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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27-32, 34, 35, 41, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Areaux (US 5407462 A), hereinafter Areaux, in view of Ostberg (US 3089653 A), hereinafter Ostberg.
Regarding claims 27-31, Areaux discloses a feed inlet structure for a burner for a suspension smelting furnace, the feed inlet structure comprising:
at least one side wall (Figure 1 shows an upper housing that contains elements 54, 72, 73 and comprises a sidewall through which conveyor 80 extends. Annotated in the figure as “housing”),
a bottom and a top provided at opposite ends of the at least one side wall (Upper and lower ends of the housing),
an inlet space defined inside the feed inlet structure (inner space of the housing), and
an inlet opening provided in at least one side wall (the opening through which conveyor 80 extends), wherein the feed inlet structure further comprises:
a feed distributor provided at least partly within the inlet space (“upper loading aperture 54 of mass flow gravity furnace charger 50 conduit 51” column 7, line 36),
wherein the feed distributor is configured to separate objects from a standard feed, which objects have a particle size that is larger than a maximum particle size of the standard feed, and
wherein the feed distributor comprises at least one divider comprising a first side having a first surface,
whereby the first surface of each divider is configured to deviate a trajectory of at least some objects from a trajectory of the standard feed inside the feed inlet structure, when feed material comprising standard feed and objects is fed to the feed inlet structure;
wherein the first surface of each of the dividing plates is configured to receive at least some of the objects or parts of the objects received to the inlet space through the inlet opening and to guide them inside the feed inlet structure;
whereby the first surfaces of the divider is configured to deviate a trajectory of the objects from a trajectory of the standard feed inside the feed inlet structure, when feed material is fed to the feed inlet structure (“to prevent oversize scrap pieces from entering the upper loading aperture 54, grizzly bars or other similar structure for screening out oversized scrap pieces may be provided” column 8, line 68).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Areaux does not disclose:
wherein the feed distributor comprises at least one dividing plate, wherein the first side is configured to have a horizontal component,
an inlet end directed towards the inlet opening, and a distal end at the end opposite to the inlet end;
wherein the first surface of each of said dividing plates is provided in an angled direction with respect to a feed inlet bottom provided in the feed inlet structure adjacent to a lower edge of the feed inlet opening;
wherein each of said dividing plates further comprises:
a second side having a second surface, wherein the second side connects to the inlet end of the first side and is provided in an angled direction with respect to the first side;
guided in a direction of the first side towards the distal end of the first side;
wherein the feed distributor comprises at least two dividing plates, and wherein the dividing plates and the first surfaces of said dividing plates are spaced from each other.
However, Ostberg teaches:
wherein the feed distributor (86) comprises at least one dividing plate (82), wherein the first side is configured to have a horizontal component (Figure 2),
an inlet end directed towards the inlet opening (Upstream side of 86), and a distal end at the end opposite to the inlet end (Downstream side of 86);
wherein the first surface of each of said dividing plates is provided in an angled direction with respect to a feed inlet bottom provided in the feed inlet structure adjacent to a lower edge of the feed inlet opening (Figure 1);
wherein each of said dividing plates further comprises:
a second side having a second surface, wherein the second side connects to the inlet end of the first side and is provided in an angled direction with respect to the first side (Figure 2);
guided in a direction of the first side towards the distal end of the first side (“a grizzly or grating formed of vertical metal plates 82 standing on edge and separated by vertical slots 84 with the plates being so formed that together they provide a horizontal inclined shelf 86 or grating onto which cooler discharge is deposited by the cooler grate 40 and from which coarse cooler discharge moves to the crushing mill 44” column 2, line 29);
wherein the feed distributor comprises at least two dividing plates, and wherein the dividing plates and the first surfaces of said dividing plates are spaced from each other (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
304
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Areaux does not disclose the claimed divider. Ostberg teaches the claimed divider. The substitution of one known element (the grizzly of Areaux) for another (the grizzly of Ostberg) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the grizzly taught in Ostberg would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for separating oversized objects Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 32, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the feed inlet structure according to claim 31.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose wherein the feed distributor comprises exactly two or three dividing plates. However, the court has held that mere scaling of a prior art process would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, providing more or fewer plates for a larger or smaller process does not establish patentability and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 34, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the feed inlet structure according to claim 31.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance between the dividing plates is in the range of 50-300 mm. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Areaux discloses preventing oversized scrap, but does not specifically recite the size of the scrap. Achieving a range of 50-300 mm is a results-effective variable because if the distance is too small it will prevent the appropriately sized scrap, and if the distance is too large it will permit oversized scrap. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance, because the selection of distance to achieve passage of the appropriately sized scrap constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 35, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the feed inlet structure according to claim 27.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose wherein the first side of each dividing plate is provided in a direction horizontal or deviating a maximum of 15 degrees downwards or a maximum of 10 degrees upwards from a horizontal direction in the direction from the inlet end towards the distal end in a use position of the feed inlet structure. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Ostberg teaches dividing plates angled downward to permit sliding of oversized objects from the surface, but does not specifically recite an angle. Achieving a range of a maximum of 15 degrees downward is a results-effective variable because if the angle is too small it will not permit sliding, and if the angle is too large it will reduce residence time of objects and potentially slide objects that would otherwise pass through the plates. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the angle, because the selection of angle to achieve passage of the appropriately sized scrap constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 41, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses a burner for a suspension smelting furnace, wherein the burner comprises a feed inlet structure according to claim 27 (“The charge-well of a metal-melting furnace, e.g., a reverberatory furnace of refractory material or having the usual refractory lining and fired by combustion burners fed by natural gas or fuel oil or the like which throw flames into the interior of the main chamber of the furnace through flame-introduction means, is shown generally in the figures at 10” column 6, line 26).
Regarding claim 43, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses a method for feeding material to a burner for a suspension smelting furnace, wherein the burner comprises a feed inlet structure according to claim 27, wherein the method comprises: receiving feed material comprising standard feed and objects on to an area of the feed distributor comprising at least one first side of at least one dividing plate, wherein the direction of the flow of the feed material has a component directed from the inlet end of the first side towards the distal end of the first side, and separating by the feed distributor objects from a standard feed, which objects have a particle size that is larger than a maximum particle size of the standard feed, by deviating by the first surface a trajectory of at least one object from a trajectory of the standard feed inside the feed inlet structure (“to prevent oversize scrap pieces from entering the upper loading aperture 54, grizzly bars or other similar structure for screening out oversized scrap pieces may be provided” column 8, line 68 of Areaux and “a grizzly or grating formed of vertical metal plates 82 standing on edge and separated by vertical slots 84 with the plates being so formed that together they provide a horizontal inclined shelf 86 or grating onto which cooler discharge is deposited by the cooler grate 40 and from which coarse cooler discharge moves to the crushing mill 44” column 2, line 29 of Ostberg).
Regarding claim 44, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the method according to claim 43, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving on the first surface of said dividing plate at least some of the objects or parts of the objects received to the inlet space through the inlet opening, and guiding said objects inside the feed inlet structure in a direction of the first side from the inlet opening towards the distal end of the first side (“a grizzly or grating formed of vertical metal plates 82 standing on edge and separated by vertical slots 84 with the plates being so formed that together they provide a horizontal inclined shelf 86 or grating onto which cooler discharge is deposited by the cooler grate 40 and from which coarse cooler discharge moves to the crushing mill 44” column 2, line 29 of Ostberg).
Regarding claim 45, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the method according to claim 43, wherein the method further comprises:
providing adjacent dividing plates at such a distance from each other that the shortest distance between the first surfaces of the adjacent dividing plates is shorter than the at least one dimension of the smallest object a trajectory of which is determined to be deviated from the trajectory of the standard feed (“to prevent oversize scrap pieces from entering the upper loading aperture 54, grizzly bars or other similar structure for screening out oversized scrap pieces may be provided” column 8, line 68 of Areaux and “a grizzly or grating formed of vertical metal plates 82 standing on edge and separated by vertical slots 84 with the plates being so formed that together they provide a horizontal inclined shelf 86 or grating onto which cooler discharge is deposited by the cooler grate 40 and from which coarse cooler discharge moves to the crushing mill 44” column 2, line 29 of Ostberg).
Claims 33 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Areaux, in view of Ostberg, and further in view of Wilson (US 1608640 A), hereinafter Wilson.
Regarding claim 33, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the feed inlet structure according to claim 31.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose wherein a position of at least one of the dividing plates is configured to be adjustable in the direction transverse with respect to the direction of the first side, whereby the distance between the first surfaces of the dividing plates is adjustable.
However, Wilson teaches wherein a position of at least one of the dividing plates is configured to be adjustable in the direction transverse with respect to the direction of the first side, whereby the distance between the first surfaces of the dividing plates is adjustable (“Other objects of my invention include the provision of means whereby this grizzly may be adjusted relatively to the supporting framework therefor so as to vary the degree of inclination of the screen, and also the provision of means whereby the spacing between the separate bars of the screen may be varied or adjusted so as to space for screening different sizes of material” page 1, line 64).
In view of Wilson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein a position of at least one of the dividing plates is configured to be adjustable in the direction transverse with respect to the direction of the first side, whereby the distance between the first surfaces of the dividing plates is adjustable as is taught in Wilson, in the feed inlet structure as presently modified because the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case Wilson shows that there is a need for dividers with adjustable spacing.
Regarding claim 46, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the method according to claim 43.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose adjusting a position of at least one dividing plate in a direction transverse to the direction of the flow of the feed material to affect the size range of objects for which a trajectory is deviated from the trajectory of the standard feed.
However, Wilson teaches adjusting a position of at least one dividing plate in a direction transverse to the direction of the flow of the feed material to affect the size range of objects for which a trajectory is deviated from the trajectory of the standard feed (“Other objects of my invention include the provision of means whereby this grizzly may be adjusted relatively to the supporting framework therefor so as to vary the degree of inclination of the screen, and also the provision of means whereby the spacing between the separate bars of the screen may be varied or adjusted so as to space for screening different sizes of material” page 1, line 64).
In view of Wilson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include adjusting a position of at least one dividing plate in a direction transverse to the direction of the flow of the feed material to affect the size range of objects for which a trajectory is deviated from the trajectory of the standard feed as is taught in Wilson, in the feed inlet structure as presently modified because the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case Wilson shows that there is a need for dividers with adjustable spacing.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Areaux, in view of Ostberg, and further in view of Sylvest (US 2674810 A), hereinafter Sylvest.
Regarding claim 37, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the feed inlet structure according to claim 27.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose wherein the feed inlet structure further comprises a hatch for accessing material within the inlet space.
However, Sylvest teaches wherein the feed inlet structure further comprises a hatch for accessing material within the inlet space (“Any oversize material retained on grid 38 may be removed through an opening 50 in the wall of the main chamber 10’, the opening being normally closed by a door” column 4, line 39).
PNG
media_image4.png
400
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Sylvest’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the feed inlet structure further comprises a hatch for accessing material within the inlet space as is taught in Sylvest, in the feed inlet structure as presently modified because Sylvest states that the hatch facilitates the removal of oversized objects. Therefore, including the hatch will simplify removal of oversized objects in Areaux.
Claims 38-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Areaux, in view of Ostberg, and further in view of Sipila (US 20120248664 A1), hereinafter Sipila.
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses a feed inlet structure according to claim 27.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose:
wherein the feed inlet structure comprises a rectangular cross section at least at one point along the feed inlet structure, and wherein the at least one side wall comprises four side walls comprising two pairs of side walls, each pair of side walls comprising two side walls spaced from each other;
wherein the feed inlet structure comprises a vertical section and a protruding section, and wherein at least one of the dividing plates is configured to extend to a distal end opening defined at a bend where the protruding section connects to the vertical section, to the vicinity of the distal end opening, or beyond the distal end opening to the inside of the vertical section.
However, Sipila teaches:
wherein the feed inlet structure comprises a rectangular cross section at least at one point along the feed inlet structure, and wherein the at least one side wall comprises four side walls comprising two pairs of side walls, each pair of side walls comprising two side walls spaced from each other (Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10);
wherein the feed inlet structure comprises a vertical section and a protruding section (Figures 3 and 9), and wherein at least one of the dividing plates (10, 13) is configured to extend to a distal end opening defined at a bend where the protruding section connects to the vertical section, to the vicinity of the distal end opening, or beyond the distal end opening to the inside of the vertical section (Figure 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
258
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
302
382
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
240
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
380
372
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of Sipila’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the features as is taught in Sipila, in the feed inlet structure disclosed by Areaux because Sipila states “The object of the invention is to further improve the even feed of powdery solid matter” (paragraph [0006]) and “Powdery solid matter is conveyed by means of the first powdery solid matter discharge pipe 8, preferably by an air slide conveyor” (paragraph [0022]). Therefore, including the structure and air conveying features of Siplia will improve the distribution of the feed in Areaux.
Regarding claim 40, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, discloses the feed inlet structure according to claim 27.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose wherein the feed inlet structure comprises two inlet openings provided at opposite sides of the feed inlet structure, and wherein one feed distributor is provided in connection with each inlet opening.
However, Sipila teaches wherein the feed inlet structure comprises two inlet openings provided at opposite sides of the feed inlet structure, and wherein one feed distributor is provided in connection with each inlet opening.
PNG
media_image9.png
304
374
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
192
432
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of Sipila’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the features as is taught in Sipila, in the feed inlet structure disclosed by Areaux because Sipila states “The object of the invention is to further improve the even feed of powdery solid matter” (paragraph [0006]) and “Powdery solid matter is conveyed by means of the first powdery solid matter discharge pipe 8, preferably by an air slide conveyor” (paragraph [0022]). Therefore, including the structure and air conveying features of Siplia will improve the distribution of the feed in Areaux.
Regarding claim 42, Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, disclose the burner according to claim 41.
Areaux, as modified by Ostberg, does not disclose wherein the burner comprises two inlet spaces provided opposite to each other in such a manner that the inlet openings of the inlet spaces are directed away from each other and the distal ends of the first sides are directed towards each other, and wherein the feed material is configured to be guided forward to a shared channel after passing in each case one of the feed distributors.
However, Sipila teaches wherein the burner comprises two inlet spaces provided opposite to each other in such a manner that the inlet openings of the inlet spaces are directed away from each other and the distal ends of the first sides are directed towards each other, and wherein the feed material is configured to be guided forward to a shared channel after passing in each case one of the feed distributors (Figures 6 and 7).
In view of Sipila’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the features as is taught in Sipila, in the feed inlet structure disclosed by Areaux because Sipila states “The object of the invention is to further improve the even feed of powdery solid matter” (paragraph [0006]) and “Powdery solid matter is conveyed by means of the first powdery solid matter discharge pipe 8, preferably by an air slide conveyor” (paragraph [0022]). Therefore, including the structure and air conveying features of Siplia will improve the distribution of the feed in Areaux.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a feed inlet structure with all of the limitations of claim 36.
Claim 36 recites the limitation wherein at least one of the dividing plates comprises a protruding portion protruding upwards from the first surface in a use position of the feed inlet structure, wherein the protruding portion is provided at the distal end of the first side. No art was found such that further modification of Areaux and Ostberg would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kojo (US 6565799 B1)
PNG
media_image11.png
442
496
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Schaefer (US 6098811 A) “Typically, angle 58 is between about 15 and 30 degrees to provide the necessary gravitational force to move oversize materials 52 to the discharge ends, i.e. second ends 38 of the grizzly bars 34”
Ohtawa (US 4412674 A) “said feeder member having therethrough openings of a size to pass normal reduced iron but to block the passage of oversized clusters of reduced iron”
PNG
media_image12.png
578
404
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Xu (CN 108489277 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
388
368
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
430
484
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights