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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 8-11, in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “31” (see Fig. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, it appears that "the entrained flow reactor or in a fluidized bed reactor configured" should read "wherein the entrained flow reactor or fluidized bed reactor is configured" (see claim 8 at lines 8-9).
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 8-11 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 term “high” in claim 8 (see claim 8 at line 1) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. It is not clear what actual moisture content is required for a clay to meet the limitation of having a “high” residual moisture as claimed.
Claim 9-11 are included herein as each depends from a claim which is indefinite for reasons set forth above.
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.
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.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,962,279-A) (hereinafter, “ANDERSON”) in view of Grund, et al. (WO-2021140095-A1) (hereinafter, “GRUND”; citations herein refer to the attached machine translation) and Ross (U.S. Pat. No. 4,579,525-A) (hereinafter, “ROSS”).
Regarding claim 8, ANDERSON teaches a process for activating clays having high residual moisture (see ANDERSON generally at Abstract, teaching a process of producing calcined kaolin clay) comprising the following steps:
feeding wet clay into a device for drying the wet clay and configured to provide a dried clay (see ANDERSON at col. 5, lines 27-36, teaching drying the kaolin slurry in a dryer),
comminuting the dried clay in a device for comminuting configured to provide a comminuted clay (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 1-4, teaching pulverizing, i.e., comminuting, the dried kaolin in a pulverizer),
thermally activating the comminuted clay in a reactor, the reactor configured to provide a thermally activated clay (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 4-6, teaching calcining the pulverized clay in a calciner, which can be some type of furnace),
removing the gas from the reactor in a device for removing (see ANDERSON at col. 8, lines 65-67, teaching that the exhaust gas from the calciner is removed),
and introducing the gas into the device for drying as a drying air (see ANDERSON at col. 8, lines 65-67, teaching that the exhaust gas removed from the calciner is introduced to the spray dryer),
and filtering, in a dust filter, the drying air after drying of the wet clay (see ANDERSON at col. 5, lines 51-60, teaching that air and exhaust gases from the drying process and carrying kaolin fines pass into the dust bag of a dust filter),
wherein clay removed by filtration is combined with the dried clay (see ANDERSON at col. 5, lines 62-68, teaching that the dust product leaving the dust bag is added to the dried clay product exiting the dryer).
However, ANDERSON fails to explicitly teach that (i) the reactor is an entrained flow reactor or in a fluidized bed reactor in which the comminuted clay is in suspension in a gas, or (ii) cooling the thermally activated clay in a device for cooling with a cooling gas, and combining the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, with the gas from the reactor to provide a combined gas which is introduced into the device for drying.
Regarding (i) above, an entrained flow reactor is a known type of furnace used to calcine clay. For example, GRUND teaches a process for activating clays having high residual moisture (see GRUND at Abstract and paragraphs 16-19 and 24) wherein the dried and comminuted clay is thermally treated (calcined) in an entrained flow reactor (see GRUND at Abstract and paragraphs 14-19, 24 and 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process of ANDERSON by simply substituting the unspecified “other type of furnace” of ANDERSON (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 4-6) with an entrained flow reactor as taught by GRUND (see GRUND at Abstract and paragraph 19). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a calciner which will thermally treat (calcine) the clay. Additionally, as evidenced by GRUND, an entrained flow reactor is a known type of calcination furnace, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding (ii) above, GRUND teaches cooling the product from the entrained flow reactor in a cooling device (see GRUND at paragraph 24), but does not explicitly teach combining the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, with the gas from the reactor to provide a combined gas which is introduced into the device for drying.
ROSS teaches a process for activating clays having high residual moisture (see ROSS at Abstract and col. 11, lines 65-67, col. 12, lines 43-48, col. 17, lines 7-11, and col. 24, lines 1-16 and 36-38) wherein after thermal treatment the calcined clay is cooled in a cooler (see ROSS at col. 23, line 60 and col. 24, lines 4 and 16-20) and wherein the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, is combined with gas from the furnace to provide a combined gas which is introduced into the device for drying (see ROSS at col. 6, lines 56-58, col. 23, lines 60-68 and col. 24, lines 1-3 and 18-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the process of ANDERSON in view of GRUND by incorporating a step of cooling the calcined clay in a cooler and combining the heated cooling gas with the exhaust gas from the calciner that is used as drying air in the dryer as taught by ROSS (see ROSS at col. 6, lines 56-58, col. 23, lines 60-68 and col. 24, lines 1-3 and 18-30; see ANDERSON at col. 8, lines 65-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of simultaneously cooling the hot product from the furnace to provide a cooled product and increasing energy efficiency by using the heated gas from the cooler to dry the clay.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 8 above, ANDERSON in view of GRUND and ROSS teaches a process according to claim 8, further comprising: introducing a portion of the thermally activated clay obtained on removal of the gas from the entrained flow reactor into the device for comminuting (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 1-4, and claims 1-2 and 4, teaching that calcined kaolin dust from the calciner is cycled back to the spray dryer and the mixture of dried kaolin particles and kaolin dust is pulverized).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON in view of ROSS and Lorke, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,264,738-B1) (hereinafter, “LORKE”).
Regarding claim 8, ANDERSON teaches a process for activating clays having high residual moisture (see ANDERSON generally at Abstract, teaching a process of producing calcined kaolin clay) comprising the following steps:
feeding wet clay into a device for drying the wet clay and configured to provide a dried clay (see ANDERSON at col. 5, lines 27-36, teaching drying the kaolin slurry in a dryer),
comminuting the dried clay in a device for comminuting configured to provide a comminuted clay (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 1-4, teaching pulverizing, i.e., comminuting, the dried kaolin in a pulverizer),
thermally activating the comminuted clay in a reactor, the reactor configured to provide a thermally activated clay (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 4-6, teaching calcining the pulverized clay in a calciner, which can be some type of furnace),
removing the gas from the reactor in a device for removing (see ANDERSON at col. 8, lines 65-67, teaching that the exhaust gas from the calciner is removed),
and introducing the gas into the device for drying as a drying air (see ANDERSON at col. 8, lines 65-67, teaching that the exhaust gas removed from the calciner is introduced to the spray dryer),
and filtering, in a dust filter, the drying air after drying of the wet clay (see ANDERSON at col. 5, lines 51-60, teaching that air and exhaust gases from the drying process and carrying kaolin fines pass into the dust bag of a dust filter),
wherein clay removed by filtration is combined with the dried clay (see ANDERSON at col. 5, lines 62-68, teaching that the dust product leaving the dust bag is added to the dried clay product exiting the dryer).
However, ANDERSON fails to explicitly teach that (i) the reactor is an entrained flow reactor or in a fluidized bed reactor in which the comminuted clay is in suspension in a gas, or (ii) cooling the thermally activated clay in a device for cooling with a cooling gas, and combining the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, with the gas from the reactor to provide a combined gas which is introduced into the device for drying.
Regarding (ii) above, ROSS teaches a process for activating clays having high residual moisture (see ROSS at Abstract and col. 11, lines 65-67, col. 12, lines 43-48, col. 17, lines 7-11, and col. 24, lines 1-16 and 36-38) wherein after thermal treatment the calcined clay is cooled in a cooler (see ROSS at col. 23, line 60 and col. 24, lines 4 and 16-20) and wherein the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, is combined with gas from the furnace to provide a combined gas which is introduced into the device for drying (see ROSS at col. 6, lines 56-58, col. 23, lines 60-68 and col. 24, lines 1-3 and 18-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process of ANDERSON by incorporating a step of cooling the calcined clay in a cooler and combining the heated cooling gas with the exhaust gas from the calciner that is used as drying air in the dryer as taught by ROSS (see ROSS at col. 6, lines 56-58, col. 23, lines 60-68 and col. 24, lines 1-3 and 18-30; see ANDERSON at col. 8, lines 65-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of simultaneously cooling the hot product from the furnace to provide a cooled product and increasing energy efficiency by using the heated gas from the cooler to dry the clay.
Regarding (i) above, a fluidized bed reactor is a known type of furnace used to calcine clay. For example, LORKE teaches a process comprising thermally activating clays having high residual moisture (see LORKE at Abstract, col. 1, lines 4-7, col. 5, lines 47-49 and col. 6, lines 45-48) wherein the calciner is a fluidized bed reactor (see LORKE at col. 1, lines 4-7 and col. 68, lines 49-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the process of ANDERSON by simply substituting the unspecified “other type of furnace” of ANDERSON (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 4-6) with a fluidized bed reactor as taught by LORKE (see LORKE at col. 1, lines 4-7 and col. 68, lines 49-47). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a calciner which will calcine the clay. Additionally, as evidenced by LORKE, a fluidized bed reactor is a known type of calcination furnace, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 8 above, ANDERSON in view of ROSS and LORKE teaches a process according to claim 8. ANDERSON does not explicitly teach that the device for comminuting comprises an impact hammer mill.
LORKE teaches a process comprising thermally activating clays having high residual moisture (see LORKE at Abstract, col. 1, lines 4-7, col. 5, lines 47-49 and col. 6, lines 45-48) wherein the raw material is comminuted using an impact hammer mill, i.e., high-speed pulverizer (see LORKE col. 67, lines 51-53, col. 76, lines 21-60, and col. 84, lines 30-32 and 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the process of ANDERSON by simply substituting the unspecified pulverizer (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 1-4) with an impact hammer mill (i.e., high-speed pulverizer) as taught by LORKE (see LORKE col. 67, lines 51-53, col. 76, lines 21-60, and col. 84, lines 30-32 and 65-67). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of pulverizing the clay. Additionally, as evidenced by LORKE, an impact hammer mill is a known type of pulverizer, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 8 above, ANDERSON in view of ROSS and LORKE teaches a process according to claim 8. ANDERSON does not explicitly teach that the process further comprises introducing a portion of the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, into the device for comminuting.
LORKE teaches a process comprising thermally activating clays having high residual moisture (see LORKE at Abstract, col. 1, lines 4-7, col. 5, lines 47-49 and col. 6, lines 45-48) wherein exhaust air from the cooler is introduced into comminuting device (see LORKE col. 77, lines 57-59, col. 81, lines 29-38 and 61-66, col. 82, line 66 - col. 83, line 11, and col. 84, lines 38-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the process of ANDERSON by using a mill (comminuting device) which also dries the material using the exhaust air from the cooler as taught by LORKE (see LORKE col. 77, lines 57-59, col. 81, lines 29-38 and 61-66, col. 82, line 66 - col. 83, line 11, and col. 84, lines 38-46). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of simultaneously pulverizing and drying the material. One of ordinary skill could have used this comminuting/drying configuration with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of pulverizing and drying the clay. Additionally, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above, both ANDERSON and ROSS teach using exhaust air to dry the clay, and ROSS teaches using the exhaust air from the cooler (see ANDERSON at col. 8, lines 65-67; see ROSS at col. 6, lines 56-58, col. 23, lines 60-68 and col. 24, lines 1-3 and 18-30); as evidenced by LORKE, mills which use hot air / exhaust gas to both comminute and dry raw materials are known pulverizers in the art. MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 8 above, ANDERSON in view of ROSS and LORKE teaches a process according to claim 8, further comprising: introducing a portion of the thermally activated clay obtained on removal of the gas from the entrained flow reactor or the fluidized bed reactor into the device for comminuting (see ANDERSON at claims 1-2 and 4, teaching that calcined kaolin dust from the calciner is cycled back to the spray dryer and the mixture of dried kaolin particles and kaolin dust is pulverized).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 17 of copending Application No. 19/167,629 (reference application; hereinafter, “-629”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding present claim 8, -692 claims a process for activating clays having high residual moisture (see -692 at claim 10, lines 1-3, reciting a method for activating wet clays), comprising the following steps:
feeding wet clay into a device for drying the wet clay and configured to provide a dried clay (see -692 at claim 10, line 3),
comminuting the dried clay in a device for comminuting configured to provide a comminuted clay (see -692 at claim 10, line 3),
thermally activating the comminuted clay in an entrained flow reactor or in a fluidized bed reactor in which the comminuted clay is in suspension in a gas, the entrained flow reactor or in a fluidized bed reactor configured to provide a thermally activated clay (see -692 at claim 10, lines 5-12, reciting thermally activating the dried and comminuted clay in an entrained flow reactor, wherein a first portion is first fluidized in a fluidized bed reactor),
removing the gas from the entrained flow reactor or the fluidized bed reactor in a device for removing (see -692 at claim 17, lines 15-16, reciting using offgass from the entrained flow reactor, i.e., the gas has been removed),
and cooling the thermally activated clay in a device for cooling with a cooling gas (see -692 at claim 17, line 30),
combining the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, with the gas from the entrained flow reactor or fluidized bed reactor to provide a combined gas and introducing the combined gas into the device for drying as a drying air (see -692 at claim 17, lines 30-33, reciting providing heated gas from cooling the clay to the entrained flow reactor (i.e., combining with the gas from the entrained flow reactor) then introducing this gas into a heating device, wherein the offgas from the heating device (i.e., comprising the combined gas) is then passed back to the device for drying and comminuting),
and filtering, in a dust filter, the drying air after drying of the wet clay (see -692 at claim 17, lines 1-11, reciting wherein a fine fraction of the dried and comminuted clay, extracted by classifying, is passed in suspension in classifying air to a dust remover, and dedusting the classifying air in the dust remover to provide a dedusted classifying air, wherein the fine fraction from the classifying air is passed to a heat exchanger),
wherein clay removed by filtration is combined with the dried clay (see -692 at claim 17, lines 15-19, reciting preheating the fine fraction in the heat exchanger and thermally activating the preheated fine fraction in the entrained flow reactor, i.e., the fine fraction is combined with the dried clay fed to the entrained flow reactor).
Regarding present claim 10, as set forth above, -692 claims a process according to present claim 8 (see -692 at claims 10 and 17), further comprising: introducing a portion of the cooling gas, heated after cooling the thermally activated clay, into the device for comminuting (see -692 at claim 17, lines 30-33, reciting providing heated gas from cooling the clay to the entrained flow reactor then introducing this gas into a heating device, wherein the offgas from the heating device (i.e., comprising heated cooling gas) is then passed back to the device for drying and comminuting).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 17 of copending Application -629 in view of LORKE.
Regarding present claim 9, as set forth above, -692 claims a process according to present claim 8 (see -692 at claims 10 and 17). -692 does not claim a process wherein the device for comminuting comprises an impact hammer mill.
However, an impact hammer mill is a known comminuting device in the art. For example, LORKE teaches a process comprising thermally activating clays having high residual moisture (see LORKE at Abstract, col. 1, lines 4-7, col. 5, lines 47-49 and col. 6, lines 45-48) wherein the raw material is comminuted using an impact hammer mill, i.e., high-speed pulverizer (see LORKE col. 67, lines 51-53, col. 76, lines 21-60, and col. 84, lines 30-32 and 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an impact hammer mill as the comminuting device in the process claimed by -692. One of ordinary skill could simply substitute the unspecified comminuting device with an impact hammer mill as taught by LORKE (see LORKE col. 67, lines 51-53, col. 76, lines 21-60, and col. 84, lines 30-32 and 65-67) with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of comminuting the clay. Additionally, as evidenced by LORKE, an impact-hammer mill is a known type of pulverizer, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 17 of copending Application -629 in view of ANDERSON.
Regarding present claim 11, as set forth above, -692 claims a process according to present claim 8 (see -692 at claims 10 and 17). -692 recites recycling a portion of the activated clay back to the dried and comminuted clay feed to the fluidized bed reactor (see -692 at claim 17, lines 23-25) and recycling offgas from the entrained flow reactor back to the device for drying and comminuting (see -692 at claim 17, lines 31-33), but does not recite introducing a portion of the thermally activated clay obtained on removal of the gas from the entrained flow reactor or the fluidized bed reactor into the device for comminuting.
ANDERSON teaches a process for activating clays having high residual moisture (see ANDERSON generally at Abstract) wherein a portion of the thermally activated clay obtained on removal of the gas from the calciner is cycled back into the device for comminuting (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 1-4, and claims 1-2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process claimed by -692 by simply introducing the recycled portion of the activated clay to the into the comminuting device rather than introducing the recycled portion after the comminuting device, as taught by ANDERSON (see ANDERSON at col. 6, lines 1-4, and claims 1-2 and 4). One of ordinary skill could simply substitute recycling point of after the comminuting device to a recycling point before/inside the drying/comminuting device with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of recovering the portion of calcined clay and introducing it back into the feed of dried clay to be activated.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Baird (EP-0404864-B1) (hereinafter, “BAIRD”):
BAIRD teaches a process of calcining clay comprising feeding wet clay into a dryer to provide a dried clay, comminuting the dried clay, thermally activating the comminuted clay in a fluidized bed reactor and calciner, removing gas from the calciner, cooling the calcined clay, using gas heated by cooling the calcined clay and hot calciner gas as a source of heat for preheating in the fluidized bed reactor, filtering clay particles entrained in gas discharged from the calciner, and recycling the clay particles removed from the gas to the feed, i.e., combining it with the dried clay (see BAIRD at Abstract and col. 4, lines 23-46, col. 7, lines 5-10, col. 9, lines 19-37, col. 18, lines 23-55).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on (571) 270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights