Aqseptence Group Pty Ltd
[2019] APO 49
•31 October 2019
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Aqseptence Group Pty Ltd [2019] APO 49
Patent Application: 2018203109
Title:Sieve bend
Patent Applicant: Aqseptence Group Pty Ltd
Delegate: O L Haggar
Decision Date: 31 October 2019
Hearing Date: 16 September 2019 in Canberra
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objections – whether the claimed invention is novel and involves an inventive step – objections not sustainable – application to proceed to acceptance
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Charles Berman of FB Rice Pty Ltd
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2018203109
Title:Sieve bend
Patent Applicant: Aqseptence Group Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 31 October 2019
DECISION
The invention defined by the claims as proposed to be amended on 20 May 2019 is novel and involves an inventive step. I therefore direct that the application proceed to acceptance.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application 2018203109 (the application) was filed by Aqseptence Group Pty Ltd (the applicant) on 4 May 2018 claiming priority from provisional application 2017903598 filed on 6 September 2017.
Examination of the application was requested on 4 May 2018. A first examination report was issued on 20 July 2018 raising objections in relation to novelty and inventive step. The applicant responded to the first examination report on 6 February 2019 by way of submissions and proposed amendments to the specification. The objections relating to novelty and inventive step were maintained in a second examination report which issued on 20 February 2019. The applicant responded to the second examination report on 20 May 2019 by way of further submissions and proposed amendments. A third examination report was issued on 23 May 2019 maintaining that the claimed invention did not involve an inventive step. The applicant responded to the third examination report on 5 July 2019 by way of submissions alone. A fourth examination report was issued on 17 July 2019 again raising objections in relation to novelty and inventive step.
I note with interest that the objection relating to lack of novelty raised in the first examination report, and maintained in the second examination report, was withdrawn at the third report stage but then re-introduced at the fourth report stage even though the claims as they stood at both stages of examination were identical.
On 26 July 2019 the applicant confirmed its wish to be heard in relation to the examiner’s objections. The hearing took place in Canberra on 16 September 2019 at which the applicant was represented by Charles Berman of FB Rice Pty Ltd who appeared by video conference.
Legal framework
The application was filed after 15 April 2013. As a consequence, the fate of the application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as amended by the Intellectual PropertyLaws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. This includes the amendments to section 7, as well as section 60(3A). Under the latter provision, I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it complies with the requirements of the Act. If I am not so satisfied, I can refuse the application.
Furthermore, and in accordance with regulation 13.4(1)(g), when the Commissioner gives an applicant an opportunity to be heard in relation to an examiner’s objection and issues a written decision, the period for gaining acceptance of the application may be extended until three months from the date the decision is issued, or, pursuant to regulation 13.4(3), for a period of longer than three months if the Commissioner is satisfied that acceptance should be postponed.
The specification
The specification indicates that the invention relates to screening equipment and, more particularly, to a sieve bend for use in dewatering and/or classification applications.
The specification explains that sieve bends are used to separate solids from a carrier medium in a slurry flowing over a screening surface of the sieve bend. The sieve bend is often arcuate and inclined with screening apertures or slots perpendicular to a direction of flow of the slurry. As the slurry flows over the inclined screening surface, solids are retained on, and pass along, the screening surface while liquid and other entrained particles of the carrier medium as well as undersized particles pass through the screening slots of the sieve bend. The separated solids retained on the screening surface are fed downstream for further processing and/or collection while the separated carrier medium is recycled for re-use.
The specification points out that inefficient media recovery results in significant losses for a mining operation. Recovery of the carrier medium is directly related to the open area of the sieve bend. However, it is not desirable to increase the open area by increasing screening slot size since an increased slot size would result in larger particles passing through the screening slots and the consequential loss of an excessive proportion of recoverable solids.
Another major consideration in mining operations is the cost of the sieve bends themselves. The usable life of the sieve bend is adversely affected by the abrasive action of the slurry impacting on the screening surface. Improving the impact resistance of the sieve bend without compromising screening efficiency could result in significant cost savings for the operator.
The specification next sets out the invention in general terms before proceeding to describe an embodiment of the invention with reference to a number of drawings. The invention is best understood by reference to Figures 1 and 3 which are reproduced below.
The sieve bend 10 illustrated in these drawings includes an arcuate support structure 12 which supports a screening arrangement 14 defining an arcuate screening surface 28. The screening arrangement 14 comprises a first screening segment 16 having a first screening element configuration, and at least two further screening segments 18 arranged on opposed sides of the first screening segment 16. Each further screening segment has a second screening element configuration different from the first screening element configuration.
The first screening segment 16 comprises a plurality of screening elements 24 arranged in spaced parallel relationship to define a plurality of spaced parallel screening apertures or slots 26 which, in use, extend perpendicular to a direction of flow of slurry over the screening surface 28 of the screening arrangement 14. As shown in Figure 3, each screening slot 26 has a width W.
The further screening segments 18 each comprise a plurality of screening elements 30 arranged in spaced parallel relationship to define a plurality of spaced parallel screening apertures or slots 32 which have the same width as the screening slots 26 of the first screening segment, and in use again extend perpendicular to a direction of flow of slurry over the screening surface 28 of the screening arrangement 14. A conventional sieve bend has screening elements all of the same head width. By comparison, and as shown in Figure 3, each screening element 30 of the further screening segments 18 has a head width W2 which is greater than the head width W1 of each of the screening elements 24 of the first screening segment 16, thereby increasing the open area of the sieve bend 10.
The specification states that the increased open area of the sieve bend 10 compared to conventional sieve bends results in increased media recovery while reducing media losses with consequential cost savings for the mining operation. It is also said that by arranging the further screening segments 18 on opposed sides of the first screening segment 16, the usable life of the sieve bend can be extended by simply rotating it through 180o such that the previously upstream screening segment 18 (where the impact of the abrasive slurry is greatest) now becomes the downstream screening segment (where the impact is least).
The specification as most recently proposed to be amended on 20 May 2019 ends with eight claims which read as follows:
1. A sieve bend which includes
a support structure; and
a screening arrangement, defining a screening surface, supported by the support structure, the screening arrangement comprising
a first screening segment having a first screening element configuration with screening elements of a first width; and
at least one further screening segment having a second screening element configuration different from the first screening element configuration, the at least one further screening segment having screening elements of a second width, the second width being greater than the width of the screening elements of the first screening segment,each screening segment comprising a plurality of elongate screening elements arranged in spaced parallel relationship to define spaced parallel screening slots with the screening slots of the first screening segment being of the same width as the screening slots of the at least one further screening segment to provide a substantially uniform slot width between an upstream end and a downstream end of the screening surface.
2. The sieve bend of claim 1 in which a screening slot at a junction between the first screening segment and the at least one further screening segment has a width falling within a range of from approximately 0 mm to the same width as the screening slots of the screening segments.
3. The sieve bend of claim 1 or claim 2 which includes two further screening segments, the two further screening segments being arranged on opposed sides of the first screening segment.
4. The sieve bend of claim 3 in which the two further screening segments have the same second screening element configuration as each other.
5. The sieve bend of any one of the preceding claims in which the at least one further screening segment is treated to provide increased wear resistance.
6. The sieve bend of claim 5 in which the at least one further screening segment is treated by being coated with a wear resistant coating.
7. The sieve bend of any one of the preceding claims in which the support structure is an arcuate support structure with the screening arrangement defining a correspondingly arcuate screening surface.
8. Screening apparatus which includes
a cradle;
a feed hopper arranged at an upstream end of the cradle; and
a sieve bend as claimed in any one of the preceding claims mounted in the cradle.
I would add here that the amendments proposed to the specification on 20 May 2019 are in my opinion allowable under section 102.
Outline of the examiner’s objections
The examiner has objected that the claimed invention is not novel and does not involve an inventive step. Specifically, the examiner in effect contends that the features of proposed claims 1 to 4, 7 and 8 are disclosed by US patent 4422937 (the 937 patent), and that the features of proposed claims 5 and 6 are merely matters of common general knowledge or design choice.
Legal principles
Novelty
Section 7(1) provides that an invention is taken to be novel when compared with the prior art base as it existed before the priority date unless it is not novel in the light of certain “kinds of information”, one of which is prior art information made publicly available in a single document.
The 937 patent was published well before the claimed priority date of the application, and thus clearly constitutes part of the prior art base for present purposes.
It is well established that the general test for anticipation or want of novelty is the reverse infringement test (Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd ([1977] HCA 19; 137 CLR 228 at [19]), and this test is satisfied if the alleged anticipation discloses all of the essential features of the invention as claimed (Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co ([1990] FCA 40; 16 IPR 545 at [19]).
To meet this requirement, an alleged anticipatory prior publication must contain “clear and unmistakable directions” to produce the invention as claimed (Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals vEli Lilley and Company [2005] FCAFC 224; 68 IPR 1 at [314]). However, if the prior publication contains a direction which is capable of being carried out in a manner which would infringe the claimed invention, but would at least as likely be carried out in such a way that would not do so, the invention as claimed will not be anticipated (General Tire & Rubber Co v FirestoneTyre & Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457 at 485-486, Novozymes A/S vDanisco A/S [2013] FCAFC 6; 99 IPR 417 at [177]).
Inventive step
Section 7(2) provides that an invention is taken to involve an inventive step when compared to the prior art base unless it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed before the priority date, whether considered separately or together with the kinds of information mentioned in section 7(3). This information again includes prior art information made publicly available in a single document.
The generally accepted test for inventive step is whether “the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not” (Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12 at [45]; 148 CLR 262 at 286).
The degree of inventiveness required to satisfy this test may be small and has been described as a “scintilla” (LockwoodSecurity Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] HCA 21 at [52]). Furthermore, if (as in the present case) the invention lies in a combination of features, the question is whether the combination as a whole, rather than a selection of one or some of the features, is obvious (Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 58 at [78]).
The 937 patent
The 937 patent discloses a sieve bend 2 which, as can be seen from Figure 5 immediately below, in a first embodiment includes a screening arrangement defined by a screening surface 3 supported by a support structure and comprising a plurality of elongate screening elements 4 arranged in spaced parallel relationship to define spaced parallel screening slots 12.
The 937 patent states that unlike conventional sieve bends, the width of the screening slots 12 is non-uniform over the length of the sieve bend 2 such that the slots progressively reduce in width in duplicate fashion from the centre to each end of the sieve bend (column 3 lines 17-27 and 53- 68). It is then said that thicker screening elements 4 may be used in those portions of the sieve bend where excessive wear will present a problem “while retaining the pre-determined spacing between them” (column 4 lines 18-22).
In an alternative embodiment, the width of the screening slots 12 is not progressively reduced slot-by-slot from the centre to each end of the sieve bend. The screening surface 3 is instead subdivided by radial planes into screening segments or “zones” each having respective screening slots 12 of uniform width (column 4 lines 23 to 31). In the example illustrated in Figure 3 below, the screening surface is subdivided into a central zone V and four zones I-IV that are duplicated on either side of the central zone.
The 937 patent states that the width of the screening slots 12 in each zone may be as follows:
Zone I .019 inches (0.48 mm)
Zone II .022 inches (0.56 mm)
Zone III .026 inches (0.66 mm)
Zone IV .029 inches (0.74 mm)
Zone V .032 inches (0.81 mm)
It is thus evident that although the respective width of the screening slots 12 is uniform within each individual zone, the screening slot width decreases zone-by-zone from the centre to both ends of the sieve bend.
The basis of the objections
The examiner has objected that the invention claimed by proposed claim 1 is not novel in light of the 937 patent for the following reasons:
“Applicant’s argument that ‘[the 937 patent] does not disclose the feature of a first screening segment having screening elements of a first width and at least one further screening segment having screening elements of a second width, the second width being greater than the width of the screening elements of the first screening segment’ is found not persuasive. [The 937 patent] (col 4, lines 21-23) clearly discloses ‘if excessive wear in use over the centre or other area of the [sieve bend] will present a problem, a ready solution is to use thicker [screening elements] in that area while retaining the predetermined spacing between them’.
The Applicant’s argument that ‘[the 937 patent] does not teach a substantially uniform slot width between an upstream end and a downstream end of the screening surface as claimed in claim 1 of the present application’ is considered but found not persuasive. Examiner agrees with applicant arguments that in [the 937 patent] the actual slot widths increase from Zone I to Zone V. However, [the 937 patent] (see Figs. 2-4; col. 4, lines 23-50) also discloses ‘Rather than progressively reducing slot-by-slot the widths of the slots 12 between the [screening elements] from the centre- or midline A-A to each end of the [sieve bend] 2, its fabrication can be simplified, without substantially reducing the accuracy and efficiency of the particle size separation, by subdividing the screening surface 3 by radii or, more precisely, radial planes, into zones within each of which the [screening slots] 12 between the [screening elements] 4 are equal, so long as each zone is limited to an arc in which there is only a slight or small difference in the effective openings of its slots’. I further like to add that claim 1 defines at least two segments of having [sic] a substantially uniform slot width. However, independent claim 1 (dated 20/05/2019) does not place any limitation on the positioning/location of the segments and merely claims the spacing between the two segments has to be same [sic]. This means [the 937 patent] the single zone (I or II or III or IV or zone V) [sic] itself can have two segments with substantially uniform slot width” (original emphasis).
Consideration
It is notable from the outset that the reasons relied on by the examiner focus entirely on the alleged disclosure by the 937 patent of the respective relationships between the widths of the screening elements and the widths of the screening slots in the first and further screening segments defined by proposed claim 1, and as such say nothing about whether the 937 patent is additionally alleged to disclose “a first screening segment having a first screening element configuration” and “at least one further screening segment having a second screening element configuration different from the first screening element configuration” (emphasis added) in accordance with the presently claimed invention. I will as a consequence deal with this issue before considering the substance of the examiner’s objection.
As discussed earlier, the 937 patent discloses a sieve bend which in a first embodiment has a screening surface comprising a plurality of elongate screening elements 4. The only disclosure made by the 937 patent concerning the configuration of the screening elements is found between column 2 line 68 and column 3 line 1 where it is said in relation to the first embodiment that the screening elements are triangular or wedge-shaped. This configuration is depicted in Figure 5 above. In the absence of any express disclosure to the contrary, I think it can be properly inferred that the same screening element configuration applies to the alternative embodiment of the sieve bend in which the screening surface is subdivided into a number of screening segments I-V. Most relevantly, the 937 patent does not contain any suggestion, let alone a clear and unmistakable direction, to utilise a “first” screening element configuration in any one of these screening segments that differs from a “second” screening element configuration utilised in the other screening segments.
In terms of the reverse infringement test, this shortfall in disclosure is of itself sufficient to confer novelty on the invention defined by proposed claim 1 when compared to the 937 patent. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness I now turn to consider the reasons relied on by the examiner in support of the novelty objection.
The examiner has firstly argued that the applicant’s contention that the 937 patent “does not disclose the feature of a first screening segment having screening elements of a first width and at least one further screening segment having screening elements of a second width, the second width being greater than the width of the screening elements of the first screening segment is found not persuasive”. The examiner continues by referring to the passage at column 4 lines 21-23 which states that “if excessive wear in use over the centre or other area of the [sieve bend] will present a problem, a ready solution is to use thicker [screening elements] in that area”.
I consider that as a general proposition the terms “thicker” and “wider” can be used interchangeably, and also that when sensibly construed the “area” spoken of by the above passage is a reference to one of the screening segments (zones) I-V. Thus, although not made entirely clear, it seems the examiner has concluded from this passage that the 937 patent contemplates the use of screening elements in one of the screening segments that are wider than those used in the other screening segments. I have formed the view that it is open to the examiner to draw such a conclusion. Consequently, and in the absence of any submissions in rebuttal from Mr Berman that are directly in point, I am on balance satisfied that the 937 patent discloses the defined relationship between the respective widths of the screening elements in the first and further screening segments.
This brings me to the examiner’s final argument which relates to the requirement by proposed claim 1 that “the screening slots of the first screening segment” are “of the same width as the screening slots of the at least one further screening segment to provide a substantially uniform slot width between an upstream end and a downstream end” of the sieve bend.
The reasons on which this argument is based are not easily understood, but suffice to say that ultimately the examiner has adopted the position that one of the zones I-V “itself can have two segments with substantially uniform slot width”. Mr Berman acknowledges that the 937 patent discloses that the respective slot widths within each screening segment (zone) are substantially uniform. The same relationship continues to apply where thicker screening elements 4 are used in one of the segments: the 937 patent states that in this instance the pre-determined spacing between the screening elements (i.e. slot width) is retained. However, I agree with Mr Berman that “as between the zones” the slot widths are not the same. As previously discussed, it is plainly evident from the disclosure of the 937 patent that although the respective width of the screening slots 12 is uniform within each individual zone, the screening slot width decreases zone-by-zone from the centre to both ends of the sieve bend. This is in direct contrast to proposed claim 1 which mandates a substantially uniform slot width over the full extent (i.e. between an upstream end and a downstream end) of the sieve bend. I therefore reject the examiner’s contention that the 937 patent discloses the feature of proposed claim 1 presently under consideration.
In summary, I have found that the 937 patent does not disclose all of the essential features of proposed claim 1. The invention defined by proposed claim 1 is therefore novel. Furthermore, the only objection raised at the third report stage related to inventive step, and yet even then the examiner made no attempt to establish that any of the essential features of proposed claim 1 merely constitute matters of common general knowledge or were otherwise obvious. Consequently, I have no basis for finding that the invention defined by proposed claim 1 does not involve an inventive step.
It logically follows that the invention defined by proposed claims 2 to 8 is likewise novel and involves an inventive step.
CONCLUSION
The invention defined by the claims as proposed to be amended on 20 May 2019 is novel and involves an inventive step. As there are no other lawful grounds for objection, I direct that the application proceed to acceptance.
O L Haggar
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
6
0