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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) [or foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or 365(a)] is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. CN 202211550692.8, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The benefit claim to CN 202211550692.8 is not recognized as to claim 12 (starting from line 3: "the water-cooling mechanism comprises a plurality of coolant tubes to form a tubular cooling tube body; both ends of the cooling tube body are connected to a first fixed plate and a second fixed plate, respectively; the cooling tube body is fixed between the first fixed plate and the second fixed plate via a fixed rod; the second fixed plate is fixed with a flange; a water groove in communication with the coolant tubes is disposed on the first fixed plate and the second fixed plate, respectively; a cooling separation gap is disposed between two adjacent coolant tubes; and the flange is provided with a water inlet and a water outlet that are in communication with the water groove") and claim 13, because Figures 4–6 and the corresponding written description introduce subject matter not disclosed in the priority document. Applicant is required to either:
a. specifically point out where written description support for claims 12 and 13 cooling-mechanism structure exists in the priority document CN 202211550692.8, if applicant contends such support is present; or
b. acknowledge that claims 12–13 are entitled only to the August 28, 2023, effective filing date of International Application No. PCT/CN2023/110537. Absent a persuasive showing under (a), claims 12–13 will continue to be treated, for all purposes requiring an effective filing date, as having an effective filing date of August 28, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "the ball discharging hole" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the detailed view of " as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both a and a "ultrasonic generator" in Figure 4–5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 identifies primary mechanical components with alphabetical characters (. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract begins ". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraph [0050] identifies element " A single character must be used consistently to designate the same part throughout the specification (see MPEP 608.01(o)).
P A single character must be used consistently to designate the same part throughout the specification. Applicant is advised to review the entire reference character list against the drawings to ensure full consistency.
Consequently, applicant is advised to make appropriate corrections by assigning a reference character and providing corresponding drawing support for this element, or by amending the specification to remove the apparently inconsistent recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 but recites “the first interceptor” and the “second interceptor,” terms that first appear in claim 5, not claim 1. Claim 6 lacks proper antecedent basis under its current dependency. It is suggested that claim 6 be amended to depend from claim 5. This issue is also addressed as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the paragraph below, because the lack of antecedent basis renders the claim indefinite as currently written.
Claim 13 recites “the separation gap,” whereas claim 1 defines this element as the “second separation gap.” Consistent terminology must be maintained.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "ball tripping mechanism" in claim 4, and "mill-ball sorting mechanism" in claim 7, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1–13 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “a ball milling apparatus” without positively reciting a milling chamber comprising a plurality of grinding balls; without reciting these essential structural components, the structural metes and bounds of the claimed apparatus cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. One can’t have a ball mill without at least those two things.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites that “the third separation gap is in axial communication with the second separation cavity.” On the other hand, dependent claim 3 recites that “the third separation gap is in radial communication with the second separation cavity.” These mutually conflicting directional recitations create a direct contradiction between the parent claim and the dependent claim regarding the spatial orientation and fluid boundary of the second separation channel, rendering the claims mutually inconsistent and indefinite under U.S.C. 112 (b).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first interceptor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as set forth in the Claim Objections section above.
The term “close to” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” 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.
Neither the claim nor the specification provides a measurable threshold, numerical range, or functional test to determine how near the first interceptor must be positioned relative to the discharging port to be considered "close to" rather than distal. Without an objective standard to determine the metes and bounds of this spatial proximity, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Moreover, claim 6 recites the limitation "the second interceptor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as set forth in the Claim Objections section above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the separation gap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as set forth in the Claim Objections section above. Moreover, claim 13 depends from claim 12, which depends through claim 11, and claim 10 ultimately back to independent claim 1. Neither claim 12, claim 11, claim 10, nor parent claim 1 provides antecedent basis for “the separation gap on the second separator.”
Because claim 1 designates the gap located on the second separator as “the second separation gap” rather than “the separation gap on the second separator,” the terminology employed in claim 13 creates ambiguity as to whether the applicant intends to compare the “cooling separation gap” to:
The “second separation gap” specifically recited in claim 1;
The “third separation gap” (which is also disposed at an end portion of the second separator); or
An unspecified, generic separation gap not previously defined in the claim chain.
Consequently, the boundaries of the dimensional relationship recited in claim 13 cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty, rendering the claim indefinite under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “greater than” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “greater than” 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.
Specifically, claim 12, from which claim 13 depends, recites that the cooling tube body comprises a plurality of coolant tubes, and the specification fails to specify whether "greater than" refers to:
The radial width, axial length, or total cumulative flow cross-sectional area of the cooling separation gap relative to the screening openings; or
An individual gap dimension compared to an individual second separation gap (or the aggregate thereof).
Because the claim lacks an objective standard for determining the precise metes and bounds of the comparison “greater than,” one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
Claims 2–5, and 7–12 are also rejected as being dependent upon and failing to overcome the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1–6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiang et al. (Chinese Patent No. CN 113908934 A).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses an agitating wet ball milling apparatus, comprising a separation apparatus (separating mechanism 700; see Figure 10), wherein the separation apparatus (separating mechanism 700) comprises a first separator (first separating turbine 1; see Figures 1, 2, 3, and 10) provided with a cavity (hollow space between the first separating turbine 1 and the main shaft 500; see Figures 19 and 20) and a second separator (second separating turbine 2; see Figures 6 and 10) located in the cavity (as depicted in Figures 1 and 10) of the first separator (first separating turbine 1; see Figure 1); a first separation cavity (through hole 122; see Figure 10) is disposed between the first separator (first separating turbine 1; see Figures 1, 2, 3, and 10) and the second separator (second separating turbine 2, see Figures 6 and 10); the second separator (second separating turbine 2; see Figures 6 and 10) is provided with a second separation cavity (see Figure 6) in communication with a discharging port (discharge pipe 270); the second separation cavity (see Figure 6) is in communication with the first separation cavity in a radial direction (through the second separation hole 21; see Figure 6) and in an axial direction (through the through hole 122), respectively to form a first separation channel (122) and a second separation channel (page 6, lines 34-36; see the flow convection diagram of Figures 19 and 20); a cover (4) for closing the cavity of the first separator (first separating turbine 1; see Figure 2) in an axial direction and a first separation gap (first separation hole (111) formed through the wall) in communication with inside and outside of the first separator (first separating turbine 1)are disposed at an end portion and in a radial direction of the first separator (first separating turbine 1), respectively; a third separation gap (small arc-shaped notches cut into the ring of the external pressure cover (4) at roughly four evenly spaced points around its inner circumference; see Figure 2) in communication with the first separation cavity (space inside of the hollow separating mechanism 700, between the first separating turbine 1, and the second separating turbine 2; see Figure 10) and the second separation cavity (see Figures 6 and 10) is disposed between the cover (external pressure cover 4) and an end portion of the second separator (second separating turbine 2); and a through hole (21) and a second separation gap (through the second separation hole 21; see Figure 6) are disposed at the end portion and in a radial direction of the second separator (second separating turbine 2) (see Figure 2), respectively; the second separation gap (through the second separation hole 21) is in communication with the second separation cavity (as shown in Figure 6) and the first separation cavity (space inside of the hollow separating mechanism 700, between the first separating turbine 1, and the second separating turbine 2; see Figure 10); the through hole (520) is in communication with the second separation cavity (see Figures 6) and the first separation cavity (space inside of the hollow separating mechanism 700, between the first separating turbine 1, and the second separating turbine 2; see Figure 10) via the third separation gap (small arc-shaped notches cut into the ring of the external pressure cover 4 at roughly four evenly spaced points around its inner circumference; see Figure 2); the second separation channel (Figures 19 and 20) comprises the third separation gap (small arc-shaped notches cut into the ring of the external pressure cover 4 at roughly four evenly spaced points around its inner circumference; see Figure 2) in communication with the first separation gap (space between the first separating turbine 1, and the through hole 122; see Figure 10) and the second separation cavity (as shown in Figure 6); and the third separation gap (small arc-shaped notches cut into the ring of the external pressure cover 4 at roughly four evenly spaced points around its inner circumference; see Figure 2) is in axial communication (Figure 19) with the second separation cavity (see Figure 6) (as shown in Figures 2, 10, 19, and 20; Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Xiang et al. further discloses in Figures 10, 19, and 20, wherein the first separation channel (122) comprises the second separation cavity (as shown in Figure 6) in radial communication (everything inside of the turbine 700 connects radially, see Figures 19 and 20) with the first separation gap (first separation hole (111) formed through the wall) and the second separation gap (hollow space having the discharging pipe net 3), as depicted in Figures 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Xiang et al. further discloses in Figures 1, 2, and 10 wherein the second separation channel (Figures 19 and 20) comprises the third separation gap (small arc-shaped notches cut into the ring of the external pressure cover 4 at roughly four evenly spaced points around its inner circumference; see Figure 2) connected to the first separation gap (first separation hole (111) formed through the wall) and the second separation gap (hollow space having the discharging pipe net 3), and the third separation gap (small arc-shaped notches cut into the ring of the external pressure cover 4 at roughly four evenly spaced points around its inner circumference; see Figure 2) is in radial communication with the second separation cavity (Figure 6) as shown in Figures 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 3. Xiang et al. further discloses (page 10, lines 7–11; “The material output channel 510 in the main shaft 500 can be designed to be a rear-end blocking”) wherein the second separation channel (Figure 19) is provided with a ball tripping mechanism (“Due to the blocking action of the discharging pipe net 3, the grinding ball cannot pass through the discharging pipe net 3 into the material output channel; page 7, lines 24–26) as depicted in Figures 8, 9, 13, and 14.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 4. Xiang et al. further discloses wherein the ball tripping mechanism (see Figures 6 and 7) comprises a second interceptor (second separating hole 21; see Figure 7) extending to the second separator (second separating turbine 2) in a radial direction (inner slots 21 through cylindrical shell 2 are cut at an oblique angle relative to the radial vector, as seen in Figure 7), and a first interceptor (first separating hole 111; see Figure 4) extending to the first separator (first separating turbine 1) in a radial direction (outer slots 111 cut through cylindrical shell 11 are likewise cut at an inclined angle, as depicted in Figure 4); and an interception channel is formed between the first interceptor and the second interceptor in a staggered manner (because the angled exit of outer slot 111 is circumferentially and radially “staggered” (offset) from the entrance of inner slot 21, as depicted in Figures 4, 7, and 10).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Xiang et al. further discloses wherein the first interceptor (first separating hole 111) is close to one side of the discharging port (through hole 520; see Figure 13), and the second interceptor (second separating hole 21) is located outside the first interceptor (first interceptor 111) as shown in Figures 1 and 10.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. (Chinese Patent No. CN 113908934 A) in view of Kaspar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,682,399), hereinafter Kaspar et al.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Xiang et al. further discloses the separation apparatus (700) in Figure 10 but fails to disclose wherein the separation apparatus is further provided with a mill-ball sorting mechanism.
On the other hand, Kaspar et al. in the same field of endeavor, teaches in Figures 9–10, wherein the separation apparatus (14, 15, 16 and 17, depicted in Figures 6, 7, and 8, respectively) is further provided with a mill-ball sorting mechanism as depicted in Figures 9 and 10 (“The solid particles which are too large are intercepted by the filter 24 and descend by gravity into an outlet 20 which returns them into the vessel;” Col. 8, lines 1–17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first separation cavity of Xiang et al.’s structure with a mill-ball sorting mechanism corresponding to Kaspar et al.’s teaching (outlet region 20) in order to use gravity for evacuating solid material is such way without resorting to a gaseous carrier (Col. 5, lines 49–51; Col. 5, lines 57–63).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al., in view of Kaspar et al., and further in view of Chen (Chinese Patent No. CN 214288561 U), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the combination of Xiang et al. and Kaspar et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 7. The combination further discloses in Figures 9 and 10 of Kaspar et al. wherein the mill-ball sorting mechanism comprises a mill-ball sorting cavity (outer housing [19a, 819a]; see Figures 9 and 10, respectively) and is provided with a ball discharging hole (outlet 20 and 820, see Figures 9 and 10, respectively) and a bottom of the mill-ball sorting cavity (19a, 819a) is lower than the first separation cavity (cavity between inner filter [23, 823], and outer filter [24, 824]) as depicted in Figures 9 and 10. After modification, the mill-ball sorting mechanism would be in communication with the first separation cavity of Xiang.
However, the combination of Xiang et al. and Kaspar et al. fails to disclose a switch for controlling the ball discharging hole.
On the other hand, Chen in the same field of endeavor, teaches in Figures 1 and 2, a switch (“limiting mechanism” comprising a fixed block [6] positioned beside the discharge pipe [1]; a screw rod [7], threaded into the block, with a rotating handle [12] on one end; the other end connected via a bearing [8] to a flow control plate [9], movable within a limiting groove [11]) for controlling the ball discharging hole (discharging pipe 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the switch (disclosed handle-actuated screw-and-plate flow-control mechanism) taught by Chen into the ball discharging hole of Xiang et al. (combination of Xiang et al. and Kaspar et al.) in order to control Xiang et al.’s ball discharging hole, with the same convenient personnel operation and manually operable flow-control benefit (Chen, page 2, line 36–37).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the combination of Xiang et al., Kaspar et al., and Chen discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 8. Kaspar et al. further teaches in Figures 9 and 10 wherein the bottom of the mill-ball sorting cavity (19a, 819a) is inclined to a direction of the discharging port (20, 820) as depicted in Figures 9 and 10.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position and incline the bottom of the mill-ball sorting cavity accordingly, as the natural physical consequence of Kaspar et al.’s own disclosed mechanism (Col. 5, lines 49–51; Col. 5, lines 57–63).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. in view of Chen, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Xiang et al. discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Xiang et al. discloses the first separation cavity but fails to further disclose that the first separation cavity is internally provided with an ultrasonic vibration module.
On the other hand, Chen further teaches in Figure 1 wherein the separation cavity (grinding cavity 5) is internally provided with an ultrasonic vibration module (ultrasonic vibration rod 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s ultrasonic vibrating rod into the first separation cavity of Xiang et al.’s apparatus, so that the ultrasonic energy can crush the slurry, and at the same time clean the separating filter screen, improve the quality of the grinding slurry, and provide the function of cleaning the net with a simple structure and high practicability (Chen, Abstract; page 2, lines 29–32).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the combination of Xiang et al. and Chen discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 10. Chen further teaches in Figure 1 wherein the ultrasonic vibration module comprises a vibrating rod (2) and an ultrasonic generator (“ultrasonic vibrating rod” necessarily requires a driving ultrasonic generator to produce vibration or energy it is disclosed to deliver; Chen, page 4, line 18) generating vibration towards the vibrating rod (2) as depicted in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Chen’s disclosed ultrasonic vibrating rod is driven by a corresponding ultrasonic generator, this being a structural requirement of the disclosed ultrasonic-energy function (Chen, page 4, line 18).
lines 57–63).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. in view of Chen'561, and further in view of Chen'527 (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 114247527 A), hereinafter Chen'527.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the priority date issues identified above, the combination of Xiang et al. and Chen’561 discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 11. Chen’561 of the combination above further teaches in Figure 1 wherein the separation apparatus further comprises a water-cooling mechanism (cooling coil pipe 3) for cooling the ultrasonic vibration module (2) (Chen’561, page 2, lines 9–10).
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the water-cooling mechanism comprises a plurality of coolant tubes to form a tubular cooling tube body; and both ends of the cooling tube body are connected to a first fixed plate and a second fixed plate, respectively; and the cooling tube body is fixed between the first fixed plate and the second fixed plate via a fixed rod; the second fixed plate is fixed with a flange; a water groove in communication with the coolant tubes is disposed on the first fixed plate and the second fixed plate, respectively; a cooling separation gap is disposed between two adjacent coolant tubes; and the flange is provided with a water inlet and a water outlet that are in communication with the water groove.
On the other hand, Chen’527 teaches a separating device in Figures 1, 2 and 3, wherein the water-cooling mechanism (4) comprises a plurality of coolant tubes (liquid cooling pipe 301) to form a tubular cooling tube body (cylindrical cooling pipe body 30); and both ends of the cooling tube body (cylindrical cooling pipe body 30) are connected to a first fixed plate (first fixing plate 31) and a second fixed plate (second fixing plate 33), respectively; the cooling tube body (cylindrical cooling pipe body 30) is fixed between the first fixed plate (first fixing plate 31) and the second fixed plate (second fixing plate 33) via a fixed rod (fixing rod 32); the second fixed plate (second fixing plate 33) is fixed with a flange (2); a water groove (water tank 310) in communication with the coolant tubes (cylindrical cooling pipe body 30) is disposed on the first fixed plate (first fixing plate 31) and the second fixed plate (second fixing plate 33), respectively; a cooling separation gap (302) is disposed between two adjacent coolant tubes (cooling pipe 301); and the flange (2) is provided with a water inlet (22) and a water outlet (21) that are in communication with the water groove (water tank 310) as depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 3 (Chen’527, page 6, lines 16–25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the water-cooling mechanism of the combination of Xiang et al. and Chen’561 as a parallel-tube manifold cage clamped between tie-rod plates with manifold grooves and flange ports as taught by Chen’527 and to incorporate it around the ultrasonic module within the separator cavity of the combination of Xiang et al. and Chen’561. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to improve the cooling effect and radiating efficiency (Chen’527, Abstract; page 2, lines 1–8; page 4, lines 6–20).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the priority date issues identified above, the combination of Xiang et al., Chen’561, and Chen’527, discloses the agitating wet ball milling apparatus as claimed in claim 12. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the cooling separation gap is greater than the separation gap on the second separator.
On the other hand, Chen’527 teaches in Figures 1, 2, and 3 the separating apparatus wherein the cooling separation gap (cooling separating gap 302) is greater than the separation gap on the second separator (Chen’527, page 3, line 27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension the temperature-reducing separation gap between the coolant tubes to be greater than the second separation gap of the second separator as taught by Chen’527 so as to form a long cooling separation gap in the material moving direction, prolonging contact time with the material and improving radiating cooling efficiency (Chen’527, page 6, lines 11–13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 114798092 A) teaches an ultrasonic device comprising an ultrasonic transducer located below the ultrasonic supporting end cover, and an ultrasonic generator located above the ultrasonic supporting end cover.
Zhan (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111617853 A) teaches a wet grinding system, comprising a grinding cylinder provided with a feeding port and a discharging port; the material outlet in the grinding cylinder is provided with a separating device that rotates during separation; and the separating device comprises a separator provided with a central through hole along the axial direction.
Zhu
Chen (Chinese Patent No. CN 214599448 U) teaches a sand mill with ultra-large filter screen, comprising a main body comprising an outer cylinder and an inner cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is provided with a cavity fixedly installed with a turbine having a filter screen occupying 90 % of the inner space.
Chen (Chinese Patent No. CN 214487191 U) teaches a screen discharging device of sand mill, comprising a screen cylinder provided with a plurality of feeding holes; the inner wall of the screen cylinder is provided with a screen; and the center of the screen cylinder along the axial direction is provided with a carbon pipe vibrating rod wound with a cooling coil pipe and a discharging cylinder.
Zhang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111389525 A) teaches a sand mill having a cylindrical discharge port screen stencil set on the discharge pipe such that flow resistance is minimized, which greatly improves the filtering efficiency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIERRE FAUBERT MONDESTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, 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.
/P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
