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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1, 4-7, 9, 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proska et al. (hereinafter “Proska”)(US 5451376 A) in view of Coates et al. (hereinafter “Coates”)(WO 2015084417 A1).
Re claim 1, Proska discloses: A system for processing a heterogenous material, [Abstract] the system comprising:
a first collision chamber (20)(fig. 1) in communication with a receiving vessel; (5)(fig. 1)
a first recovery vessel; (9)(fig. 1) and
a nozzle system (21)(fig. 1) in communication with said first collision chamber; (fig. 1)
a second recovery vessel; (10)(fig. 1)
Proska does not explicitly disclose: a second collision chamber in communication with said first collision chamber; however, Proska discloses a collision chamber (impact chamber 20)(fig. 1) arranged downstream of the nozzle (19)(fig. 1) preferably to achieve additional comminution. [col. 4, lines 17-25].
PNG
media_image1.png
826
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Coates teaches: A similar system for processing a heterogeneous material, [Abstract] the system comprising: a nozzle system (N1)(modified fig. 14 above) comprising a collision chamber, (118)(modified fig. 14 above) a flow split device (110)(fig. 14) and a recovery vessel. (102)(modified fig. 14 above)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the nozzle system (21)(fig. 1 of Proska) of Proska with the nozzle system (N1)(modified fig. 14 of Coates above) including the flow split device, (110)(fig. 14 of Coates) and the nozzle with impact chamber (118)(modified fig. 14 of Coates above) as taught by Coates in order to achieve additional comminution, [col. 4, lines 10-11, and 17-25 of Proska] to ablate particles, [pg. 29, lines 26-29 of Coates] and to separate heterogeneous material into a plurality of streams. [pg. 11, lines 22-25 of Coates]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system for processing a heterogeneous material. The combination of Proska and Coates would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve additional comminution and to ablate particles.
After modification, Proska in view of Coates teaches: A system for processing a heterogenous material, the system comprising:
a second collision chamber in communication with said first collision chamber.
Re claim 4, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1 further comprising a mixing vessel (4)(fig. 1) in communication with at least one of said collision chambers. (fig. 1)
Re claim 5, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1 wherein at least one of said collision chambers comprises a nozzle. (19)(fig. 2 of Proska)
Re claim 6, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 5 wherein at least one of said collision chambers comprises a nozzle spacer system. (31)(fig. 2 of Proska)[col. 5, lines 4-6](The nozzle opening (30) is disposed in a nozzle spacer system (31).)
Re claim 7, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1 with at least one collision chamber (118)(modified fig. 14 above) comprises a plurality of nozzles. (116)(modified fig. 14 above)
Modified Proska does not explicitly teach: at least one of said collision chambers comprises a plurality of nozzles disposed at oblique angles to one another.
Coates teaches: A similar system for processing a heterogeneous material, [Abstract] with a collision chamber (118)(fig. 26) wherein at least one of said collision chambers comprises a plurality of nozzles (116)(fig. 26) disposed at oblique angles to one another. (fig. 26)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention dispose the nozzles (116)(modified fig. 14 above) of Modified Proska at oblique angles to one another (fig. 26 of Coates) as taught by Coates in order to ablate heterogeneous particles. [Abstract]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system for processing a heterogeneous material. The combination of Modified Proska and Coates would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ablate heterogeneous particles.
After further modification, Proska in view of Coates teaches: at least one of said collision chambers comprises a plurality of nozzles disposed at oblique angles to one another.
Re claim 9, Proska in view of Coates: The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection) with at least one of said collision chambers (118)(modified fig. 14 above)
Proska in view of Coates does not explicitly teach: wherein at least one of said collision chambers comprises a collision array.
Coates further teaches: A similar system for processing a heterogeneous material, [Abstract] with a collision chamber (118)(fig. 26) wherein at least one of said collision chambers comprises a collision array (fig. 26)(The nozzles shown (116) are disposed at angles to each other and the array of streams collide in the middle at a collision chamber (118) therefore the collision chamber comprises a collision array.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention dispose the nozzles (116)(modified fig. 14 above) of Modified Proska at oblique angles in a collision array (fig. 26 of Coates) as taught by Coates in order to ablate heterogeneous particles. [Abstract]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system for processing a heterogeneous material. The combination of Modified Proska and Coates would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ablate heterogeneous particles.
After further modification, Proska in view of Coates teaches: wherein at least one of said collision chambers comprises a collision array.
Re claim 23, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1 further comprising a splitter (110)(modified fig. 14 above) in communication with at least one of said collision chambers. (see claim 1 rejection)
Re claim 24, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1 further comprising a flow divider (110)(modified fig. 14 above) in communication with at least one of said collision chambers. (see claim 1 rejection)
Re claims 25-27, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1 wherein the heterogeneous material further comprises a reagent, and the reagent comprises a frother and a surfactant. [MPEP 2115, “Material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”](The heterogeneous material, reagent, frother, and surfactant are not positively claimed.)
Re claim 28, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection) further comprising a collection tank (4)(fig. 1) in communication with said collision array. (see claim 9 rejection)
Re claim 29, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 9 wherein said collision array comprises a variable collision array. (fig. 26 of Coates)[Abstract](The plurality of nozzles are adjustable via screw threads therefore said collision array (see claim 9 rejection above) comprises a variable collision array.)
Re claim 30, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 9 wherein said collision array comprises a radial collision chamber array. (fig. 26 of Coates)(The nozzles (116) which shoot streams to form a collision array are arranged in a radial manner therefore said collision array comprises a radial collision chamber array.)
Re claim 31, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 9 wherein said collision array comprises a linear collision chamber array. (fig. 26 of Coates)(The nozzles (116) which shoot streams to form a collision array shoot an array of linear streams (117) to the collision chamber, therefore said collision array comprises a linear collision chamber array.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proska in view of Coates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grant et al. (hereinafter “Grant”)(EP 460828 A2).
Re claim 2, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1
Proska in view of Coates does not explicitly teach: further comprising a clarifier in communication with at least one of said collision chambers.
Grant teaches: A similar system for processing a heterogeneous material, [Abstract] comprising a clarifier (34)(fig. 1) in communication with a collision chamber (22)(fig. 1)[pg. 5, lines 27-29]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the clarifier as taught by Grant to the system of Proska in view of Coates (fig. 1 of Proska) in order to produce additional recovered particulate material. [pg. 4, lines 7-8 of Grant]
All references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system for processing a heterogeneous material. The combination of Proska, Coates, and Grant would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to produce additional recovered particulate material.
After modification, Proska in view of Coates and Grant teaches: further comprising a clarifier in communication with at least one of said collision chambers.
Re claim 8, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1
Proska in view of Coates does not explicitly teach: further comprising a dewatering apparatus.
Grant teaches: A similar system for processing a heterogeneous material, [Abstract] comprising a dewatering apparatus. (34)(fig. 1)[pg. 4, lines 7-8]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the dewatering apparatus as taught by Grant to the system of Proska in
view of Coates (fig. 1 of Proska) in order to produce additional recovered particulate material. [pg. 4, lines 7-8 of Grant]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system for processing a heterogeneous material. The combination of Proska Coates, and Grant would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to produce additional recovered particulate material.
After modification, Proska in view of Coates and Grant teaches: further comprising a dewatering apparatus.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proska in view of Coates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vallelly et al. (hereinafter “Vallelly”)(US 20170291198 A1).
Re claim 3, Proska in view of Coates discloses: The system of claim 1.
Proska in view of Coates does not explicitly teach: further comprising a fluid recycle vessel.
Vallelly teaches: A similar system for processing a heterogeneous material, [para. 0001] further comprising a fluid recycle vessel. [para. 0009](settling tank)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fluid recycle vessel as taught by Vallelly to the system of Proska in view of Coates in order to facilitate reuse of the fluid. [para. 0009, lines 6-7 of Vallelly]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system for processing a heterogeneous material. The combination of Proska, Coates, and Vallelly would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate reuse of the fluid.
After modification, Proska in view of Coates and Vallelly teaches: further comprising a fluid recycle vessel.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proska in view of Coates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markham et al. (hereinafter “Markham”)(US 5766448 A).
Re claims 21 and 22, Proska in view of Coates teaches: The system of claim 1 further comprising a receiving vessel. (see claim 1 rejection above)
Proska in view of Coates does not explicitly teach: further comprising a primary screen in communication with said receiving vessel, and further comprising a secondary screen in communication with said receiving vessel.
Markham teaches: A similar system for processing a heterogeneous material, [Abstract] the system comprising: a primary screen (20)(fig. 1B) in communication with a receiving vessel, (21)(fig. 1B) and a secondary screen (22)(fig. 1B) in communication with a receiving vessel (21)(fig. 1B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the primary and secondary screens (20, 22)(fig. 1B of Markham) as
taught by Markham to the system of Proska in view of Coates (between elements 23 and 24 in fig. 1 of Proska) in order to achieve a higher contaminant removal. [col. 4, lines 32-35 of Markham]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system for processing a heterogeneous material. The combination of Proska, Coates, and Markham would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve a higher contaminant removal.
After modification, Proska in view of Coates and Markham teaches: further comprising a primary screen in communication with said receiving vessel, and further comprising a secondary screen in communication with said receiving vessel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
US 20200339860 A1 teaches system for processing material with a nozzle and impact chamber.
JP 2002153769 A teaches a collision chamber with vessels.
WO 2020065678 A1 teaches a system for classifying and processing materials.
EP 0154498 A2 teaches a system for processing a heterogeneous material with multiple vessels.
DE 19918066 A1 teaches a system for processing a heterogeneous material with a collision array and collection chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights