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 .
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, 9 and 11-16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (US 20220128975 A1) in view of D2 (US 4800280 A).
With regards to claim 1, D1 discloses a production system and method comprising a plurality of production lines in each of which a bulk product is conveyed [0046-0053] (Fig. 1); a sampling arrangement for automated collection of material samples of product flows of bulk products from a plurality of sampling positions by means of automated sampling devices, the plurality of sampling positions comprising at least one sampling position of each of said production lines [0048-0049] (Fig. 1); and providing the material samples in separate sample containers to an optical analysis system of the production system [0007, 0008, 0049, 0053], wherein the optical analysis system comprises at least one spectrometer [0049]; a controller having a data communication interface connecting with a data communication interface of the spectrometer, wherein the controller is adapted for transferring data identifying the material sample of a sample container to the spectrometer prior to conducting an optical analysis of the material sample in the sample container [0020-0022, 0028], wherein analysis results are processed using data identifying the material sample and providing an analysis output according to the controller [0020-0021], wherein the controller is adapted to control the operation of at least one production device of the production lines in response to the received analysis output from the spectrometer [0021, 0025, 0029]. D1 fails to teach wherein the spectrometer comprises an NIR spectrometer and wherein the optical analysis system being arranged for conducting an optical analysis of the material sample in sample containers through a transparent bottom part of the sample container. D2 teaches a sample analysis device comprising an NIR spectrometer for analyzing samples (column 1, lines 39-67; column 2, lines 42-65), wherein the samples are disposed in a sample container having a transparent bottom through which NIR radiation passes (column 2, lines 34-41; column 3, lines 39-63; column 4, lines 1-7). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D2 in order to predictable improve measurement efficiency by enabling through container sample analysis of NIR sensitive samples.
With regards to claims 9 and 16, , D1 does not teach the claimed configuration. However, those skilled in the art that such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration since automating and centralizing expensive analytical equipment is a known design choice that reduces cost, simplifies calibration and maintenance.
With regards to claim 11, D1 does not teach the claimed weighing means. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed weighing means since such a modification was a known sample preparation technique that improves sample classification, measurement and comparison between measured samples.
With regards to claim 12, D1 does not teach the automated sampling devices as claimed. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed devices to collect a predefined volume of sample material in a material sample in order to perform consistent repeatable measurements to improve analytical accuracy.
With regards to claim 13, D1 does not teach the optical analysis system as claimed. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed camera in order to visually inspect sample characteristics and placement.
With regards to claims 14 and 15, With regards to claim 12, D1 does not teach the packaging and sampling arrangement as claimed. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed arrangements in order to properly sort sample materials for simplified identification.
Claims 2-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 and D3 (US 10473585 B2).
With regards to claims 2-8, the combination of D1 and D2 does not teach the claimed spectrometer. However, D3 teaches wherein such a near-infrared spectrometer adapted to provide data indicative of the moisture content of a sample, and wherein a control module is adapted to control the operation of one or more components, such as a mixing component (column 19, lines 39-41), in response to said moisture content (column 4, line 50 – column 5, line 3; column 17, line 50 – column 18, line 19). D3 further teaches wherein multiple spectrometers may be arrange din parallel, each connected to a calibration module, wherein the spectrometers transmit measured information for process control (column 17, line 12-column 18, line 33; column 18, lines 44-58). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of D1 and D2 with the teachings of D3 in order to improve process control using known analytical measurements.
With regards to claim 10, D3 discloses the claimed grinding system (column 19, lines 26-38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights