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 § 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 1-12 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11-12 and 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the information used to process the information read from the transponder". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite method for reusing products without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, wherein “use” claims as such do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP § 2173.05(q).
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 1-9, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670). English translations of Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) have been provided herein
Regarding claim 1, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches a monitoring method for monitoring, preferably coarse ceramic, refractory, shaped products (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), preferably bricks, wherein the method comprises monitoring the products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-5),
wherein, the products comprise a transponder (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-4) which is read out (Paragraph 0019 lines 1-14) for monitoring and the products are monitored at least with regard to their mineral and/or chemical composition on the basis of or by processing the read-out information (Paragraph 0012 lines 1-8),
and that the products are
a) at least partially products used in an aggregate, preferably a furnace or a transport vessel (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), and broken out of this after use (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-6),
and/or
b) at least partially products that are unusable for use, in particular waste products that incur during manufacture and/or products that have changed, preferably hydrated, during storage and/or transport.
Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) lacks teaching a sorting method for sorting, preferably coarse ceramic, refractory, shaped products, preferably bricks, wherein the method comprises sorting the products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition.
Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) teaches a sorting method (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) for sorting, preferably coarse ceramic, refractory, shaped products (Paragraph 0020 lines 1-6), preferably bricks, wherein the method comprises sorting the products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition (Paragraph 0010 lines 1-4).
Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) explains that the sortation allows for high-precision sorting of large quantities of used refractory material without relying on manual labor, and explains that by using only used refractories that contain the necessary chemical components for reuse as raw materials and using the appropriate raw material for each material, it is possible to obtain products with less quality degradation and variation (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-6).
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 Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) to include a sorting method for sorting, preferably coarse ceramic, refractory, shaped products, preferably bricks, wherein the method comprises sorting the products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition as taught by Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) in order to reuse the used refractories which contain the necessary chemical components as raw materials.
Regarding claim 2, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method includes monitoring criteria on the basis of which the products are monitored; the monitoring criteria being read directly from the transponder and/or are determined by means of data processing from the information read from the transponder (Paragraph 0019 lines 1-14).
As stated previously, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) lacks teaching a sorting method for sorting the products (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the transponder comprises the information relating to the mineral and/or chemical composition of the product and the products are monitored at least on the basis of this information (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-5).
As stated previously, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) lacks teaching a sorting method for sorting the products (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the information read from the transponder and/or the information used to process the information read from the transponder is one or more of the following:
- Recipe;
- Production date;
- Internal recipe number;
- Information on the manufacturing process of the products, in particular the mixing time and/or the pressing pressure and/or the firing temperature;
- Waste code number;
- Place of use of the products (Paragraph 0022 lines 1-11);
- Operating time of the products (Paragraph 0022 lines 1-11);
- Temperature regime in a plant interior of an aggregate, preferably a furnace, in which the products were used (Paragraph 0021 lines 6-13);
- Atmosphere in the plant interior of the aggregate, preferably of the furnace, in which the products were used, in particular alkali content of the atmosphere; and
- Pallet number.
Regarding claim 5, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the products comprise an RFID transponder as the transponder (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 6, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the products comprise a passive transponder as the transponder (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 7, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the transponder is configured for temperature measurement (Paragraph 0021 lines 6-13 “thermal state”) and/or for humidity measurement and/or for atmospheric measurement.
Regarding claim 8, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the transponders are each arranged in a recess in a product cold side of the broken-out product (Paragraph 0018 lines 1-8, “encapsulated” and “contact with the harmful surrounding conditions…is substantially avoided”).
Regarding claim 9, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the broken-out products are products of a refractory lining (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0021 lines 3-7) and/or functional products.
Regarding claim 11, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches a method for monitoring coarse ceramic refractory shaped products (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), preferably bricks, used in an aggregate, preferably a furnace or a transport vessel (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), comprising the following method steps:
b) monitoring the products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-5), and
c) Preferably reprocessing the sorted products,
wherein the products comprise a transponder (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-4) and are monitored according to the monitoring method according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) lacks teaching a method for recycling coarse ceramic refractory shaped products, preferably bricks, used in an aggregate, preferably a furnace or a transport vessel, comprising the following method steps:
a) Breaking out the products of the aggregate, preferably the furnace,
b) Sorting the broken-out products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition.
Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) teaches a method for recycling coarse ceramic refractory shaped products, preferably bricks, used in an aggregate (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3), preferably a furnace or a transport vessel, comprising the following method steps:
a) Breaking out the products of the aggregate (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-2), preferably the furnace,
b) Sorting the broken-out products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition (Paragraph 0031 lines 1-9).
Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) explains that the process allows for high-precision sorting of large quantities of used refractory material without relying on manual labor, and explains that by using only used refractories that contain the necessary chemical components for reuse as raw materials and using the appropriate raw material for each material, it is possible to obtain products with less quality degradation and variation (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-6).
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 Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) to include a method for recycling coarse ceramic refractory shaped products, preferably bricks, used in an aggregate, preferably a furnace or a transport vessel, comprising the following method steps: a) Breaking out the products of the aggregate, preferably the furnace, b) Sorting the broken-out products at least on the basis of their mineral and/or chemical composition as taught by Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) in order to reuse the used refractories which contain the necessary chemical components as raw materials.
Regarding claim 12, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches a method for reusing products monitored according to the method according to claim 1 (see claim 1) for the production of, preferably, coarse ceramic, refractory, shaped or unshaped products (Paragraph 0009 lines 13-17).
As stated previously, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) lacks teaching a sorting method for sorting the products (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) teaches a method for reusing products monitored according to the method of claim 11 (see claim 11) for the production of, preferably, coarse ceramic, refractory, shaped or unshaped products (Paragraph 0009 lines 13-17).
As stated previously, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) lacks teaching a method for recycling the products (see claim 11).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 6357670) and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 113911755). English translations of Liu et al. (CN 113911755) have been provided herein
Regarding claim 10, Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) lacks teaching a sorting method according to claim 1, wherein some of the products are products from overproduction.
Liu et al. (CN 113911755) teaches a sorting method (Paragraph 0020 line 1-Paragraph 0021 line 5) for sorting, preferably coarse ceramic, refractory, shaped products (Paragraph 0003 line 1-Paragraph 0004 line 5), wherein some of the products are products from overproduction (Paragraph 0015 lines 1-8).
Liu et al. (CN 113911755) explains that the system outputs production data and production volume in the form of reports, which is used to monitor production data (type, flatness, current operation station, number of bricks currently stacked), and monitor daily production data including daily production volume of each brick type, shift production completion rate, and alarm count (Paragraph 0015 lines 1-8).
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 Schlueter et al. (US 2011/0251712) to include wherein some of the products are products from overproduction as taught by Liu et al. (CN 113911755) in order to monitor the production data and provide feedback regarding the daily production volume of each brick type.
Conclusion
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