Regarding claim 8, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. However, Auer does not disclose a distance corresponding to the thickness of 1-2 pins exists between the surface of the outermost pin ring 8 and the outer edge of lower rotor 7 as claim 8 recites.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Doyle teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distance the outermost pin of the lower rotor 1-2 pin thicknesses from the outer edge of the lower rotor. See Fig. 7 where pin P17 is distance more than one of its thicknesses away from the outer edge of lower rotor 18.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the outermost pin ring 8 of Auer away from the outer edge of lower rotor 7 at a distance of at least one thickness of portion 81 in the same way Doyle teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Doyle to the apparatus of Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s apparatus with the claimed spacing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer.
Regarding claim 11, Auer anticipates the apparatus according to claim 1 as explained above. Auer further discloses pin annular bodies 6 are on the inner rim of upper rotor 5 and spaced at regular intervals as shown in Fig. 1. But, Auer only discloses 3 annular bodies 6. Thus Auer does not disclose 4-16 annular bodies as claim 11 specifies. However it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of annular bodies 6 so as to cause their number to be from 4-16 since it has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See M.P.E.P. 2144.04,VI,B.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of Finish Patent Publication No. FI 128329 B by Hänninen, hereinafter “Hanninen”.
Regarding claim 14, Auer anticipates the method according to claim 13 as explained above. However, Auer is silent regarding giving pneumatic impacts at regular intervals through the Piping as annotated in the rejection of claim 12.
In the same field of rotary comminution apparatus, Hanninen teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give pneumatic impacts at regular interval through piping of the cover from above the apparatus. See air gap 15 adjacent supply tube 14 and the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give pneumatic impacts at regular intervals through Auer’s Piping in the same way Hanninen teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hanninen to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of adding the further step of giving pneumatic impacts through the piping of the cover as Hanninen teaches.
Regarding claim 15, Auer anticipates the method according to claim 13 as explained above. However, Auer is silent regarding adding water or other liquid and/or chemicals to the apparatus via piping of the cover.
In the same field of rotary comminution apparatus, Hanninen teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add water via piping in the cover. See the abstract teaching water may be added to the compressed air supply.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add water to Auer’s apparatus via Auer’s Piping in the same way Hanninen teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hanninen to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of adding the further step of adding water through the piping of the cover as Hanninen teaches.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,640,475 to Jung et al., hereinafter “Jung”.
Regarding claim 16, Auer anticipates the method according to claim 13 as explained above. Page 2, line 101-106 of Auer only gives an example rotational speed of the apparatus as 3,000 r.p.m. Therefore Auer does not disclose rotating the lower rotor at speeds of 1200-800 rpm or 1150-850 rpm or 1100-900 rpm as claim 16 claims.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Jung teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the rotational speed of the rotary apparatus such that it provides sufficient grinding on the lower end of the operational range while providing sufficient ventilation at the upper end of the range. See column 1, line 11-25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Auer’s disclosed method by causing the rotational speed of lower rotor 7 to be within the range of 1100-900 rpm to achieve the desired operational outcome as Jung teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Jung to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s method employing a particular rotational speed range.
Regarding claim 17, Auer anticipates the method according to claim 13 as explained above. Page 2, line 101-106 of Auer only gives an example rotational speed of the apparatus as 3,000 r.p.m. Therefore Auer does not disclose rotating the upper rotor at speeds of 1100-700 rpm or 1050-750 rpm or 1000-800 rpm as claim 17 claims.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Jung teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the rotational speed of the rotary apparatus such that it provides sufficient grinding on the lower end of the operational range while providing sufficient ventilation at the upper end of the range. See column 1, line 11-25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Auer’s disclosed method by causing the rotational speed of upper rotor 5 to be within the range of 1000-800 rpm to achieve the desired operational outcome as Jung teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Jung to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s method employing a particular rotational speed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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.
/P.D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725