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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nielson (US 4,829,911.)
Regarding claim 1, Nielson meets the claimed, 1: A method of operating a hydrolyzer infeed system, the hydrolyzer infeed system including an infeed chamber having a chamber inlet for receiving material and having a chamber outlet, (Nielson col. 6 lines 23-24 describe a first compartment 24, the inlet is at the slidable bottom 23 and the outlet is at the furnace 13, see Figure 4) an inlet gate disposed in the infeed chamber, (Nielson col. 6 lines 36-37 describe gate 30) and a ram disposed to reciprocate in the infeed chamber, (Nielson col. 6 lines 29-31 describe piston 27) the method comprising:(a) closing the gate; (Nielson col. 6 lines 32-34 describe the gate 30 is closed) (b) receiving material through the chamber inlet into the infeed chamber between the ram and the closed gate; (Nielson col. 6 lines 19-25 describe loading combustibles into the first compartment 24 while the piston is in position I behind the gate, see Figure 4) (c) extending the ram towards the closed gate and compressing the material between the ram and the closed gate to form a compressed material plug; (Nielson col. 6 lines 29-35 describes actuating the piston 27 to compress the combustibles against the gate 30) (d) opening the gate; (Nielson col. 36-37 describes opening the gate) (e) further extending the ram past the open gate to an extended ram position between the open gate and the chamber outlet thereby pushing the compressed material plug past the open gate; (Nielson col. 6 lines 38-42 describe the piston 27 is moved to position III which pushes the combustible materials out of the first compartment 24 and into the furnace 13, see Figure 4 showing position III is past the gate 30) (f) retracting the ram back to an intermediate position between the open gate and the chamber inlet; (Nielson col. 6 lines 41-42 describe retracting the piston 27 into position IV which is between the gate 30 and the inlet at the slidable bottom 23, see Figure 3) and(g) reclosing the gate (Nielson col. 6 lines 63-65 describe closing the gate 30 after the piston has retracted back to position IV.)
Regarding claim 3, Nielson meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising:(h) after step (g), fully retracting the ram to a fully retracted position (Nielson col. 6 lines 64-65 describe moving the piston 27 back into the original position I, see Figure 4.)
Regarding claim 4, Nielson meets the claimed, The method of claim 3, further comprising: repeating steps (b)-(h) to generate a series of compressed material plugs (Nielson col. 6 lines 60 describes the compression process and movement of the piston as a cycle meaning it is repeated.)
Regarding claim 7, Nielson meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein: in step (f) the ram is within two inches of the gate when the ram is in the intermediate position (Nielson Figure 4 show the piston 27 at the intermediate position IV is immediately adjacent of the gate 30, see also col. 6 lines 66-69.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nielson (US 4,829,911.)
Regarding claim 8, Nielson Figure 4 shows the piston 27 is past the gate 30 in position III but does not specify any particular distances and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein: in step (e) when the ram is in the extended ram position the ram extends a distance in a range of from 1 to 8 inches past the gate, however, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed dimension would not perform differently than the prior arm, the claim is not patently distinct from the prior art, see MPEP §2144.05(IV)(A). Both the claimed invention and the disclosure of Nielson describe a ram which extends past a gate in order to push a block of compressed material past the gate. While Nielson does not describe the exact distance of how far the piston extends past the gate, Nielson accomplishes the same task as the claimed invention. Additionally, Nielson col. 6 lines 38-42 describes the piston 27 should be pushed into position III past the gate such that the compressed combustibles may be pushed into the open end of the furnace 13. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the distance in Nielson depending on the size of the compressed materials to effectively push the combustibles into the furnace, see Nielson col. 6 lines 36-42.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson modified by Bouldin (US 2006/0144980.)
Regarding claim 2, Nielson does not explicitly describe what the piston is doing in the time period between position II, the gate opening, and position III and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: between steps (c) and (d), reducing a force of the ram against the compressed material plug.
Analogous in the field of compacting processes, Bouldin meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: between steps (c) and (d), reducing a force of the ram against the compressed material plug (Bouldin [0018] describes compressing waste material against a gate with a ram and [0019] describes the compression ends and then the ram is only further extended after the gate is opened meaning that while the gate is being opened there is no force acting by the ram on the compressed waste.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the compaction method of Nielson with the step of pausing the force or compaction/extension of the ram while the gate is opening in order to maintain the plug in the location before the gate while the gate is being opened to prevent forceful ejection, see Bouldin [0019].
Regarding claim 4, Nielson describes a cycle meaning that the process is repeated. Additionally or alternatively, Bouldin meets the claimed, The method of claim 3, further comprising: repeating steps (b)-(h) to generate a series of compressed material plugs (Bouldin [0054] describes the process of compacting and pushing the waste into the chamber is repeated.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Nielson with the repetition of the steps as described in Bouldin in order to form a continuous process, see Bouldin [0054]-[0055].
Regarding claim 5, Nielson does not explicitly disclose any steps for preventing return movement and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: during step (f) and before step (g), preventing return movement of the compressed material plug back to the gate by frictional engagement between the compressed material plug and the infeed chamber.
Bouldin meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: during step (f) and before step (g), preventing return movement of the compressed material plug back to the gate by frictional engagement between the compressed material plug and the infeed chamber (Bouldin [0051]-[0053] describes ensuring that the compressed plug 62 fills the entire sleeve 34 so that ejection can be prevented. The sleeve being filled provides friction between the plug and the sleeve.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Nielson with the step of making sure the plug fills the sleeve and thereby provide a friction force to the plug as described in Boudin in order to prevent forceful ejection when the gate is opened, see Boudin [0051]-[0054].
Regarding claim 6, Nielson does not disclose repeating the compressing process prior to fully extending the piston or opening the gate and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: before step (d), repeating steps (b)-(c) to compress additional material between the ram and the closed gate to increase a size of the compressed material plug.
Bouldin meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: before step (d), repeating steps (b)-(c) to compress additional material between the ram and the closed gate to increase a size of the compressed material plug (Bouldin [0051]-[0052] describes feeding material into the pipe sleeve 34 and compacting it to form a partial plug 62 then adding more waste into the sleeve 34 and again extending the ram 40 to compact the material into a complete plug 62.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the steps described in Nielson with the repetition of the filling and compressing steps as described in Bouldin in order to make a complete plug that will fully fill the sleeve 34 and prevent forceful ejection when the gate is opened, see Bouldin [0052]-[0053].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson modified by Abner (US 9,174,406.)
Regarding claim 9, Nielson meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing steps (c), (e) and (f) with an actuator operably coupled to the ram; (Nielson col. 6 lines 29-30 describe a hydraulic cylinder controls the piston 27.)
Nielson does not disclose any position sensors and does not meet the claimed, measuring a position of the actuator with an actuator position sensor; and controlling movement of the actuator and a corresponding movement of the ram with an automatic controller at least in part in response to signals from the actuator position sensor
Analogous in the field of waste compaction, Abner also discloses compacting material using a ram and meets the claimed, measuring a position of the actuator with an actuator position sensor; and controlling movement of the actuator and a corresponding movement of the ram with an automatic controller at least in part in response to signals from the actuator position sensor (Abner col. 3 lines 22-32 describe a compaction system with a ram and position sensors for measuring the position of the ram assembly. The control system then controls the position of the ram based on the location of the ram.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the piston of Nielson with the position sensors and control method of the ram as described in Abner in order to monitor if the ram is actually moving and compressing the material or if an incompressible object is in the chamber, see Abner col. 3 lines 47-56.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 3,580,166: see Figures 1 and 4-7 and col. 3 beginning at line 10 describing a waste compacting device having a chamber member 11, a feed opening 21, and a gate 37. A hydraulic cylinder 29 presses a plate 32 towards waste material against the gate 37. The gate 37 opens to allow ejection of the compacted mass 66, see Figures 7-8
US 5,558,014: see col. 9 beginning at line 60 describing a baling device which uses a ram and a controller to compact material. The controller controls the ram based off of signals from a sensor which indicate the position of the ram.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights