DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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 1-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbuthnot et al. (herein referred to as “Arbuthnot”, US Pat Pub. 2011/0198303).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Arbuthnot discloses a shearing device connectable to a drive assembly of an arrangement for separating solids from liquid (Abstract; Figures 24-25; Paragraph [0145]; Paragraph [0212]; shearing device 220 forms part of rake assembly 48 connectable to drive assembly associated with central axis 49 and central drive shaft 47 that aids in separating solids such as pulp formation from liquid), the shearing device comprising:
an attachment arrangement arranged in a first end of the device for connecting the shearing device to the drive assembly (Figures 24-25; Paragraph [0145]; Paragraph [0212]; see attachment arm to central axis 49/central drive shaft 47);
a shearing arrangement being arranged to define shearing elements angled with the lengthwise direction of the device and intervals therebetween (Figures 24-25; Paragraph [0212]; see arrangement of pickets 221, wherein pickets are shearing elements);
the device has a proximal portion closer to the first end and a distal portion closer to a second end of the device opposite to the first end (Figures 24-25; Paragraphs [0211]-[0212]; proximal end is end of radial arm 81 closer to central axis 49, distal end is opposite);
the shearing element has length, width, and thickness (Figures 24-25; pickets 221 are three dimensional objects);
the length of the shearing element extends at an angle of inclination with respect to the lengthwise direction of the device (Figures 24-25; Paragraphs [0211]-[0212]; see angle of rods/pickets 221 with respect to radial arm 81);
the thickness is the dimension of the shearing element perpendicular to the lengthwise direction of the device (Figures 24-25; see thickness of overall picket 221);
the width is the dimension of the shearing element perpendicular to the length and the thickness (Figures 24-25; picket width, or vertical direction in the plane of the drawing in Figure 24-25);
an average width of the shearing elements arranged in the distal portion is greater than an average width of the shearing elements arranged in the proximal portion (Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see pickets 221 and larger width as arm goes from distal end to proximal end).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the shearing elements progressively increase in width from the first end towards the second end (Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see progress in width among the pickets 221).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the shearing elements increase their width in groups so that adjacent shearing elements have a same width (Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see that some pickets 221 have same width).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the sharing arrangement comprises a plurality of shearing elements being spaced apart along the lengthwise direction of the device to define respective intervals therebetween (Figure 24; Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see spacing between pickets 221).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the shearing element has a linear shape (Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see overall linear nature of individual picket 221).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the shearing element is a rod (Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; picket 221 is rod-shaped).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the intervals between the shearing elements are varying so that two or more shearing elements are spaced at uneven intervals with respect to each other (Figure 24; Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see difference in spacing between respective pickets 221).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 7, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the intervals progressively increase from the first end to the second end (Figure 24; Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see increase in spacing between pickets 221 along arm).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses comprising an arm arranged in the lengthwise direction of the shearing device (Figure 24; Figure 25; Paragraph [0145]; Paragraph [0212]; see attachment arm), and wherein
at least some of the shearing elements extends on both sides of the arm (Figure 24; Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; see pickets 221 extend on both sides of arm).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 1, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses comprising an arm arranged in the lengthwise direction of the shearing device (Figure 24; Figure 25; Paragraph [0145]; Paragraph [0212]; see attachment arm), and wherein
at least some of the shearing elements extends only on one side of the arm (Figure 24; Paragraph [0212]; see that at least two pickets are on only one side of the arm).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 1, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses wherein the proximal portion of the device has a portion in the vicinity of the attachment arrangement being devoid of the shearing elements (Figure 24; Figure 25; Paragraph [0212]; area closes to central axis 49 does not have pickets 221).
Regarding instant Claim 13, Claim 1, upon which Claim 13 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses a tank for receiving a feed material (Figure 23; Paragraph [0211]; tank 1), and
at least one shearing device as claimed in claim 1, connected by the attachment arrangement to a drive assembly for rotating thereby about an axis of rotation (Figures 23-25; Paragraphs [0211]-[0212]; see central axis 49 and pickets 221).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 1, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses comprising: a rake assembly comprising at least one rake arm having scraper blades extending downwardly towards the bottom of the tank to move settled and compacted pulp towards an underflow outlet (Figure 23; Paragraph [0145]; Paragraph [0211]; see rake arms 50 and scraper blades 51).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 1, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses use of the shearing device as claimed in claim 1 for separating solids from suspensions in the mining and mineral processing industries (Abstract; Paragraph [0003]; see mining fields).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 1, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses use of the shearing device as claimed in claim 1 for separating solids from suspensions in a water treatment process (Abstract; Paragraph [0003]; see water treatment).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Claim 1, upon which Claim 17 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses use of the shearing device as claimed in claim 1 for separating solids from suspensions in a sewage treatment process (Abstract; Paragraph [0003]; see sewage treatment).
Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 1, upon which Claim 19 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses use of the shearing device as claimed in claim 1 for separating solids from suspensions in a food processing (Paragraph [0003]; see food processing).
Regarding instant Claim 20, Claim 1, upon which Claim 20 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot further discloses use of the shearing device as claimed in claim 1 for separating solids from suspensions in a sugar refining (Paragraph [0003]; see sugar refining).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuthnot et al. (herein referred to as “Arbuthnot”, US Pat Pub. 2011/0198303) in view of Okada et al. (herein referred to as “Okada”, US 3944144).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 1, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot is silent, however, on an auxiliary element in at least one the intervals.
Okada discloses a method and apparatus for dispersing suspensions in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing shear to a suspension (Abstract; Col. 8, Lines 25-34; see shearing device). Okada further discloses an auxiliary device in the form of a high-speed agitator that further improves the quality of the suspension (Col. 8, Lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention by modifying the intervals of Arbuthnot by further including the auxiliary element, in particular a high-speed agitator, as taught by Okada because Okada discloses such an auxiliary element improves the quality of the suspension undergoing treatment (Okada, Col. 8, Lines 25-34).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuthnot et al. (herein referred to as “Arbuthnot”, US Pat Pub. 2011/0198303) in view of Onodera et al. (herein referred to as “Onodera”, US Pat Pub. 2009/0114360).
Regarding instant Claim 18, Claim 1, upon which Claim 18 is dependent, has been rejected above. Arbuthnot discloses the separation of solids from suspensions in pulp (Abstract), but the reference is silent on use in the paper industry.
Onodera discloses an apparatus for treating papermaking feedstock in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing a shearing force to pulp (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]). Onodera further discloses that blades and other shearing force devices may be used on pulp suspensions in the paper industry (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the use of the shearing device of Arbuthnot by further using said device in the paper industry as taught by Onodera because Onodera discloses such shearing devices are used within the paper industry (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 07/09/2026
Prosecution Insights