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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the reception of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the preamble of the claim is dawn to a pulverizer apparatus; however, the claim does not recite any elements to pulverize the material; and how the elements of claim 1 are configured to pulverize the material.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the reception of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the preamble of the claim is dawn to a pulverizer apparatus; however, the claim does not recite any elements to pulverize the material; and how the elements of claim 11 are configured to pulverize the material.
Claims 12-17 are rejected because they depend from claim 11.
Regarding claim 18, the reception of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the preamble of the claim is dawn to method of pulverizing waste material; however, the claim does not recite any steps to pulverize the material; and it is unclear what the steps to pulverize the material.
Claims 12-17 are rejected because they depend from claim 18.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Harald (EP1008388A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Harald discloses a pulverizer apparatus (paragraphs 0001 and 0036-0054), comprising:
a first rail assembly (paragraph 0051 and figs.1-2: (1)) including a first plurality of rails (figs.2-3), each of the first plurality of rails separated from each other by first gaps (figs.2-3);
a second rail assembly (paragraph 0051 and figs.1-22: (2)) including a second plurality of rails separated from each other by second gaps (figs.2-3); and
a first linear actuator secured to the first rail assembly, the first rail assembly movable along a first linear path via actuation of the first linear actuator (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0028, 0034 and 0051),
wherein the first plurality of rails is receivable in the second gaps of the second rail assembly (fig.3).
Regarding claim 2, Harald discloses wherein the first plurality of rails extends along a first plane and wherein the second plurality of rails extends along a second plane, the first plane intersecting the second plane, wherein actuation of the first linear actuator urges the first plurality of rails through the second gaps of the second rail assembly (fig.3).
Regarding claim 3, Harald discloses wherein the first plurality of rails includes at least one rail tooth, wherein actuation of the first linear actuator urges the at least one rail tooth of the first plurality of rails through the second plane (figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Harald discloses a stationary plate located parallel to the second plane including a plurality of members disposed between each of the second plurality of rails (paragraph 0038: the fixed elements (201, 203 and 205)).
Regarding claim 5, Harald discloses a second linear actuator secured to the second rail assembly, the second rail assembly movable along a second linear path via actuation of the second linear actuator, wherein the plurality of second rails includes at least one rail tooth, and wherein actuation of the second linear actuator urges the second plurality of rails through the first gaps of the first rail assembly (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0028, 0034 and 0051).
Regarding claim 6, Harald discloses wherein actuation of the second linear actuator urges the at least one rail tooth of the second plurality of rails of through the first plane (figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Harald discloses wherein the first plane intersects the second plane at an angle within a range of 45° and 135° (paragraphs 0031 and 0036).
Regarding claim 8, Harald discloses wherein the first rail assembly includes a ram portion (fig.1: (7)) having a plurality of ram teeth (fig.1: (11)).
Regarding claim 9, Harald discloses wherein the first rail assembly includes an piston plate (paragraph 0028 and fig.1: the portion that having hole (3) to connect the element (1) to the motor), wherein the first linear actuator is secured to the piston plate, wherein the first linear actuator includes a hydraulic piston oriented parallel to the first linear path (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0028, 0034 and 0051).
Regarding claim 18, Harald discloses a method of pulverizing waste material paragraphs 0001 and 0036-0054), the method comprising:
providing a pulverizer apparatus including:
a first rail assembly including a first plurality of rails (paragraph 0051 and figs.1-2: (1)) separated from each other by first gaps, and a second rail assembly including a second plurality of rails separated from each other by second gaps (figs.2-3);
actuating a first linear actuator secured to the first rail assembly, the first rail assembly movable along a first linear path via actuation of the first linear actuator; actuating a second linear actuator secured to the second rail assembly, the second rail assembly movable along a second linear path via actuation of the second linear actuator (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0028, 0034 and 0051); and
inserting solid waste material between the first rail assembly and the second rail assembly, wherein the first linear path intersects the second linear path (fig.3).
Regarding claim 19, Harald discloses wherein the first linear path intersects the second linear path at an angle of between 45° and 135° (paragraphs 0031 and 0036).
Regarding claim 20, Harald discloses wherein the first rail assembly and the second rail assembly each include a plurality of teeth, wherein the plurality of teeth pulverizes the solid waste material during actuation of the first rail assembly and the second rail assembly, and wherein a processed waste material falls through gaps between the first rail assembly and the second rail assembly (figs.1-3).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harald (EP1008388A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Harald does not explicitly disclose one or more slide channels oriented parallel to the first linear path, wherein actuation of the first rail assembly is guided by the one or more slide channels;
However, Harald disclose one or more slides oriented parallel to the first linear path, wherein actuation of the first rail assembly is guided by the one or more slide (paragraphs 0034, 0043 and 45); and
The crusher including the necessary frames and supports (paragraph 0022);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the type of slides as desired, including one or more slide channels oriented parallel to the first linear path, wherein actuation of the first rail assembly is guided by the one or more slide channels; in order to have the blades sliding against each other, exerting a horizontal shearing effect (Harald: paragraph 0034)
Claim 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harald (EP1008388A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Tanaka (US20050173570A1).
Regarding claim 11, Harald discloses a pulverizer system, comprising:
a first rail assembly (paragraph 0051 and figs.1-2: (1)) including a first plurality of rails extending along a first plane (figs.2-3), each of the first plurality of rails separated from each other by first gaps and the first plurality of rails including at least one rail tooth (figs.2-3);
a second rail assembly (paragraph 0051 and figs.1-22: (2)) including a second plurality of rails extending along a second plane (figs.2-3), each of the second plurality of rails separated from each other by second gaps, the first plurality of rails receivable in the second gaps and the second plurality of rails receivable in the first gaps (figs.2-3);
a first linear actuator secured to the first rail assembly, the first linear actuator actuatable along a first linear path to urge the first rail assembly at least partially through the second gaps of the second rail assembly (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0028, 0034 and 0051);
a second linear actuator secured to the second rail assembly, the second linear actuator actuatable along a second linear path to urge the second rail assembly at least partially through the first gaps of the first rail assembly (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0028, 0034 and 0051);
Harald does not disclose a prime mover, wherein the prime mover wherein the prime mover provides power to one or more of the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator.
Tanaka teaches a prime mover (fig.19: (181)), wherein the prime mover provides power to one or more of a first actuator and a second actuator (fig.19: (169, 173, 174, 176, 177)) (paragraphs 0009 and 0155-00159).
Both of the prior arts of Harald and Tanaka are related to a pulverizer system having jaw crushers,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harald to have a prime mover, wherein the prime mover provides power to one or more of a first actuator and a second actuator as taught by Tanaka in order to provides that baseline mechanical energy, which a hydraulic pump then converts into pressurized fluid energy; thereby having a prime mover, wherein the prime mover wherein the prime mover provides power to one or more of the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator.
Regarding claim 12, Harald discloses one or more side walls including a top end and a bottom end (figs.1-2: see the side walls of elements (1) and (2)), the one or more side walls defining a first opening (fig.1: the top opening between elements (1) and (2)) located at the top end of the one or more side walls and a second opening located at the bottom end of the one or more side walls (fig.1: the bottom opening between elements (1) and (2)), wherein solid waste material is insertable into the first opening, and wherein processed waste material exits the pulverizer system through the second opening (paragraphs 0022 and 0036).
Therefore, the modification of Harald in view of Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Harald discloses wherein the first rail assembly and the second rail assembly each include a plurality of teeth, wherein the plurality of teeth is configured to pulverize solid waste material into processed waste material (figs.1-3).
Therefore, the modification of Harald in view of Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claims 14-15, Harald does not disclose an electronic control unit (ECU) in communication with one or more of the first linear actuator, the second linear actuator, and the prime mover, the ECU configured to control a timing of the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator; wherein the ECU selectively distributes the power from the prime mover to the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator.
Tanaka teaches an electronic control unit (ECU) (fig.19: (205)) in communication with one or more of the first actuator, the second actuator, and the prime mover, the ECU configured to control a timing of the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator; wherein the ECU selectively distributes the power from the prime mover to the first actuator and the second actuator (figs.19-25; paragraphs 0216-245);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harald to have an electronic control unit (ECU) in communication with one or more of the first actuator, the second actuator, and the prime mover, the ECU configured to control a timing of the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator; wherein the ECU selectively distributes the power from the prime mover to the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator as taught by Tanaka since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]; thereby having an electronic control unit (ECU) in communication with one or more of the first linear actuator, the second linear actuator, and the prime mover, the ECU configured to control a timing of the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator; wherein the ECU selectively distributes the power from the prime mover to the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator.
Regarding claim 17, Harald does not disclose a conveyer belt assembly located at the second opening, wherein the processed waste material is receivable on the conveyer belt assembly.
Tanaka teaches a conveyer belt assembly located at a second opening, wherein the processed material is receivable on the conveyer belt assembly (paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harald to have a conveyer belt assembly located at a second opening, wherein the processed material is receivable on the conveyer belt assembly as taught by Tanaka since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]; thereby having a conveyer belt assembly located at the second opening, wherein the processed waste material is receivable on the conveyer belt assembly.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harald (EP1008388A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Tanaka (US20050173570A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Janne (WO2000025926A1)
Regarding claim 16, Harald in view of Tanaka does not disclose a force sensor in one or more of the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator, wherein the ECU may selectively control an ON/OFF state based on data received from the force sensor.
Janne discloses a force sensor in one or more of a first actuator and a linear actuator, wherein a ECU may selectively control an ON/OFF state based on data received from the force sensor (abstract and claim 1 and claim 7).
Both of the prior arts of Harald and Janne are related to a pulverizer system having jaw crushers,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harald in view of Tanaka to have a force sensor in one or more of a first actuator and a linear actuator, wherein a ECU may selectively control an ON/OFF state based on data received from the force sensor as taught by Janne, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]; thereby having a conveyer belt assembly located at the second opening, wherein the processed waste material is receivable on the conveyer belt assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights