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 37 recites the limitation “wherein said boundary extends upwardly to a certain height above the baffle”, this is indefinite. There is no specific height recited, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the claim.
The term “a relatively small portion” in claim 46 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a relatively small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The portion of.
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.
(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 36-38, 40, 42-44, 46-48, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan (CN 2876056 Y; translation attached).
Regarding claim 36, Yan discloses a method of processing granular material particles in a container (item 1, figure 1), wherein the container comprises:
an upper part (upper end of item 1, figure 1),
a lower discharge part, wherein the lower discharge part is non-rotating, tapered and has an inner wall converging to a discharge outlet of the container (lower end of item 1, figure 1),
and a baffle placed in the lower discharge part (items 3, figure 1), the baffle having a projecting surface, which projects into the interior of the container, and an opening (¶ [0008]; figure 2),
wherein the method comprises:
flowing the granular material particles downwards in the container (¶ [0009]),
and discharging the granular material particles through the discharge outlet (gravity discharge through lower end of item 1, figure 1),
wherein flowing the granular material particles downwards in the container comprises:
stopping the downward flow of a portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with the inner wall of the lower discharge part (¶ [0009]),
wherein said portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with said inner wall rests on said projecting surface forming a stagnant zone above the baffle (¶ [0009]),
flowing another portion of the granular material particles not proximate to said inner wall through the opening of the baffle to a lower portion of the container or to a discharge conduit connected to said discharge outlet (¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 37, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, comprising forming a boundary between the stagnant zone and the portion of granular material particles flowing down (¶ [0009]),
wherein said boundary extends upwardly to a certain height above the baffle whereby a level of vibrations of the container measured as a fraction of the acceleration of gravity (g) stays below 0.02(g) (Yan performs an identical process, which is the same mechanism applicant cites in ¶ [0012] of the specification for vibration reduction, where the claimed and prior art processes are substantially identical, the burden shifts to applicant to prove the prior art does not possess the recited characteristic; see In re Best MPEP §2112 (V)).
Regarding claim 38, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein said baffle protrudes inwardly towards a central axis of the tapered discharge part (figure 2; ¶ [0008]),
and is positioned in the lower half portion of said lower discharge part (figure 1),
wherein the method comprises forming, over said baffle, a boundary between the stagnant zone and the portion of granular material particles flowing down (¶ [0009]),
wherein the boundary extends upwardly to cover a zone where friction of the granular material particles and the inner wall of the lower discharge part causes vibration of the container (this merely amounts to reciting a result and has no patentable weight; see Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc. MPEP §2111.04 (I)).
Regarding claim 40, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein said opening has an area smaller than the cross-section area of the lower discharge part where the baffle is located (figure 2) and also smaller than the cross-section area of the lower discharge part below said baffle (figure 3),
and wherein flowing the granular material particles downwards comprises causing a flow restriction followed by a flow expansion on the flow of granular material particles flowing down through the opening of the baffle (inherent in disclosed geometry, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 42, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the baffle is ring-shaped (abstract; ¶ [0008]),
and follows the contour of a perimeter of the lower discharge part at a position where said baffle is located (figure 1; ¶ [0008]),
and wherein forming a stagnant zone above the baffle comprises forming a stagnant zone extending above the baffle around said perimeter (¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 43, Yan discloses the method of claim 42, wherein the ring-shaped baffle has the form of an annular plate with a flat top surface forming said stagnant zone (item 3, figure 5; ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 44, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the container comprises a plurality of baffles positioned at different heights in the lower discharge part of the container (item 3, figure 1; ¶ [0008]),
wherein flowing the granular material particles downwards comprises stopping the downward flow of a portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with the inner wall of the lower discharge part at each baffle (¶ [0009]),
wherein said portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with said inner wall rests on a respective projecting surface of each baffle forming a stagnant zone above each baffle (¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 46, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein said portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with said inner wall, resting on said projecting surface and forming the stagnant zone above the baffle, is a relatively small portion compared to the portion of the granular material particles not proximate to said inner wall which flows through the opening of the baffle (¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 47, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the opening of the baffle and the cross section of the inner wall of the lower discharge part present a shape which is one of:
a circular shape, or an oval shape (¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 48, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the baffle is one of:
a monolithic annular baffle,
a baffle by a plurality of segments attached to the inner wall leaving spaces between each other to allow expansion and contraction of the annular segments due to changes in temperature (items 3, figure 1; ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 53, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein flowing the granular material particles downwards in the container is made by gravity (¶ [0009], inherent that the material flows downwards due to gravity).
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 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan.
Regarding claim 39, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein said baffle protrudes inwardly towards a central axis of the lower discharge part (figure 2; ¶ [0008]),
wherein the method comprises forming, over said baffle, a boundary between the stagnant zone and the portion of granular material particles flowing down (¶ [0009]).
However, Yan does not expressly teach the said boundary and said stagnant zone extend upwardly above the baffle a height which is 1/5 or more of a total height of the lower discharge part of the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a stagnant zone and boundary extend upwardly 1/5 or more of the total height of the lower discharge part, as it would be an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved routine optimization of the stagnant zone height in order to find a range to achieve wear protection of the container walls as taught by Yan (¶ [0009]) (see MPEP §2144.05(II)).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Fisher (US 4548342).
Regarding claim 41, Yan discloses the method of claim 36, wherein said opening has an area smaller than the cross-section area of the lower discharge part where the baffle is located (figure 2),
and wherein flowing the granular material particles downwards comprises causing a flow restriction followed by a flow expansion on the flow of granular material particles flowing down through the opening of the baffle (inherent in disclosed geometry, figures 1-3).
However, Yan does not teach a discharge conduit connected to said discharge outlet.
Fisher teaches a discharge conduit (item 21, figure 4) connected to said discharge outlet (col. 5, lines 14-15) and said opening has an area smaller than the cross-section area of the discharge conduit (col. 5, lines 24-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have add a discharge conduit as taught by Fisher to the discharge outlet of Yan and to make the said opening smaller than the cross-section area of the discharge conduit in order to control material flow as taught by Fisher (col. 5, lines 19-22).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Quintero-Flores et al. (US 20020179640 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Yan discloses the method of claim 36 but is silent on the width of said baffle.
Quintero-Flores et al. discloses the width of said baffle (item L, figure 1) is in the range from 10 to 100 times the average size of said granular material particles (¶ [0035] and ¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have sized the width of the baffles of Yan within the range taught by Quintero-Flores et al. because they teach this dimension is “selected in accordance with the size and shape of the particles to be handled” (¶ [0035]), making baffle width relative to particle size a result effective variable. Such a modification would have involved routine optimization; applicant has given no motivation for the claimed range.
Claims 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Dam (US 5702246).
Regarding claim 49, Yan discloses the method of claim 36 but does not teach that the granular material particles contain direct reduced iron or cooling the granular material particles.
Dam discloses a method for processing granular material particles in a container wherein the granular material particles contain direct reduced iron (DRI) (col. 1, lines 5-6),
wherein the container is a DRI cooler (item 22, figure 1; col. 5, lines 3-5),
and wherein the method comprises cooling the granular material particles by contact with a cooling gas circulating counter-currently to the downward flow of said granular material particles (col. 6, lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have combined the container and baffles of Yan with the DRI cooler as taught by Dam in order to protect the walls of the container from wear. Yan teaches that iron particles can damage container walls quickly (¶ [0002]), therefore one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the wall protection Yan teaches due to the baffle structure with the DRI cooler of Dam as it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 50, Yan as modified discloses the method of claim 49.
However, Yan is silent on the cooling gas.
Dam discloses the cooling gas is a non-oxidizing gas (col. 6, lines 27-29), wherein the method comprises:
feeding the granular material particles into the container at a high temperature, in the range from 400°C to 800°C (col. 5, lines 1-19),
feeding the cooling gas through a gas inlet (item 50, figure 1),
and withdrawing hot gas through a gas outlet (item 70, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have combined for the same reasons stated for claim 49.
Regarding claim 51, Yan discloses the method of claim 36 but does not teach that the granular material particles contain direct reduced iron or the container is a DRI reactor.
Dam discloses a DRI reactor (col. 1, lines 5-6), and wherein the method comprises circulating a gas in the container, wherein the gas is a reducing gas at a high temperature, in the range from 850°C to 1100°C (col. 5, lines 1-2; col. 5-6, lines 65-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have combined for the same reasons stated for claim 49.
Regarding claim 52, Yan discloses the method of claim 36 but does not teach a discharge rate regulating device.
Dam discloses a discharge rate regulating device is provided and wherein the method comprises regulating a discharge rate of the granular material particles (col. 4, lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the container of Yan with a discharge rate regulating device as taught by Dam in order to regulate the discharge rate of granular material particles in a controlled and calculated manner; combining a known regulating device with a known container yields predictable results.
Claims 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam in view of Yan.
Regarding claim 54, Dam discloses a method of processing granular material particles in a DRI reactor (col. 1, lines 5-6), wherein the DRI reactor comprises a container (item 10, figure 1) having:
an upper part (items 12, 18, 20, figure 1),
a lower discharge part, wherein the lower discharge part is non-rotating, tapered and has an inner wall converging to a discharge outlet of the container (item 42, figure 1; col. 4, lines 44-50),
flowing granular material particles downwards in the container, said granular material particles including iron particles (col. 6, lines 14-16),
circulating in the container a reducing gas at high temperature, in the range from 850°C to 1100°C, to form granular material particles of direct reduced iron (col. 5, lines 1-2; col. 5-6, lines 65-3),
and discharging the granular material particles through the discharge outlet (col. 4, lines 58-61).
However, Dam does not teach a baffle.
Yan discloses a baffle placed in the lower discharge part (items 3, figure 1), the baffle having a projecting surface, which projects into the interior of the container, and an opening (¶ [0008]; figure 2),
wherein the flowing the granular material particles downwards in the container comprises:
stopping the downward flow of a portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with the inner wall of the lower discharge part (¶ [0009]),
wherein said portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with said inner wall rests on said projecting surface forming a stagnant zone above the baffle (¶ [0009]),
flowing another portion of the granular material particles not proximate to said inner wall through the opening of the baffle to a lower portion of the container or to a discharge conduit connected to said discharge outlet (¶ [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have included the baffles as taught by Yan in the DRI reactor of Dam in order to protect the walls of the container from wear. Yan teaches that iron particles can damage container walls quickly (¶ [0002]), therefore one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to included the wall protection Yan teaches due to the baffle structure with the DRI reactor of Dam as it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 55, Dam discloses a method of processing material particles in a DRI cooler (col. 1, lines 5-6; col. 5, lines 3-5), wherein the DRI cooler comprises a container (item 10, figure 1) having:
an upper part (items 12, 18, 20, figure 1),
a lower discharge part, wherein the lower discharge part is non-rotating, tapered and has an inner wall converging to a discharge outlet of the container (item 42, figure 1; col. 4, lines 44-50),
flowing granular material particles downwards in the container, said granular material particles containing direct reduced iron (col. 6, lines 14-16),
cooling the granular material particles by contact with a cooling gas circulating counter-currently to the downward flow of said granular material particles (col. 6, lines 20-24),
and discharging the granular material particles through the discharge outlet (col. 4, lines 58-61).
However, Dam does not teach a baffle.
Yan discloses a baffle placed in the lower discharge part (items 3, figure 1), the baffle having a projecting surface, which projects into the interior of the container, and an opening (¶ [0008]; figure 2),
wherein the flowing the granular material particles downwards in the container comprises:
stopping the downward flow of a portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with the inner wall of the lower discharge part (¶ [0009]),
wherein said portion of granular material particles proximate and in contact with said inner wall rests on said projecting surface forming a stagnant zone above the baffle (¶ [0009]),
flowing another portion of the granular material particles not proximate to said inner wall through the opening of the baffle to a lower portion of the container or to a discharge conduit connected to said discharge outlet (¶ [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have combined for the same reasons stated for claim 54.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J ARIF whose telephone number is (571)272-9620. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Paul R Durand can be reached at (571)272-4459. 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.
/NOAH JACOB ARIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights