DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 111822151).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), comprising the following successive steps for each batch:
- feeding in one of the batches into a fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2) defined by a reactor (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5, see Fig. 1 “cold mold fluidized bed”) and obtaining a fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2),
- the granules of the fed in batch being initially at rest in the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2, “static bed”), starting a fluidization and obtaining at least one fluidized bed (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-4) in the fluidization chamber, the fluidization being obtained by at least one ascending stream of fluid (Paragraph 0021 lines 7-11, see arrow in Fig. 1) passing through the fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-5) and putting at least a fraction of the granules of the fed in batch in suspension (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5), the fluidized bed being charged via the triboelectric effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-9),
- modification of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 6-10) and feeding out at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2) from the fluidizing chamber and obtaining a fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2), and
- passage of the fed out batch through one or a plurality of electric fields suitable for separating the fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-7) into at least a first mixture rich in granules of the first material and a second mixture rich in granules of the second material (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the modification of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 6-10) comprises reducing the flow-rate of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2, “after one hour of fluidization”) making the granules from the fluidized bed fall onto a receiving surface of the reactor (Fig. 1 see lower surface of “cold mold fluidized bed” receiving granules).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein after the reduction of the flow-rate of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2, “after one hour of fluidization”, Paragraph 0039 lines 2-4, fluidization takes place at “2.5 times the initial fluidizing gas speed for one hour”), the stream of fluid has a non-zero residual flow-rate in the fluidization chamber after the feeding out of the fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-4, air at “initial fluidizing gas speed” when fluidization is not taking place).
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to any of claim 1, wherein, the fluidization being obtained under given conditions, the granules of the fed in batch are maintained in the form of said fluidized bed for a predetermined period (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4), the granules of the first material taking an electrical charge greater than 90% of a maximum electrical charge that can be obtained under the given conditions (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4, “full bipolar charging”).
Regarding claim 10, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches an installation for the separation, by batches, of a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), the installation comprising:
- a reactor (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5, see Fig. 1 “cold mold fluidized bed”) defining a fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2) intended to receive one of the batches in order to obtain a fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2), the reactor being suitable for creating a fluidized bed in the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4), the granules of the fed in batch being initially at rest in the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2), the reactor being suitable for producing at least one ascending stream of fluid (Paragraph 0021 lines 7-11, see arrow in Fig. 1) passing through the fed in batch and putting at least a fraction of the granules of the fed in batch in suspension so as to obtain the fluidized bed (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-5), the fluidized bed being charged via the triboelectric effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-9), the reactor being suitable for modifying the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 6-10) and for feeding out at least 90% by mass from the fed in batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2) outside the fluidization chamber so as to obtain a fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2), and
- a separation unit (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-2, see Fig. 2 “electrostatic field separation device”) suitable for creating at least one or a plurality of electric field(s) (Paragraph 0037 lines 4-8), the installation being suitable for passing the fed out batch into the electric field(s) (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2) and for separating the fed out batch between at least a first mixture rich in granules of the first material and a second mixture rich in granules of the second material (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Huettlin (DE 19528584). English translations of Huettlin (DE 19528584) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to claim 2, wherein the reactor is rotatably mounted relative to a frame between at least a first position occupied during the fluidization and a second position occupied during the feeding out and in which the receiving surface is more inclined relative to the frame than in the first position, the feeding out comprising a displacement of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch, by gravity, along the receiving surface toward the outside of the fluidization.
Huettlin (DE 19528584) teaches method for processing, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Page 1 lines 1-3), wherein the reactor (Fig. 3 #12) is rotatably mounted relative to a frame (Figs. 3-4 #12 rotatably mounted about #48 relative to frame #15) between at least a first position occupied during the fluidization (Fig. 3 see position of #12 during fluidization) and a second position occupied during the feeding out (Fig. 4 see position of #12 during feeding out) and in which the receiving surface (Fig. 3 #55) is more inclined relative to the frame than in the first position (Fig. 4 #55 is more inclined relative to #15 than in Fig. 3), the feeding out comprising a displacement of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch, by gravity (Fig. 4 see #58 feeding out by gravity through #50), along the receiving surface toward the outside of the fluidization (Fig. 4 see #58 feeding out along surface #55 toward outside of fluidization).
Huettlin (DE 19528584) explains that the container is connected to the base part via a hinge, so that the container can be tilted for emptying (Page 4 lines 40-41). Huettlin (DE 19528584) states that ideal flow and thus treatment conditions can be created in this fluidized bed apparatus regardless of the size thereof (Page 3 lines 1-7).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the reactor is rotatably mounted relative to a frame between at least a first position occupied during the fluidization and a second position occupied during the feeding out and in which the receiving surface is more inclined relative to the frame than in the first position, the feeding out comprising a displacement of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch, by gravity, along the receiving surface toward the outside of the fluidization as taught by Huettlin (DE 19528584) in order to empty out the material within the reactor after the fluidization has ended.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of She et al. (US 9889450).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to claim 1, wherein the modification of the stream of fluid comprises an increase in the flow-rate of the stream of fluid, the feeding out comprising an ejection of at least 90% by mass of the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber caused by the increase in the flow-rate.
She et al. (US 9889450) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 6-9), wherein the modification of the stream of fluid comprises an increase in the flow-rate of the stream of fluid (Col. 7 lines 42-48), the feeding out comprising an ejection of at least 90% by mass of the fluidized bed (Col. 7 lines 29-55) out of the fluidization chamber (Fig. 3 #212) caused by the increase in the flow-rate (Col. 7 lines 42-48).
She et al. (US 9889450) explains that the flow rate may be adjusted to selectively eject a specific size, shape, and/or density of the particles of powder through the outlet (Col. 7 lines 42-48).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the modification of the stream of fluid comprises an increase in the flow-rate of the stream of fluid, the feeding out comprising an ejection of at least 90% by mass of the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber caused by the increase in the flow-rate as taught by She et al. (US 9889450) in order to selectively eject particles of a specific size, shape, and/or density from the fluidization chamber.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Whittle (US 4208134).
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to any of claim 1, wherein the reactor comprises a shell (see Fig. 1 shell of “cold mold fluidized bed”) defining:
- an inlet (see Fig. 1 opening at top of “cold mold fluidized bed”) for the feeding in, the inlet (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2), and
- an outlet (see Fig. 1 opening at top of “cold mold fluidized bed”) for the feeding out of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2).
Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the inlet being opened for the feeding in and then closed after the feeding in, and the outlet being opened for the feeding out and then closed after the feeding out.
Whittle (US 4208134) teaches a method for mixing, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 6-10) wherein the reactor comprises a shell (Fig. 1 #4) defining: an inlet (Fig. 1 #14) being opened for the feeding in and then closed after the feeding in (Col. 2 lines 50-55), and an outlet (Fig. 2 #18) being opened for the feeding out and then closed after the feeding out (Col. 2 line 65-Col. 3 line 3).
Whittle (US 4208134) explains that the closure member at the inlet is moved to an open position such that material is fed by gravity into the reactor, and moved to the closed position to supply the next batch of material above the closure member (Col. 3 lines 19-30), and explains that after a predetermined time, the closure member in the outlet chute is moved from its closed position to an open position to discharge the batch of material (Col. 3 lines 38-48). Whittle (US 4208134) states that large quantities of material may be easily and quickly processed (Col. 3 lines 51-59).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include the inlet being opened for the feeding in and then closed after the feeding in, and the outlet being opened for the feeding out and then closed after the feeding out as taught by Whittle (US 4208134) in order to supply and remove batches of material easily and quickly.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Carta et al. (US 3493109).
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to any of claim 1, wherein the reactor defines at least one circuit forming a loop for the stream of fluid, the reactor including at least one blower for obtaining the stream of fluid in the circuit.
Carta et al. (US 3493109) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 17-25), wherein the reactor (Fig. 3 #2) defines at least one circuit (Fig. 1 circuit through #1, 2, 3, 23) forming a loop for the stream of fluid (Fig. 1 stream of fluid through #1, 2, 3, 23), the reactor including at least one blower (Fig. 3 #1’) for obtaining the stream of fluid in the circuit (Col. 5 lines 30-35, 51-69).
Carta et al. (US 3493109) explains that the gaseous fluid circulating in the ducts is separated from the outside atmosphere and therefore it can be different from the air and maintained at a strictly controlled temperature and moisture, and additionally this type of structure avoids scattering into the atmosphere of the extremely fine particles (Col. 5 lines 57-69).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the reactor defines at least one circuit forming a loop for the stream of fluid, the reactor including at least one blower for obtaining the stream of fluid in the circuit as taught by Carta et al. (US 3493109) in order to maintain the gaseous fluid at a strictly controlled temperature and moisture and avoid scattering of extremely fine particles into the atmosphere.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Fricke (US 4767506) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to any of claim 1, wherein the stream fluid is at a temperature comprised between 45 degrees C and 75 degrees C.
Fricke (US 4767506) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 10-13, Col. 2 lines 33-42), wherein the stream fluid is at a temperature comprised between 45 degrees C and 75 degrees C (Col. 2 lines 45-46).
Fricke (US 4767506) explains that the preferred temperature for the triboelectric charging treatment is 30 degrees C to 80 degrees C for preparing a milled crude potash salt for electrostatic separation (Col. 2 lines 33-46).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the stream fluid is at a temperature comprised between 45 degrees C and 75 degrees C as taught by Fricke (US 4767506) in order to provide a preferred temperature for the triboelectric charging treatment, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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