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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinoncely (US 6042032).
Regarding claim 1, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches a system for providing materials having a particular particle size (Col. 1 lines 8-13), the system comprising:
a mill (Fig. 1 #10) configured to produce grinded materials (Col. 2 lines 56-67);
a classifier (Fig. 1 #12) positioned to receive the grinded materials (Fig. 1 #12 configured to receive materials from #10) and including a first classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #17) and a second classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #16), wherein the classifier is configured to separate the grinded materials based on a first threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 9-19), such that the grinded materials having at least the first threshold particle size are directed toward the second classifier outlet (Col. 3 lines 9-13); and
a screen (Fig. 1 #14) positioned to receive the grinded materials from the second classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #14 configured to receive materials from #16) and including a first screen outlet (Fig. 1 outlet of ‘F1’, ‘F2’) and a second screen outlet (Fig. 1 outlet of #14 directed to #10), wherein the screen is configured to separate the grinded materials based on a second threshold particle size greater than the first threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 10-28), such that (i) the grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size are directed to the mill via the second screen outlet (Col. 3 lines 21-25) and (ii) the grinded materials not directed to the mill have a particle size between the first threshold particle size and the second threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 3, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second threshold particle size is at least 1.4 millimeters (Col. 3 lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 6, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the screen (Fig. 1 #14) includes a mesh size corresponding to the second threshold particle size and the screen is configured to separate the grinded materials based on the mesh size (Col. 3 lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 7, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the mill (Fig. 1 #10) is positioned to receive the grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size from the second screen outlet (Col. 3 lines 23-25) and configured to further grind the grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 8, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the classifier (Fig. 1 #12) further comprises an inlet positioned at a bottom region of the classifier (Fig. 1 see inlet positioned at bottom of #12), and the classifier is configured to receive the grinded materials from the mill through the inlet (Col. 3 lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 9, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a baghouse (Fig. 2 #44), wherein the baghouse is positioned to receive the grinded materials having a particle size below the first threshold particle size from the first classifier outlet (Col. 3 lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 11, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the materials include carbonaceous materials and/or coke products (Col. 4 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 12, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the grinded materials having at least the first threshold particle size are provided to the screen via the second classifier outlet at least in part by gravity (Fig. 1 see materials provided to #14 from #17 by gravity).
Regarding claim 14, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein grinded materials directed to the mill from the second screen outlet (Fig. 1 outlet of #14 directed to #10) have a particle size greater than 1.4 millimeters (Col. 3 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 15, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches a method of producing materials having a particular particle size (Col. 1 lines 8-13), the method comprising:
grinding materials via a mill (Fig. 1 #10) to produce grinded materials (Col. 2 lines 56-67);
separating the grinded materials via a classifier (Fig. 1 #12) based on a first threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 9-19), such that the grinded materials having a particle size below a first threshold particle size are directed toward a first classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #17) of the classifier and the grinded materials having a particle size of at least the first threshold particle size are directed toward a second classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #16) of the classifier; and
separating the grinded materials received from the second classifier outlet via a screen (Fig. 1 #14) based on a second threshold particle size greater than the first threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 9-28), such that (i) the grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size are directed to the mill via a second screen outlet of the screen (Col. 3 lines 21-25) and (ii) the grinded materials having a particle size less than the second threshold particle size have a particle size between the first threshold particle size and the second threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 16, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising controlling a feed rate for providing the materials to the mill (Col. 4 lines 8-13), wherein a higher feed rate results in a greater particle size of the grinded materials (Col. 4 lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 17, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising controlling a grinding speed of the mill (Col. 1 lines 61-65, Col. 4 lines 15-22), wherein increasing the grinding speed decreases a particle size for the grinded materials (Col. 4 lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 18, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the method of claim 15, wherein separating the grinded materials received from the second classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #14 separating materials received from #16) comprises directing the grinded materials having the particle size less than the second threshold particle size to a product conveyor unit (Fig. 1 see ‘F1’, ‘F2’ conveyed away from #14, Col. 3 lines 50-56 explains conveyance of intermediate fractions to storage silos).
Regarding claim 19, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the method of claim 15, wherein separating the grinded materials received from the second classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #14 separating materials received from #16) comprises directing the grinded materials having the particle size less than the second threshold particle size to a product conveyor unit(Fig. 1 see ‘F1’, ‘F2’ conveyed away from #14, Col. 3 lines 50-56 explains conveyance of intermediate fractions to storage silos), the method further comprising controlling a feed rate for providing the materials to the mill (Col. 4 lines 8-13) and/or controlling a grinding speed of the mill (Col. 1 lines 61-65, Col. 4 lines 15-22) based on a proportion of the grinded materials directed to the product conveyor unit (Col. 4 lines 8-13, “means for measuring the total throughput recycled to the grinder input”).
Regarding claim 20, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches a system for providing materials having a particular particle size distribution (Col. 1 lines 8-13), the system comprising:
a mill (Fig. 1 #10) configured to grind materials to produce grinded materials (Col. 2 lines 56-67);
a classifier (Fig. 1 #12) positioned to receive the grinded materials (Fig. 1 #12 configured to receive materials from #10) and including a first classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #17) and a second classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #16), wherein the classifier is configured to separate the grinded materials based on a first threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 9-19), such that the grinded materials having at least the first threshold particle size are directed toward the second classifier outlet (Fig. 1 #16); and
a screen (Fig. 1 #14) positioned below the classifier (Fig. 1 #14 positioned below #12), wherein:
the grinded materials are directed from the second classifier outlet to the screen at least in part by gravity (Fig. 1 see materials provided to #14 from #17 by gravity),
the screen includes a first screen outlet (Fig. 1 outlet of ‘F1’, ‘F2’) and a second screen outlet (Fig. 1 outlet of #14 directed to #10),
the screen is configured to separate the grinded materials based on a second threshold particle size greater than the first threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 9-28), such that (i) the grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size are directed to the mill via the second screen outlet (Col. 3 lines 21-25) and (ii) the grinded materials having a particle size less than the second threshold particle size have a particle size between the first threshold particle size and the second threshold particle size (Col. 3 lines 21-28), and
the mill (Fig. 1 #10) is positioned below the screen (Fig. 1 see #10 positioned below #14) such that the grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size are directed to the mill (Col. 3 lines 21-25) via the second screen outlet at least partially by gravity (Fig. 1 see outlet of #14 directed to #10 directing materials by gravity).
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.
Claims 2, 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinoncely (US 6042032) in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 2, Pinoncely (US 6042032) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the first threshold particle size is at least 150 micrometers. Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the first threshold particle size from 1 to 100 micrometers (Col. 3 lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinoncely (US 6042032) to include wherein the first threshold particle size is at least 150 micrometers in order to remove undesirably small particles from the grinded materials as determined based on the desired output of materials in a particular application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Pinoncely (US 6042032) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to provide at least 70% yield for the grinded materials having the particle size between the first threshold particle size and the second threshold particle size. Pinoncely (US 6042032) explains that it is desirable to minimize the flow of products recycled to the grinder input (Col. 4 lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinoncely (US 6042032) to optimize the yield for the grinding materials having the particle size between the first threshold particle size and the second threshold particle size to be at least 70% in order to minimize the flow of products recycled to the grinding input and as determined based on the desired output of materials in a particular application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Pinoncely (US 6042032) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size directed to the mill include 15% to 30% of the materials ground by the mill. Pinoncely (US 6042032) explains that it is desirable to minimize the flow of products recycled to the grinder input (Col. 4 lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinoncely (US 6042032) to optimize amount of grinded materials having at least the second threshold particle size directed to the mill to include 15% to 30% of the materials ground by the mill as determined based on the desired output of materials in a particular application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Pinoncely (US 6042032) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the mill (Fig. 1 #10) is configured to grind the materials having a particle size of up to 20 millimeters to the grinded materials (Col. 1 lines 40-44).
Pinoncely (US 6042032) lacks teaching wherein more than 65% of the grinded materials have a particle size of 150 micrometers to 300 micrometers. Pinoncely (US 6042032) explains that the ground particles may be dived into several fractions comprising at least one coarse fraction which are of a size ranging between 0.5 and several tens of millimeters, and a fine fraction having an upper limit ranging from 300 micrometers to sever tens of micrometers, the parameters of the grinding operation possibly being selected in such a way that, in the case of all the fractions, the throughput is greater than or equal to the throughput desired (Col. 1 lines 40-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinoncely (US 6042032) to optimize the amount of grinded materials having a particle size of 150 micrometers to 300 micrometers to be more than 65% of the materials ground by the mill as determined based on the desired output of materials in a particular application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinoncely (US 6042032) in view of Browne et al. (US 7370820).
Regarding claim 10, Pinoncely (US 6042032) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, further comprising a crusher upstream of the mill, wherein the crusher is positioned to provide the materials to the mill for grinding.
Browne et al. (US 7370820) teaches a system for providing materials having a particular particle size (Col. 3 lines 37-57), further comprising a crusher (Fig. 3 #105) upstream of the mill (Fig. 3 #105 upstream #110), wherein the crusher is positioned to provide the materials to the mill for grinding (Col. 4 lines 55-57).
Browne et al. (US 7370820) explains that a precrusher may be included before the mill to reduce the pieces to smaller, more uniform sizes to be introduced to the mill (Col. 4 lines 55-57), as this increases the performance of the mill (Col. 8 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinoncely (US 6042032) to include a crusher upstream of the mill, wherein the crusher is positioned to provide the materials to the mill for grinding as taught by Browne et al. (US 7370820) in order to provide smaller, more uniform sized material to the mill and therefore increase the performance of the mill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sawamura et al. (US 5529248) teaches a method and apparatus for grinding and sieving material particles.
Kupper et al. (US 5375776) teaches a method and apparatus for grinding and sieving material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights