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 § 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.
Claims 2, 5, 7, and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 7, 9, line 1, 2, 2-3, 2, respectively the claim state the limitation ‘about’ is indefinite. The limitation makes it unclear what the metes and bounds of claim in regards to what ‘about’ encompass.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-7, 10, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys (USP 3,591,000) in view of Martori (USP 10,384,233 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Humphreys discloses a method comprising: flowing a layer of particulate feedstock (element 20) over a distribution chute (element 10) having an uneven surface (col. 3, lines 69+ and col. 4, lines 1-10 where the surface of element 10 is an asymmetrical surface for the purpose of sizing and separating particulates), the particulate feedstock comprising first particulates and second particulates that differ by at least one property (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 22-35); changing a momentum of individual particulates in the particulate feedstock with the uneven surface texture and/or a momentum changing feature while flowing over the distribution chute (col. 3, lines 15-21) and/or with the momentum changing feature after leaving the distribution chute such that the first particulates and the second particulates, on average, travel different lateral distances from the distribution chute (see Fig. 3); and collecting the particulate feedstock in a plurality of bins, wherein at least two of the bins are laterally spaced differently from the distribution chute (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 32-36), but Humphreys does not disclose a distribution chute having an uneven surface texture. Martori teaches a distribution chute having an uneven surface texture (col. 8, lines 31+ and col. 9, lines 1-2; element 108) for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Martori, for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials.
Regarding claim 2, Humphreys does not explicitly disclose the layer has a thickness of about 10 mm or less. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate differing particulate materials because Applicant has not disclosed that the use of a desired parameter related to particulate size or material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Humphreys, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either method of particulate separation because both particulate separation steps would perform the same function of separating particulates for the purpose of obtaining desired particulates of different sizes, shapes, or material.
Regarding claim 3, Humphreys discloses the at least one property comprises one or more of: specific gravity, size, shape (col. 3, lines 30-34), a magnetic property, and an electrical property.
Regarding claim 4, Humphreys does not explicitly disclose the first particulates are sand particulates and the second particulates are heavy mineral particulates. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate differing particulate materials because Applicant has not disclosed that the use of a desired parameter related to particulate size or material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Humphreys, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either method of particulate separation because both particulate separation steps would perform the same function of separating particulates for the purpose of obtaining desired particulates of different sizes, shapes, or material.
Regarding claim 5, Humphreys does not explicitly disclose the sand particulates have an average diameter by weight of about 200 microns to about 1000 microns. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate differing particulate materials because Applicant has not disclosed that the use of a desired parameter related to particulate size or material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Humphreys, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either method of particulate separation because both particulate separation steps would perform the same function of separating particulates for the purpose of obtaining desired particulates of different sizes, shapes, or material.
Regarding claim 6, Humphreys does not explicitly disclose the heavy mineral particulates comprise one or more minerals selected from the group consisting of: zircon, garnet, ilmenite, rutile, leucoxene, staurolite, celestine, monazite, magnetite, chromite, kyanite, hornblende, olivine, and sphene. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate differing particulate materials because Applicant has not disclosed that the use of a desired parameter related to particulate size or material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Humphreys, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either method of particulate separation because both particulate separation steps would perform the same function of separating particulates for the purpose of obtaining desired particulates of different sizes, shapes, or material.
Regarding claim 7, Humphreys does not explicitly disclose the heavy mineral particulates comprise one or more minerals having a specific gravity of about 3.5 to about 7, wherein the sand particulates comprise one or more minerals having a specific gravity of about 2 to about 4, and wherein a cumulative specific gravity less of the sand particulates is less than a cumulative specific gravity of the heavy mineral particulates. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate material because Applicant has not disclosed that grouping materials by specific gravity provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Humphreys, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either separation parameter because both parameters would perform the same function of separating materials for the purpose of desired density groups.
Regarding claim 10, Humphreys does not explicitly disclose using the particulate feedstock in one or more of the plurality of bins as a second particulate feedstock and repeating the method of claim 1 with the second particulate feedstock. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reprocess separated material because Applicant has not disclosed that a second round of separation provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Humphreys, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either iteration of separation because both numbers of separation cycles would perform the same function of separating material for the purpose of obtaining the most of the desired sized product.
Regarding claim 11, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Martori teaches changing the momentum of individual particulates with the uneven surface texture comprises impacting the individual particulates with corrugations of the uneven surface texture (col. 8, lines 31+ and col. 9, lines 1-2; element 108) for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Martori, for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials.
Regarding claim 15, Humphreys discloses a system comprising: a hopper capable of feeding a particulate feedstock to a distribution chute (element 16); the distribution chute having an uneven surface capable of dispersing the particulate feedstock into a layer (col. 3, lines 69+ and col. 4, lines 1-10 where the surface of element 10 is an asymmetrical surface for the purpose of sizing and separating particulates); a momentum changing feature capable of changing a momentum of individual particulates in the particulate feedstock such that first and second particulates of the particulate feedstock travel, on average, different lateral distances from the distribution chute, wherein the first and second particulates have at least one different property (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 15-21); and a plurality of adjustable bins capable of collecting the particulate feedstock therein, wherein at least two of the bins are laterally spaced differently from the distribution chute (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 32-36), but Humphreys does not disclose a distribution chute having an uneven surface texture. Martori teaches a distribution chute having an uneven surface texture (col. 8, lines 31+ and col. 9, lines 1-2; element 108) for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Martori, for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials.
Regarding claim 18, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Martori teaches the uneven surface texture is corrugated to include valleys sized to confine the first particulates therein and peaks to permit the second particulates to pass over the distribution chute with less resistance than the first particulates (col. 8, lines 31+ and col. 9, lines 1-2; element 108 projected spiral portions) for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Martori, for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials.
Regarding claim 19, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Martori teaches the uneven surface texture includes a plurality of discrete protrusions extending from surface of the distribution chute, wherein the plurality of discrete protrusions are unevenly spaced such that a spacing between the discrete protrusions decreases in a downward direction along the distribution chute (col. 8, lines 31+ and col. 9, lines 1-2; element 108 projected spiral portions) for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Martori, for the purpose of separating light materials from heavier materials.
Regarding claim 20, Humphreys discloses the plurality of bins includes a central bin disposed laterally inward of the distribution chute to for collecting backscattered particles (element 22).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys/Martori in view of Vladimir (US Pub 2011/0204002 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Vladimir teaches the changing of the momentum comprises one or more of: (a) applying an acoustic wave to the layer at an angle not parallel to a flow direction of the particulate feedstock leaving the distribution chute; (b) applying a vibration to the distribution chute (paragraph 0027); (c) applying a magnetic field to the distribution chute; (d) applying an electrostatic charge to the distribution chute; (e) applying a radiation pressure to the distribution chute; (f) applying a rotational movement to the distribution chute; and (g) applying a translational movement to the distribution chute for the purpose of assisting the gravity feed of particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Vladimir, for the purpose of assisting the gravity feed of particles.
Claim 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys/Martori in view of Manley (USP 3,288,284).
Regarding claim 9, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Manley teaches drying the particulate feedstock before the flowing of the particulate feedstock over the distribution chute (col. 3, lines 72+ and col. 4, lines 1-2) for the purpose of aiding in the separation of dried sand from the slurry mixture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Manley, for the purpose of aiding in the separation of dried sand from the slurry mixture.
Humphreys in view of Manley does not explicitly disclose drying the particulate feedstock to less than about 5 wt% water. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separating particles because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific drying to 5% water provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Humphreys in view of Manley, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either drying to a desired percentage water because both dryers would perform the same function of drying material for the purpose of aiding in the separation of dried sand from the slurry mixture.
Regarding claim 16, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Manley teaches a dryer coupled to and/or upstream of the hopper; and a sensor coupled to one or more of the plurality of bins (col. 3, lines 72+ and col. 4, lines 1-2) for the purpose of aiding in the separation of dried sand from the slurry mixture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Manley, for the purpose of aiding in the separation of dried sand from the slurry mixture.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys/Martori in view of Morikawa (US Pub 2003/0141226 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Morikawa teaches changing a size or position of an opening to at least one of the at least two bins with respect to the distribution chute (paragraph 0032 moving a tray when it is sensed that the tray is full) for the purpose of providing an empty container to collect more material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Morikawa, for the purpose of providing an empty container to collect more material.
Regarding claim 13, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Morikawa teaches changing the size or position of the opening comprises moving walls of the at least two bins with respect to the distribution chute (paragraph 0032 moving a tray, which includes the walls of the tray, when it is sensed that the tray is full) for the purpose of providing an empty container to collect more material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Morikawa, for the purpose of providing an empty container to collect more material.
Regarding claim 14, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Morikawa teaches changing the size or position of the opening is performed in response to an operational parameter detected by a sensor coupled to at least one of the at least two bins (paragraph 0032 moving a tray when it is sensed that the tray is full) for the purpose of providing an empty container to collect more material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Morikawa, for the purpose of providing an empty container to collect more material.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys/Martori in view of Jeon (KR 20120002198).
Regarding claim 17, Humphreys does not disclose the claim limitations. Jeon teaches a vehicle (element 1) having the hopper (element 21), the distribution chute (element 22), and the plurality of bins (elements 12 and 13 mounted thereto (see Fig. 2) for the purpose of mobile screen plant capable of moving like a trailer by being configured in a container type as a movable sorting facility capable of transferring aggregates (page 3, lines 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Humphreys, as taught by Jeon, for the purpose of mobile screen plant capable of moving like a trailer by being configured in a container type as a movable sorting facility capable of transferring aggregates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Snyder (USP 10702875) discloses material separation along a surface broken up by cross members that interrupt smooth flow along a conveyance path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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 McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights