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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 13 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, line 13 and 13, respectively,” if said screen were oriented substantially horizontally,” is unclear. The ‘if’ statement does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. What is the patent protection if the screen is not oriented substantially horizontally? How can a force happen on the screening plant when the screening plant is substantially horizontal? It is unclear how a vibratory force on a substantially horizontal screen will create a velocity vector for material? With a first and second weight moving mechanism coupled to a first end and second of the rotatable shaft in a substantially horizontally orientation, any vector created the vibration during the first half of rotation would go in the opposite direction during the second half of rotation of the shaft.
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 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 of this title, 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Pub 2011/0272332 A1) in view of Ostergaard (US Pub 2002/0053534 A1) and Bleh (DE 3607189).
Regarding claim 13, Chang discloses a single shaft screening plant comprising: a screen having a first side and a second side (element 16); a rotatable shaft with a shaft axis (element 109); a first side weight moving mechanism; coupled to a first end of said rotatable shaft (element 103); a second side weight moving mechanism, coupled to a second end of said rotatable shaft (element 102); said first side weight moving mechanism and said second side weight moving mechanism being, in combination, configured so that rotating said rotatable shaft causes a vibration which would increase an aggregate velocity vector of material on said screen in a direction toward a discharge end of said screening plant, if said screen were oriented substantially horizontally (paragraph 0055), but Change does not disclose a rotatable shaft with a shaft axis, which extends from said first side to said second side and wherein said first side weight moving mechanism comprises a plurality of connected rotating arms where one of said plurality of connected rotating arms revolves around said shaft axis and simultaneously rotates around a first axis which is parallel to and displaced from said shaft axis.
Ostergaard teaches a rotatable shaft with a shaft axis, which extends from said first side to said second side (element 20) as an obvious shaft variation for supporting an eccentric weighting vibratory separator that distributes the vibratory load across the screen separator (paragraph 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Ostergaard, as an obvious shaft variation for supporting an eccentric weighting vibratory separator that distributes the vibratory load across the screen separator.
Bleh teaches wherein said first side weight moving mechanism comprises a plurality of connected rotating arms where one of said plurality of connected rotating arms revolves around said shaft axis and simultaneously rotates around a first axis which is parallel to and displaced from said shaft axis (see Fig. 8; element 1’’ connect to and rotate around the central axis 2) for the purpose of creating an unbalanced force of the load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Bleh, for the purpose of creating an unbalanced force of the load.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Pub 2011/0272332 A1) in view of Ostergaard (US Pub 2002/0053534 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses a single shaft screening plant comprising: a screen having a first side and a second side (element 16); a rotatable shaft with a shaft axis (element 109); a first side weight moving mechanism; coupled to a first end of said rotatable shaft (element 103); a second side weight moving mechanism, coupled to a second end of said rotatable shaft (element 102); said first side weight moving mechanism and said second side weight moving mechanism being, in combination, configured so that rotating said rotatable shaft causes a vibration which would increase an aggregate velocity vector of material on said screen in a direction toward a discharge end of said screening plant, if said screen were oriented substantially horizontally (paragraph 0055); and wherein said first side weight moving mechanism comprises an internal gear (see Fig. 6a; element 104), but Change does not disclose a rotatable shaft with a shaft axis, which extends from said first side to said second side.
Ostergaard teaches a rotatable shaft with a shaft axis, which extends from said first side to said second side (element 20) as an obvious shaft variation for supporting an eccentric weighting vibratory separator that distributes the vibratory load across the screen separator (paragraph 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Ostergaard, as an obvious shaft variation for supporting an eccentric weighting vibratory separator that distributes the vibratory load across the screen separator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Claim 13 recites a single shaft screening plant with a specific weight moving mechanism comprising "a flywheel gearbox containing said externally toothed inner gear,” where the inner and exterior gears create a specific type of non-circular acceleration. This configuration achieves varying instantaneous linear velocities during rotation, creating maximum tangential acceleration at an apex point followed by controlled deceleration as the weights move away from the apex,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that claim 14 recites the internal gear however there is no limitation regarding a flywheel gearbox containing the externally toothed inner gear. However, regarding the internal gear limitation in claim 14, Chang discloses an internal gear (see Fig. 6a; element 104).
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Modifying Chang with Ostergaard's single shaft would fundamentally disrupt these critical operational characteristics: A single continuous shaft would prevent the independent rotation of the flywheel gearboxes and eliminate the system's ability to create its essential non-circular acceleration patterns,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts Chang’s system discloses a central shaft 109. The central gear is retained in place by this shaft, and, as such, the length of this shaft would not effect retention of the gear. Therefore, the teaching Ostergaard of a single shaft which extends from said first side to said second side is an obvious shaft variation for supporting an eccentric weighting vibratory separator that distributes the vibratory load across the screen separator.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Unlike the claimed invention, Chang's gear system does not employ an internal gear as the primary mechanism of the first side weight moving mechanism. Instead, Chang's system requires complex planetary gear arrangements with different force generation mechanics,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts regarding the internal gear limitation in claim 14, Chang discloses an internal gear (see Fig. 6a; element 104).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights