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 prior-filed application 18/776,605 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 3, 7-13 and 15-20 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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.
The term “about” in claims 9 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the darkened non-aluminum" and "the purified aluminum material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 15-16 recite the limitation "the system of claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, since claim 1 previously recited a method. It appears claims 15-16 should be dependent upon claim 14 which recites a system.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the purified aluminum material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8, 10-11, 13 and 18-20 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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 1-4, 7-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickens (US 9539581) in view of Schultz et al. (US 6100487).
Regarding claim 1, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches a method for recovering purified aluminum from a waste material (Col. 1 lines 5-6), comprising the steps of:
a. providing a waste material comprising aluminum and heavy metals (Col. 14 lines 12-25);
b. rough processing the waste material to remove heavy metals (Col. 8 lines 22-34 );
c. floating the waste material to remove additional impurities (Col. 14 lines 25-32 );
d. sizing the waste material into predetermined size ranges (Fig. 2 #47; Col. 10 lines 18-36)
e. comminuting the waste material using a ball mill (Fig. 2 #50; Col. 10 lines 42-49);
f. wet screening the comminuted waste material to classify oversize particles (Fig. 2 #81b, Col. 5 lines 42-50, Col. 13 lines 12-21 );
i. purifying the purified aluminum material using an eddy current separator (Fig. 5 #190, Col. 16 lines 12-20 ).
While Pickens does not explicitly state the purified aluminum material has an aluminum purity of at least 98%, it does state that materials may be recovered at a “high level” (Col. 2 lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 98% may be considered a “high level” of aluminum recovery.
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching g. washing the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material; and h. sorting the waste material to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a method for recovering aluminum from a waste material (Col. 1 lines 8-14) comprising g. washing the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material (Col. 3 lines 23-31); and h. sorting the waste material to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material (Col. 4 lines 55-63).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) additionally explains that there are many “off the shelf” color sensitive separation devices that could be used to enhance the economics of the system (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include g. washing the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material; and h. sorting the waste material to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide a means for distinguishing between elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 2, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rough processing step (b) includes the use of an eddy current separator to remove ferrous metals from the waste material (Col. 8 lines 22-34).
Regarding claim 3, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the acid used in the washing step (g) is sulfuric acid with a concentration of approximately 40%.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a method for recovering aluminum from a waste material (Col. 1 lines 8-14) wherein the acid used in the washing step (g) is sulfuric acid with a concentration of approximately 40% (Col. 4 lines 15-20).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) states that sulfuric acid with the composition range from 0.001N to saturation is a commonly used etchant to vary the surface characteristic and appearance of the alloy (Col. 4 lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the acid used in the washing step (g) is sulfuric acid with a concentration of approximately 40% as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide a means for distinguishing between elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 4, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the sorting step (h) includes the use of at least one optical sorter to distinguish between darkened non-aluminum materials and gray aluminum based on color differences.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a method for recovering aluminum from a waste material (Col. 1 lines 8-14) wherein the sorting step (h) includes the use of at least one optical sorter to distinguish between darkened non-aluminum materials and gray aluminum based on color differences (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) additionally explains that there are many “off the shelf” color sensitive separation devices that could be used to enhance the economics of the system (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the sorting step (h) includes the use of at least one optical sorter to distinguish between darkened non-aluminum materials and gray aluminum based on color differences as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide an economical means for distinguishing between different colored elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 7, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches a method for separating waste material (Col. 1 lines 5-6), comprising the steps of:
a. providing the waste material in a slurry (Col. 14 lines 20-25) having aluminum and heavy metals (Col. 14 lines 12-25),
b. rough processing the waste material to remove the heavy metals (Col. 17 line 66-Col. 18 line 8),
c. comminuting the material (Fig. 2 #50; Col. 10 lines 42-49), wherein the materials are removed after the heavy metals are removed through rough processing (Col. 18 lines 1-11),
d. floating the waste material to remove additional impurities (Col. 14 lines 25-32 );
e. wet screening the material (Fig. 2 #81b, Col. 5 lines 42-50, Col. 13 lines 12-21 ).
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching wherein the rough processing includes density separation.
Pickens (US 9539581) provides density separation during the secondary processing in order to separate “light nonferrous” from “heavy nonferrous” metals, wherein the secondary processing can separate the nonferrous metals based on differences in size, shape, or specific gravity (Col. 14 lines 12-28). Pickens states that the method is not limited to a certain number of steps nor order of steps, and the selection of the screening mechanisms and separation mechanisms are “within the discretion of the skilled artisan to meet the needs of the particular source material, desired end-product and budgetary restrictions, just to name a few” (Col. 23 lines 43-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the rough processing includes density separation in order to adjust the order of the system as required for a specific application, and separate the waste material based on differences in specific gravity in order to remove heavy objects.
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching f. washing the material with an acid to produce darkened material, and g. sorting the waste material to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a method for separating waste material (Col. 1 lines 8-14) comprising f. washing the material with an acid to produce darkened material (Col. 3 lines 23-31); and g. sorting the waste material to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material (Col. 4 lines 55-63).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) additionally explains that there are many “off the shelf” color sensitive separation devices that could be used to enhance the economics of the system (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include f. washing the material with an acid to produce darkened material, and g. sorting the waste material to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide a means for distinguishing between elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 8, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the method of claim 7, comprising separating the purified aluminum product using an eddy current (Fig. 5 #190, Col. 16 lines 12-20 ).
Regarding claim 9, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the rough processing includes density separation at or about 3.5 SG (Col. 14 lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 10, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the comminution includes a ball mill (Col. 10 lines 42-49).
Regarding claim 11, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the waste material is incinerator bottom ash zorba (Col. 13 lines 44-65).
Regarding claim 12, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks explicitly teaching the method of claim 7, wherein the purified aluminum is recovered at efficiencies of greater than about 95%. While Pickens does not explicitly state the purified aluminum is recovered at efficiencies of greater than about 95%, it does state that materials may be recovered at a “high level” (Col. 2 lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 95% may be considered a “high level” of aluminum recovery.
Regarding claim 13, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks explicitly teaching the method of claim 7, wherein the purified aluminum product contains greater than 97 percent by weight of aluminum. While Pickens does not explicitly state the purified aluminum product contains greater than 97 percent by weight of aluminum, it does state that materials may be recovered at a “high level” (Col. 2 lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that greater than 97 percent by weight of aluminum may be considered a “high level” of aluminum recovery.
Regarding claim 14, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches a system for recovering purified aluminum from a waste material (Col. 1 lines 5-6) comprising:
a. a source of waste material containing aluminum and heavy metals (Col. 14 lines 12-25);
b. a rough processing device configured to remove heavy metals from the waste material (Col. 8 lines 22-34 );
c. a flotation device configured to remove additional impurities from the waste material (Col. 14 lines 25-32 );
d. a sizing device configured to classify the waste material into predetermined size ranges (Fig. 2 #47; Col. 10 lines 18-36);
e. a comminution device comprising a ball mill configured to pulverize and flatten the waste material (Fig. 2 #50; Col. 10 lines 42-49);
f. a wet screening unit configured to classify oversize particles from the comminuted waste material (Fig. 2 #81b, Col. 5 lines 42-50, Col. 13 lines 12-21 ); and
i. an eddy current separator configured to further purify the purified aluminum material (Fig. 5 #190, Col. 16 lines 12-20 ).
While Pickens does not explicitly state wherein the system produces a purified aluminum material with an aluminum purity of at least 98%, it does state that materials may be recovered at a “high level” (Col. 2 lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 98% may be considered a “high level” of aluminum recovery.
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching g. an acid washing unit configured to wash the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material; and h. a sorting unit configured to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a system for recovering aluminum from a waste material (Col. 1 lines 8-14) comprising g. an acid washing unit configured to wash the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material (Col. 3 lines 23-31); and h. a sorting unit configured to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material (Col. 4 lines 55-63).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) additionally explains that there are many “off the shelf” color sensitive separation devices that could be used to enhance the economics of the system (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include g. an acid washing unit configured to wash the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material; and h. a sorting unit configured to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide a means for distinguishing between elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 15, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the sorting unit includes at least one optical sorter configured to distinguish between darkened non-aluminum materials and gray aluminum based on color differences.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a system for recovering aluminum from a waste material (Col. 1 lines 8-14) wherein the sorting unit includes at least one optical sorter configured to distinguish between darkened non-aluminum materials and gray aluminum based on color differences (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) additionally explains that there are many “off the shelf” color sensitive separation devices that could be used to enhance the economics of the system (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the sorting unit includes at least one optical sorter configured to distinguish between darkened non-aluminum materials and gray aluminum based on color differences as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide an economical means for distinguishing between different colored elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 17, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches a system for preparing an aluminum product (Col. 1 lines 5-6), comprising:
a. a source of waste material in a slurry (Col. 14 lines 20-25) having aluminum and heavy metals (Col. 14 lines 12-25);
b. a rough processing device capable of removing the heavy metals from the waste material (Col. 8 lines 22-34 , Col. 17 line 66-Col. 18 line 8 );
c. a flotation device configured to remove additional impurities from the waste material (Col. 14 lines 25-32 )
d. a comminution device that is a ball mill and that pulverizes the material (Fig. 2 #50; Col. 10 lines 42-49);
e. a screen (Fig. 2 #81b, Col. 13 lines 12-21 ); and
h. a collector for the aluminum product (Col. 16 lines 12-20 ).
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching a rough processing device that includes density separation. Pickens (US 9539581) provides density separation during the secondary processing in order to separate “light nonferrous” from “heavy nonferrous” metals, wherein the secondary processing can separate the nonferrous metals based on differences in size, shape, or specific gravity (Col. 14 lines 12-28). Pickens states that the method is not limited to a certain number of steps nor order of steps, and the selection of the screening mechanisms and separation mechanisms are “within the discretion of the skilled artisan to meet the needs of the particular source material, desired end-product and budgetary restrictions, just to name a few” (Col. 23 lines 43-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the rough processing includes density separation in order to adjust the order of the system as required for a specific application, and separate the waste material based on differences in specific gravity in order to remove heavy objects.
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching f. an acid washing unit configured to wash the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material; and g. a sorting unit configured to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a system for preparing an aluminum product (Col. 1 lines 8-14) comprising f. an acid washing unit configured to wash the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material (Col. 3 lines 23-31); and g. a sorting unit configured to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material (Col. 4 lines 55-63).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) additionally explains that there are many “off the shelf” color sensitive separation devices that could be used to enhance the economics of the system (Col. 4 lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include f. an acid washing unit configured to wash the waste material with an acid to produce darkened non-aluminum material; and g. a sorting unit configured to separate the darkened non-aluminum material from the purified aluminum material as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide a means for distinguishing between elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 18, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching the system of claim 17, wherein the acid is sulfuric acid.
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) teaches a system for preparing an aluminum product (Col. 1 lines 8-14) wherein the acid is sulfuric acid (Col. 4 lines 15-20).
Schultz et al. (US 6100487) explains that mixed aluminum alloy products cannot be separated using traditional processes like sink-float or eddy current (Col. 2 lines 61-62), and the use of an etchant treatment of the surfaces of the mixed aluminum alloys changed the color of the surface to make them distinguishable on the basis of their alloy family or major constituent members such as copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, chromium, zinc, manganese, or other alloying elements (Col. 3 lines 23-31). Schultz et al. (US 6100487) states that sulfuric acid with the composition range from 0.001N to saturation is a commonly used etchant to vary the surface characteristic and appearance of the alloy (Col. 4 lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the acid is sulfuric acid as taught by Schultz et al. (US 6100487) in order to provide a means for distinguishing between elements within the waste material.
Regarding claim 19, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the rough processing device comprises an eddy current separator configured to remove ferrous metals from the waste material (Col. 8 lines 22-34 ).
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickens (US 9539581) in view of Schultz et al. (US 6100487) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 5, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined size ranges in the sizing step (d) include particles having dimensions of less than 2.0 mm, between 2.0 mm and 6.0 mm, between 6.0 mm and 18.0 mm, and greater than 18.0 mm.
Pickens (US 9539581) states that the machine can have multiple sizing decks to remove oversized objects which might damage down-stream equipment, and remove undersize (fine) materials which may by-pass the comminution step to reduce crusher load and crusher component wear (Col. 18 lines 1-28).
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 Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the predetermined size ranges in the sizing step (d) include particles having dimensions of less than 2.0 mm, between 2.0 mm and 6.0 mm, between 6.0 mm and 18.0 mm, and greater than 18.0 mm in order to prevent undesirably large or small elements above or below a specific size from traveling to the comminuting step, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Regarding claim 6, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the comminuting step (e) involves using a ball mill (Col. 10 lines 42-49) to pulverize non-metallic attachments and flatten metallic particles (Col. 11 lines 1-11).
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching a ball mill with balls having a radius between 4 mm and 5 mm.
Pickens (US 9539581) however states that the selection of the equipment in the comminuting step will depend on a number of characteristics such as composition of source material, feed size, end product desired, tonnage requirements, local conditions, and capital and operating costs, and wherein these determinations can be made by those skilled in the art to optimize the production of fines and substantially liberate the more malleable metal particles from the brittle ash (Col. 11 lines 1-11). It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the changes in size/proportion involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gardner, 220 USPQ 777 (See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)).
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 Pickens (US 9539581) to include a ball mill with balls having a radius between 4 mm and 5 mm in order to optimize the production of fines and substantially liberate the more malleable metal particles from brittle ash.
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Regarding claim 16, Pickens (US 9539581) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the comminution device comprises a ball mill (Col. 10 lines 42-49), configured to pulverize non-metallic attachments and flatten metallic particles (Col. 11 lines 1-11).
Pickens (US 9539581) lacks teaching a ball mill with balls having a radius between 4 mm and 5 mm.
Pickens (US 9539581) however states that the selection of the equipment in the comminuting step will depend on a number of characteristics such as composition of source material, feed size, end product desired, tonnage requirements, local conditions, and capital and operating costs, and wherein these determinations can be made by those skilled in the art to optimize the production of fines and substantially liberate the more malleable metal particles from the brittle ash (Col. 11 lines 1-11).
It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the changes in size/proportion involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gardner, 220 USPQ 777 (See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)). Therefore, 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 Pickens (US 9539581) to include a ball mill with balls having a radius between 4 mm and 5 mm in order to optimize the production of fines and substantially liberate the more malleable metal particles from brittle ash.
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickens (US 9539581) in view of Schultz et al. (US 6100487) and further in view of Valerio (US 2015/0136663).
Regarding claim 20, Pickens (US 9539581) lacks explicitly teaching the system of claim 17, wherein the waste material is automobile shredder residue.
Pickens states that the waste material may refer generally to solid product that results from combustion of solid municipal waste or other source material that contain ferrous and nonferrous metals (Col. 4 lines 52-55), wherein the recovered nonferrous metal may commercially be known as Zorba (Col. 13 lines 44-53).
Valerio (US 2015/0136663) teaches a system for preparing an aluminum product (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3) wherein the waste material is automobile shredder reside (Paragraph 0004 lines 6-18). Valerio (US 2015/0136663) explains that Zorba is defined as shredded nonferrous scrap that is predominantly aluminum (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-5), and that Zorba is a result of typically processing automobile shredder reside through known processes (Paragraph 0006 lines 10-16). Additionally, Valerio (US 2015/0136663) states that recovery of aluminum from Zorba increases the commercial value of the aluminum (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-5).
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 Pickens (US 9539581) to include wherein the waste material is automobile shredder residue as taught by Valerio (US 2015/0136663) in order to recover valuable aluminum from Zorba, as Zorba is a common result of processing automobile shredder residue.
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