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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 33 claims a drive for a material processing plant comprising an internal combustion engine, a mechanical drive train, and a shiftable transmission, to be included within a mineral processing device. The inclusion of the drive for a material processing plant to a mineral processing device does not further limit the scope of the drive for a material processing plant. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-17, 19, and 24-31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winiarski DE 102015118398 A1 in view of Meyerle DE 19741510 A1. DE 102015118398 A1 is published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Winiarski patent; and DE 19741510 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Meyerle patent.
Regarding claim 15, Winiarski discloses a drive for a material processing plant, comprising an internal combustion engine (Winiarski – 1; FIG. 5); a mechanical drive train including a drive end and an output end (Winiarski – 4; FIG. 5), the output end including at least one output (Winiarski Para [0047]: a gearbox 4 with a first output), the at least one output being configured to drive at least one crusher unit (Winiarski – 9; FIG. 5)(Winiarski Para [0031]: The gearbox output shaft, in turn, can drive the actual working machine, such as a crusher.) of the material processing plant. Winiarski fails to disclose a shiftable transmission coupling the internal combustion engine to the drive train, the shiftable transmission including a variable transmission ratio.
Meyerle teaches a continuously variable transmission, wherein the continuously variable transmission is shiftable (Meyerle Para [0006]: a continuously variable transmission with multiple shift ranges). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of the drive for a material processing plant disclosed by Winiarski, to be a shiftable transmission that includes a variable transmission ratio, as taught by Meyerle, given it is known in the art that a shiftable transmission allows one to select and hold a right gear for a situation, wherein one can reduce engine strain, and then choose when to shift as the situation requires.
Regarding claim 16, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the at least one output is configured to drive an electrical energy generator (Winiarski – 19; FIG. 5) for use in the material processing plant (Winiarski Para [0051]: The gearbox can have additional outputs that, for example, drive generator 19.).
Regarding claim 17, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the at least one output is configured to drive at least one hydraulic system including a hydraulic pump (Winiarski – 5; FIG. 5)(Winiarski Para [0050]: The first output of the gearbox 4 serves to drive at least one hydraulic pump 5).
Regarding claim 19, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the shiftable transmission is a continuously variable transmission (Meyerle Para [0001]: The invention relates to a continuously variable transmission). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission disclosed in Winiarski, to be a continuously variable transmission, as taught by Meyerle, given that it is known within the art that a continuously variable transmission allows an engine to stay in its most efficient operating range, thus improving fuel economy.
Regarding claim 24, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the mechanical drive train (Winiarski – 4) includes a main shaft (Winiarski Para [0020]: The transmission device can be designed, for example,…as a simple shaft connection) and the crusher unit (Winiarski – 9) is coupled to the main shaft.
Regarding claim 25, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, comprising a crusher clutch (Winiarski – 4a; FIG. 5) connected to the main shaft by a drive shaft (Winiarski – 10; FIG. 5), wherein the crusher clutch (Winiarski 4a) includes an output connected indirectly to the crusher unit (See Winiarski FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 26, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the at least one output is configured to drive an electrical energy generator (Winiarski – 19)(Winiarski Para [0051]) for use in the material processing plant; the mechanical drive train includes a main shaft (Winiarski Para [0020]: The transmission device can be designed, for example,…as a simple shaft connection); and the electrical energy generator (Winiarski – 19) is coupled to the main shaft (See Winiarski FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 27, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the at least one output is configured to drive at least one hydraulic system including a hydraulic pump (Winiarski – 5)(Winiarski Para [0050]: The first output of the gearbox 4 serves to drive at least one hydraulic pump 5); the mechanical drive train includes a main shaft (Winiarski Para [0020]: The transmission device can be designed, for example,…as a simple shaft connection); and the hydraulic pump (Winiarski – 5) is coupled to the main shaft (See Winiarski FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 28, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the at least one output is configured to drive at least one functional unit at a fixed non-variable transmission ratio, the at least one functional unit being selected from the group consisting of a hydraulic pump (Winiarski – 5)(Winiarski Para [0050]: The first output of the gearbox 4 serves to drive at least one hydraulic pump 5), and an electrical energy generator (Winiarski – 19)(Winiarski Para [0051]: The gearbox can have additional outputs that, for example, drive generator 19.).
Regarding claim 29, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the mechanical drive train (Winiarski – 4) is connected to the crusher unit (Winiarski – 9) by an endless circulating belt drive (Winiarski – 7b; FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 30, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the mechanical drive train (Winiarski – 4) includes a further drive end by which an electric motor (Winiarski – 13; FIG. 5) drives the mechanical drive train (Winiarski – 4)(Winiarski Para [0056]: The auxiliary drive 13, which can be designed as a[n]…electric motor, for example, is connected to the gearbox output shaft 11 of the gearbox).
Regarding claim 31, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the at least one output includes an output which simultaneously drives a plurality of hydraulic pumps (Winiarski – 5a to 5i; FIG. 1)(Winiarski Para [0050]: The first output of the gearbox 4 serves to drive at least one hydraulic pump 5 and, if necessary, the further hydraulic pumps 5a to 5i.) of a hydraulic system of the material processing plant.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winiarski in view of Meyerle as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Haramoto et al. US 2005/0161090 A1. US 2005/0161090 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Haramoto patent.
Regarding claim 18, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant comprising a shiftable transmission (See claim 15 rejection above), however, Winiarski in view of Meyerle fails to disclose a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the shiftable transmission includes at least two fixed ratio predetermined gear stages.
Haramoto teaches a transmission having at least two fixed ratio predetermined gear stages (Haramoto Para [0078]: If there are at least three speed levels at the transmission, the gears may be shifted from a high gear to a medium gear and from the medium gear to a low gear.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shiftable transmission disclosed in Winiarski in view of Meyerle, to include at least two fixed ratio predetermined gear stages, as taught by Haramoto, given that it is known within the art that gears adjust the force and speed relationship between an engine and its wheels.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winiarski in view of Meyerle as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lindner US 2020/0316611 A1. US 2020/0316611 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Lindner patent.
Regarding claim 20, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses a drive for a material processing plant comprising a shiftable transmission (See claim 15 rejection above), however, Winiarski in view of Meyerle fails to disclose a drive for a material processing plant, wherein the shiftable transmission includes a transmission ratio of drive speed/output speed variable in a range from 0.5:1 to 1.5:1.
Lindner teaches a continuously variable transmission in which the transmission ratio can be continuously adjusted (See Lindner Para [0141]: the continuously variable transmission 40 is additionally provided, in which the transmission ratio and thus the speed at the input of the main transmission 80, and thus at the shafts 90/91, can be continuously adjusted.). Though Lindner does not teach transmission ratio, Lindner teaches adjusting the drive speed to obtain a desire transmission ratio. Thus a person skilled in the art would be able to adjust the transmission ratio to obtain a desired result. Applicant has not claimed a criticality to the shiftable transmission including a transmission ratio of drive speed/output speed variable in a range from 0.5:1 to 1.5:1 and has provided that such a requirement, placed particularly on a mineral processing device, may be advantageous for different application. A failure to submit evidence of criticality of a claimed range was “unexpectedly good” has been held to be unpatentable (In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shiftable transmission disclosed by Winiarski in view of Meyerle, to include an adjustable transmission ratio, as taught by Lindner, so to provide for the adaption of the ratio of speeds of the internal combustion engine and the crusher, wherein the speed specified by the internal combustion engine and the crusher coupled to the internal engine can be matched to each other (See Lindner Para [0073] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 21, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses the drive for a material processing plant, wherein the shiftable transmission includes a transmission input (Winiarski – 10; FIG. 5) and a transmission output (Winiarski – 11; FIG. 5). Winiarski in view of Meyerle fails to disclose the shiftable transmission includes a transmission input and a transmission output, and the shiftable transmission is configured such that the transmission ratio of the shiftable transmission is selected such that an output speed at the transmission output of the shiftable transmission remains within a deviation of plus or minus 10% when a drive speed at the transmission input changes.
Lindner teaches a transmission ratio which can be continuously adjusted (See Lindner Para [0141]), wherein the shiftable transmission is configured such that the transmission ratio of the shiftable transmission is selected such that an output speed at the transmission output of the shiftable transmission remains within a deviation of plus or minus 10% when a drive speed at the transmission input changes. As such, Lindner teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust a drive speed to obtain a transmission ratio such that an output speed at the transmission output of the shiftable transmission remains within a deviation of plus or minus 10% when a drive speed at the transmission input changes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shiftable transmission disclosed by Winiarski in view of Meyerle, to include an adjustable transmission ratio, as taught by Lindner, so to provide for the adaption of the ratio of speeds of the internal combustion engine and the crusher, wherein the speed specified by the internal combustion engine and the crusher coupled to the internal engine can be matched to each other (See Lindner Para [0073] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 22, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses the drive for a material processing plant, wherein the shiftable transmission includes a transmission input (Winiarski – 10; FIG. 5) and a transmission output (Winiarski – 11; FIG. 5). Winiarski in view of Meyerle fails to disclose the shiftable transmission includes a transmission input and a transmission output, and the shiftable transmission is configured such that the transmission ratio of the shiftable transmission is selected such that an output speed at the transmission output of the shiftable transmission remains within a deviation of plus or minus 5% when a drive speed at the transmission input changes.
Lindner teaches a transmission ratio which can be continuously adjusted (See Lindner Para [0141]), wherein the shiftable transmission is configured such that the transmission ratio of the shiftable transmission is selected such that an output speed at the transmission output of the shiftable transmission remains within a deviation of plus or minus 10% when a drive speed at the transmission input changes. As such, Lindner teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust a drive speed to obtain a transmission ratio such that an output speed at the transmission output of the shiftable transmission remains within a deviation of plus or minus 5% when a drive speed at the transmission input changes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shiftable transmission disclosed by Winiarski in view of Meyerle, to include an adjustable transmission ratio, as taught by Lindner, so to provide for the adaption of the ratio of speeds of the internal combustion engine and the crusher, wherein the speed specified by the internal combustion engine and the crusher coupled to the internal engine can be matched to each other (See Lindner Para [0073] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 23, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses the drive for a material processing plant comprised of an internal combustion engine (Winiarski – 1), however, Winiarski in view of Meyerle fails to disclose the internal engine is coupled to the shiftable transmission by a clutch.
Lindner teaches an internal combustion engine (Linear – 10; FIG. 3) coupled to a transmission by a clutch (Lindner – 30; FIG. 3)(Lindner Para [0069]: the mechanical connection between the internal combustion engine and the transmission of the shredding shaft has been established by the clutch 30.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive for a material process plant disclosed by Winiarski in view of Meyerle, such that the internal combustion engine is coupled to the transmission by a clutch, as taught by Lindner, to provide for the output of the internal combustion engine to be directly transferred to the shiftable transmission, and thus achieve the technically highest possible degree of efficiency in an operation state (See Lindner Para [0069]: It is particularly advantageous that almost the entire output of the internal combustion engine is available for the actual shredding after the mechanical connection between the internal combustion engine and the transmission of the shredding shaft has been established by the clutch 30. This achieves the technically highest possible degree of efficiency in the operating state.).
Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winiarski in view of Meyerle as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bleher et al. DE 102017124961 B3. DE 1020171424961 B3 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Bleher patent.
Regarding claim 32, Winiarski in view of Meyerle discloses the drive for a material processing plant comprised of a crusher unit (Winiarski – 9)(See claim 15 rejection above), however, Winiarski in view of Meyerle fails to disclose wherein the crusher unit is a jaw crusher, an impact crusher, a cone crusher or a roll crusher.
Bleher teaches a crusher unit being a jaw crusher, an impact crusher, or a cone crusher (Bleher Para [0003], 3rd Paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crusher unit disclosed by Winiarski in view of Meyerle, to be a jaw crusher, an impact crusher, or a cone crusher, as taught by Bleher, given the unique operation that a crusher unit in the form of a jaw crusher, an impact crusher, or a cone crusher provides (See Bleher Para [0003], 3rd Paragraph) and their ability to exert high forces to crush a material (Bleher Para [0004]: What these crushers have in common is that they must exert high forces to crush the materials.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights