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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species “a”, claims 1-2, 5, 7-11 and 18-26, in the response of 01 July 2026, without traverse is acknowledged.
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 22-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by German Patent DE 2111421 (Hoelter).
As concerns claim 1, Hoelter discloses a filter system for removing dust particles from underground mining, the filter system comprising:(a) a mesh system comprising one or more meshes secured by a frame (as shown in the figure, screen and mesh);(b) a frame bed for holding the mesh system, wherein the frame bed receives vibrational energy from a continuous miner (0003); and(c) a means for transferring vibrational energy from the continuous miner to the mesh system, wherein the means for transferring the vibrational energy are positioned between and in contact with the frame bed and the mesh system (see, 0006, the vibrating screen 7 receives vibrational energy from the continuous miner via natural oscillations, or externally excited oscillators, which will be deemed as equivalent to the springs or elastic elements claimed).
As concerns claim 2, Hoelter discloses the filter system of claim 1, wherein the mesh system comprises two or more meshes adjacent to and in contact with one another (at 0007, discussing multiple folded filter mats).
As concerns claim 22, Hoelter discloses a method for removing dust particles from underground mining produced by a continuous miner, the method comprising contacting the dust particles with the filter system 6, 7 in claim 1, wherein the filter system is mounted to the continuous miner, and wherein the continuous miner produces vibrational energy sufficient to vibrate the mesh system in the filter system (0003, 0006).
As concerns claim 23, Hoelter discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the filter system is configured between the inlet and outlet of a scrubber system, which is attached to the body of the continuous miner (0006).
As concerns claim 26, Hoelter discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the method further comprises removing the filter system from the continuous miner, cleaning the mesh system of the filter system to remove all or substantially of the dust particles from the one or more meshes, and re-installing the filter system on the continuous miner (see, 0006 at 59).
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoelter in view of Chinese Patent Publication CN 113207429 A (Du et al.).
As concerns claim 18, Hoelter discloses the filter system of claim 1, but lacks to specifically disclose wherein the means for transferring vibrational energy comprises one or more springs.
Du et al. discloses a filter system having a vibrating screen wherein the means for transferring vibrational energy comprises one or more springs (“Frame structure 12: a main body supporting frame; Spring damping: providing elastic connection”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously considered using a spring as illustrated in Du et al. for transferring the vibrational energy disclosed by Hoelter with a reasonable expectation of success, as this can provide the desirable result of controlling the vibration or providing damping by using springs with different spring constants.
As concerns claim 21, Du et al. discloses the filter system of claim 1, wherein the means for transferring vibrational energy comprises an elastic material (in as much as a spring is an elastic material).
Claim(s) 7-11, 19-20 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoelter in view of US 4,380,353 (Campbell et al.).
As concerns claim 7, Hoelter discloses the filter system of claim 1, but lacks to disclose wherein the one or more meshes comprises 1 to 30 layers of woven steel.
Campbell et al. discloses wherein the one or more meshes comprises 1 to 30 layers of woven steel (see, 6:26, Campbell et al. discloses 40 layers of steel, which includes the range of 1 to 30).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have considered it obvious to incorporate the range of layers disclosed by Campbell et al. into the filter mesh of Hoelter with a reasonable expectation of success, as this produces the desirable result of being highly effective for entrainment of the dust, including respirable dust down to a few tenths of a micron.
As concerns claim 8, Hoelter discloses the filter system of claim 1, but lacks to expressly disclose wherein the mesh system has a thickness of from about 1 mm to about 10 mm.
Campbell et al. discloses a dust control system for a mining machine having a filter mesh with a thickness of from about 1 mm to about 10 mm (this range is disclosed, see 6:26).
As concerns claims 9-10, 19-20 and 24, the combination lacks to disclose the ranges for the diameters of the wires, the temperatures the spring constants or the vibrational frequencies as claimed, nevertheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
As concerns claim 11, Campbell et al. discloses a dust control system for a mining machine wherein each mesh comprises a coating (knitted wire cloth, see 6:25+)
As concerns claim 25, Campbell et al. discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the dust particles are contacted with water prior to contacting the filter system (see at least the Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2,068,783 (Wendell) is drawn to a separating apparatus for a coal mining operation using a vibrating screen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights