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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 14-15 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first upper deck, the second deck and the third lower deck". There is improper antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as Applicant has previously define these elements as “a first upper screening deck disposed beneath the scalping deck, a second or middle screening deck disposed beneath the upper screening deck and a third or lower screening deck” (see e.g., claims 1 and 2). Claims 5, 14 and 15 are similarly flawed.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 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; or
(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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quinn (US 3,670,972).
Quinn (fig. 2a) teaches a crusher feed station arranged for feeding feed material to a crusher configured to produce a sized crushed product (fig. 1 showing crushing plant), the crusher feed station comprising:
(re: claim 1) a primary feeder (chute above 24);
a scalping deck (24) arranged for removing undersize materials from the feed material to form a scalping deck oversize crusher feed and an underflow fraction (col. 1, ln. 72-col. 2, ln. 12); and
a sizing screen (26, 27, 28) disposed beneath the scalping deck for screening the undersize underflow (fig. 2a; col. 2),
wherein the sizing screen includes at least three screening decks (26, 27, 28) configured to receive the undersize, under flow to produce a first sizing screen oversize product, a second fines product and a third intermediate sized product, product, wherein the at least three screening decks include a first upper screening deck (26) disposed beneath the scalping deck, a second or middle screening deck (27) disposed beneath the upper screening deck and a third or lower screening deck (28) disposed beneath the second screening deck (fig. 2a showing respective product streams, wherein first oversize product can be regarded that product that does not pass through the first screen deck and is inputted into crusher 172, the second fines product can be regarded as the product that passes through all three screening decks and the third intermediate sized product can be regarded as the product that does not pass through the third screening deck);
(re: claim 2) the first upper screening deck (26)
(re: claim 3) wherein the first deck screening media is sized to size the first sizing screen oversize product in accordance with the sized crushed product (Id. and Applicant is also respectfully reminded that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus, e.g., product does not limit apparatus claims as the different screening media are regarded as configured to produce the crushed product of various relative sizes, see e.g., MPEP 2115);
(re: claim 4) wherein the first upper screening deck (26), the second middle screening (27) and third lower screening deck (28) of the three screening decks include screening media sized to produce the second fines product as a throughput product (Id.);
(re: claim 5) the second middle screening (27) and third lower screening deck include screening media sized to produce the third intermediate sized product as a second and third lower deck oversize product (Id.);
(re: claim 6) a third intermediate sized product conveyor (near 46) for conveying the third intermediate product from the crusher feed station (fig. 2a showing that output of second and third screening decks can be combined and conveyed by chute near 46);
(re: claim 7) a fines product conveyor (near 32) for conveying the fines product from the crusher feed station;
(re: claim 8) wherein the sizing screen includes a vibrating sizing screen (col. 2, ln.2+ teaching vibration of screening levels);
(re: claim 10) a crusher (col. 3, ln. 35-70 teaching that primary crusher unit comprises a second stage 172 fed from the first screening deck 26 and a first stage 171 fed from second screening deck);
(re: claim 11) wherein the crusher further comprises a discharge conveyor (near 35, 36) for conveying sized crushed product from the crusher; and
wherein the discharge conveyor is located beneath a discharge end of the sizing screen to receive first sizing screen oversize product from the sizing screen (fig. 2 showing that conveyor near 35, 36 is located below lower output end of the sizing screen and is capable of receiving product from the first sizing screen after crushing),
(re: claim 12) wherein the crusher includes a jaw crusher, a cone crusher or an impact crusher (fig. 2a showing cone-shaped crusher units near 171, 172).
(re: claims 13-15) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the device cited above.
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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 3,670,972) in view of Hudson et al. (“Hudson”)(US 5,535,954).
Quinn as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 9) wherein the primary feeder includes a vibrating pan feeder.
Hudson, however, teaches that it is well-known in the crushing arts to integrate a variety of feeder types—including a vibratory pan feeder—to properly supply materials to a crusher (col. 1, ln. 5-27 teaching that a variety of feeder types have evolved to properly feed materials for a desired crushed product—including gravity and vibratory pan feeders).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention.
The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., feeder element) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences).
Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Quinn for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection set forth above. In particular, Examiner notes that amended features of claim 1 merely describe three screening decks below a scalping deck when claiming-
“wherein the at least three screening decks include a first upper screening deck disposed beneath the scalping deck, a second or middle screening deck disposed beneath the upper screening deck and a third or lower screening deck disposed beneath the second screening deck”.
Moreover, the figure excerpted by Applicant clearly teaches the features as claimed-
PNG
media_image1.png
791
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s further argument that the cited features are not configured to produce the claimed product streams is also unpersuasive. Examiner notes that configure to language is merely functional language and that figure 2a clearly shows that each screen is configured to, i.e., capable of, producing the claimed product streams as the first screen produces oversize product (near 50), the second screen produces an intermediate product (near 48) and the lower third screen produces a fines product (near 32). Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
March 3, 2026