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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boast (US20130320123A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boast discloses a jaw crusher (abstract) comprising:
a first jaw plate (fig.1: (14));
a second jaw plate (fig.1: (16)) that configured to swing relative to the first jaw plate to crush an object disposed between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate.
a gap adjuster (fig.1: (42)) including a wedge (fig.1: (44) and (46)) having an inclined contact surface, the gap adjuster being configured to set a gap width (fig.1: (18)) between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate; and
an actuator (fig.1: (30)) configured to move the gap adjuster to change the gap width, wherein the gap adjuster is configured to move the wedge such that the wedge slides along the inclined contact surface to further adjust the gap width after the gap width has been changed by movement of the gap adjuster by the actuator (paragraphs 0030-0038).
Regarding claim 2, Boast discloses the actuator includes a presser (fig.1: the hydraulic cylinder (30) having a piston rod “corresponding to “a presser”) that biases and moves the gap adjuster; and the presser is movable to a stand-by position that is away from the gap adjuster.
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.
Claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boast (US20130320123A1) in view of Osawa (WO2018123740).
Regarding claims 3-5, Boast does not disclose the limitations of claims 3-5.
Osawa teaches a jaw crusher (see fig.1) comprising:
a first jaw plate (3);
a second jaw plate (6) that swings relative to the first jaw plate to crush an object to be crushed between the fixed jaw plate and the movable jaw plate;
a gap adjuster (22 of element 20) including a wedge (see pag.10 lines 8-10 hereinafter W) that adjusts a gap width (w1) between the first jaw plate (3) and the second jaw plate (5); and an actuator (21) that moves the gap adjuster (22) to change the gap width (w1)
a zero point detector (25, see pag.10 lines 19-21) that detects contact between the first jaw plate (3) and the second jaw plate (6);
position sensor (Proximity sensor, see pag.5 lines 23-27 hereinafter Ps), wherein the zero point detector (25) detects the contact between the first jaw plate (3) and the second jaw plate (6) in such a manner that the position sensor (Ps) detects the position of a detection target (P1-2); and
an alarm generator informing that the position of the detection target (p1-2) which is detected by the position sensor (Ps) is outside a setting range (see pag.10 lines 11-16).
Both prior arts Boast and Osawa are related to a jaw crusher;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Boast to have the configuration of the zero point detector, the position sensor, and the alarm generator as taught by Osawa, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having a zero point detector that detects contact between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate; a position sensor, wherein the zero point detector detects the contact between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate in such a manner that the position sensor detects the position of a detection target; and an alarm generator informing that the position of the detection target which is detected by the position sensor is outside a setting range.
Regarding claim 6, Boast discloses a jaw crusher (abstract) comprising:
a first jaw plate (fig.1: (14));
a second jaw plate (fig.1: (16)) that configured to swing relative to the first jaw plate to crush an object disposed between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate.
a gap adjuster (fig.1: (42)) including a wedge (fig.1: (44) and (46)) having an inclined contact surface, the gap adjuster being configured to set a gap width (fig.1: (18)) between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate; and
an actuator (fig.1: (30)) configured to move the gap adjuster to change the gap width;a first stage, drive the actuator to change the gap width; and in a second stage subsequent to the first stage, cause the wedge to slide along the inclined contact surface to further adjust the gap width (paragraphs 0030-0038).
Boast does not disclose a position sensor configured to output a signal of a position of the gap adjuster; and control circuity comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions, the control circuitry being electrically coupled to the actuator and the position sensor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the control circuity to: in a first stage, drive the actuator based on the signal from the position sensor to change the gap width; and in a second stage subsequent to the first stage, cause the wedge to slide along the inclined contact surface to further adjust the gap width.
Osawa teaches a jaw crusher (see fig.1) comprising:
a first jaw plate (3);
a second jaw plate (6) that swings relative to the first jaw plate to crush an object to be crushed between the fixed jaw plate and the movable jaw plate;
a gap adjuster (22 of element 20) including a wedge (see pag.10 lines 8-10 hereinafter W) that adjusts a gap width (w1) between the first jaw plate (3) and the second jaw plate (5); and an actuator (21) that moves the gap adjuster (22) to change the gap width (w1); and
control circuitry (90), wherein: the control circuitry (90) moves the gap adjuster (22) by the actuator (21) to change the gap width (w1); and
the control circuitry (90) adjusts by the wedge (W) the gap width (w1) which has been changed by moving the gap adjuster (22, pag.5 lines 1-27).
a position sensor (Proximity sensor, see pag.5 lines 23-27 hereinafter Ps) configured to output a signal of a position of the gap adjuster; control circuitry (90), wherein: the control circuitry (90) moves the gap adjuster (22) by the actuator (21) to change the gap width (w1); and
the control circuitry (90) adjusts by the wedge (W) the gap width (w1) which has been changed by moving the gap adjuster (22, pag.5 lines 1-27).
Both prior arts Boast and Osawa are related to a jaw crusher;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Boast to have the configuration of the position sensor and the control circuitry as taught by Osawa, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having a position sensor configured to output a signal of a position of the gap adjuster; and control circuity comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions, the control circuitry being electrically coupled to the actuator and the position sensor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the control circuity to: in a first stage, drive the actuator based on the signal from the position sensor to change the gap width; and in a second stage subsequent to the first stage, cause the wedge to slide along the inclined contact surface to further adjust the gap width.
Regarding claim 7, Boast discloses the actuator moves the gap adjuster to bring the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate into contact with each other; and
based on the position of the gap adjuster when the fixed jaw plate and the movable jaw plate are brought into contact with each other, the gap width is adjusted by the wedge (paragraphs 0030-0038).
Therefore, the modification of Boast in view of Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claims 8, Boast discloses a method of adjusting a gap width of a jaw crusher (abstract), the jaw crusher including a first jaw plate (fig.1: (14));
a second jaw plate (fig.1: (16)) that configured to swing relative to the first jaw plate to crush an object disposed between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate.
a gap adjuster (fig.1: (42)) including a wedge (fig.1: (44) and (46)) having an inclined contact surface,
a position sensor, and an actuator (fig.1: (30)), the method comprising:
in a first stage, driving the actuator (fig.1: (30)) to move the gap adjuster based on a signal from the position sensor, thereby changing the gap width between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate; and
in a second stage subsequent to the first stage, sliding the wedge along the inclined contact surface to further adjust the gap width (paragraphs 0030-0038).
Boast does not disclose a position sensor; and based on a signal from the position sensor
Osawa teaches a jaw crusher (see fig.1) comprising:
a first jaw plate (3);
a second jaw plate (6) that swings relative to the first jaw plate to crush an object to be crushed between the fixed jaw plate and the movable jaw plate;
a gap adjuster (22 of element 20) including a wedge (see pag.10 lines 8-10 hereinafter W) that adjusts a gap width (w1) between the first jaw plate (3) and the second jaw plate (5); and an actuator (21) that moves the gap adjuster (22) to change the gap width (w1); and
a position sensor (Proximity sensor, see pag.5 lines 23-27 hereinafter Ps) configured to output a signal of a position of the gap adjuster; control circuitry (90), wherein: the control circuitry (90) moves the gap adjuster (22) by the actuator (21) to change the gap width (w1); and
the control circuitry (90) adjusts by the wedge (W) the gap width (w1) which has been changed by moving the gap adjuster (22, pag.5 lines 1-27).
Both prior arts Boast and Osawa are related to a jaw crusher;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Boast to have the configuration of the position sensor as taught by Osawa, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having in a first stage, driving the actuator to move the gap adjuster based on a signal from the position sensor, thereby changing the gap width between the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate
Regarding claim 9, Boast discloses in the first stage, the first jaw plate and the second jaw plate are brought into contact with each other; and
in the second stage, based on the position of the gap adjuster when the fixed first jaw plate and the second jaw plate are brought into contact with each other, adjusting the gap width by the wedge (paragraphs 0030-0038).
Therefore, the modification of Boast in view of Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights