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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a screen” in line 2. It is unclear if the screen is referring to the screen in claim 1 or if it is a different screen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Jepsen (US 20130276835).
Regarding claim 1, Jepsen discloses a system (Fig. 1) for coal ash reclamation from a land fill (intended use), the system comprising: a harvester (see [0012] loaders /conveyors) for collecting raw coal ash from the land fill; a screen (4) for screening non-ash material from raw coal ash collected by the harvester; a dryer (7, 51) for drying the raw coal ash thereby creating dried coal ash and fine particulate ash; an exhaust pipe (31) to direct the fine particulate ash to a dust collector (32); a crusher (8) for crushing the dried coal ash and thereby creating crushed dried ash and fine particulate ash; a classifier (28 with gas from 7 and 51 classifies the fine particulate ash from large particulate ash. Only the small particles which are able to be lifted by air is moved past 28) for classifying the crushed dried ash into large particulate ash and fine particulate ash; and the dust collector (32) configured for receiving the fine particulate ash from the dryer (7, 51), the crusher (8), and the classifier (28), via the exhaust pipe (31 – everything is connected and fine particulate ash is received via the exhaust pipe 31 to the dust collector 32), and collecting the fine particulate ash from air (gas/air comprising hot dust is collected to the dust collector 32); and a storage container (40 via 33, 23, 24, 38) for storage of the collected fine particulate ash.
Regarding claim 2, Jepsen discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a cooling system (23, 26) for controlling the temperature of the crusher (air/gas from 23,26 is transferred to crusher 8. See arrow in Fig. 1), wherein the dust collector is further configured for cooling (air circulates the system which includes the dust collector 32) the collected fine particulate ash (examiner notes that air/gas is not hotter than the dust since the air is heated from previous hot ash).
Regarding claim 3, Jepsen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a receiving hopper (1 is interpreted as a hopper) is configured to communicate material to a screen (4).
Regarding claim 7, Jepsen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the screen is a vibrating screen. ([0014] drum filter or a centrifuge filter will vibrate)
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.
Claim 8, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepsen.
Regarding claim 8, Jepsen discloses the system of claim 1.
Jepsen is silent to wherein the crusher is a ball mill.
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 crusher of Jepsen with a well-known alternative crusher i.e., a ball mill. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 Section I (B).
Regarding claim 9, Jepsen discloses the system of claim 1.
Jepsen is silent to wherein the storage container (40) is a hopper.
However, the examiner takes official notice that hoppers are a well-known type of storage container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a hopper as the storage container for the collected fine particulate ash.
Regarding claim 13, Jepsen discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a heat exchange pipe (heat exchanger 23 would inherently have heat exchange pipe) disposed between the dust collector (32) and the storage container (40) for cooling fine particulate ash travelling from the dust collector to the storage container.
Jepsen is silent to the finned heat exchange pipe being an externally finned heat exchange pipe.
However, the examiner takes official notice that an externally finned heat exchange pipe is a well-known type of heat exchange pipe. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an externally finned heat exchange pipe as the heat exchange pipe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
the prior art does not disclose or render obvious "... a blower configured to blow air over the crusher for cooling the crusher." as set forth in claim 12. The prior art does not require cooling the crusher and it will destroy the prior art because volatilizer 30 requires more heat. Therefore, neither the prior art nor any combination thereof anticipates nor renders the claimed invention obvious. Accordingly, claim 12 is deemed patentable over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights