DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 2/3/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1-38 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 1, 13, & 20 is/are currently amended; all other claims are original or previously presented.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 20: "a means for moving or tumbling said rock tumbler apparatus" Wherein the instant application the limitation is interpreted per the applicant's disclosure in Figures 4-5 & ¶12-¶13, ¶50, & ¶63, to be a motor operably connected to the roller assembly.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1-11 & 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 9421664) in view of Liu et al. (CN 108274384 A) further in view of Miyata et al. (US 4785727), hereinafter Yu, Liu, & Miyata, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. (The claim statuses are indicated above in the Status of Claims section) Yu discloses a rock tumbler [1] comprising:
a double barrel wheel assembly comprising an outer barrel [Fig 4-5; 20 & 30 form an outer barrel] and an inner barrel [11] wherein said outer barrel and inner barrel are configured to create energy absorbing air-gaps therebetween [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 4-5; Col2:line65 – Col3:line6; There are gaps between the barrels (i.e. energy absorbing air-gaps) that are filled with energy absorbing material (42) which can be foam which by its nature has pockets or gaps of air throughout the material], wherein said inner barrel is shaped [Fig 4-6; 11 has a shape], and wherein said inner barrel is a smaller diameter than said outer barrel and is positioned within said outer barrel [Fig 1-6];
a removable inner barrel lid [12];
one or more roller assemblies [Fig 4], each including a core [54] and an axle [52], said axle in cooperation with bearings [Col3:line59-60; the axle can be indirectly connected to the motor and to have the axle rotate bearings to support the axle would be required]; and a motor [50] operably coupled to the axle for moving or tumbling the rock tumbler [Fig 4; Col3:line44-60],…, wherein the roller assembly and outer barrel are shaped to cooperatively engage with one another [Fig 4; 54-55 are shaped to cooperatively engage 37 of the outer barrel and/or upper lip]; and…
PNG
media_image1.png
538
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Yu does not teach where said motor is programmable, or wherein the one or more roller assemblies independently supports the outer barrel.
However Liu teaches an abrasive tumbler [Fig 1] with a motor [7], where said motor is programmable [¶4 starting on pg4 of the translation; the motor is programable]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor as disclosed by Yu to be programable as disclosed by Liu for the purpose of allowing the user to set different times for the tumbler to run and add changes in motor speed at different intervals during the tumbling process [Liu: ¶4 starting on pg 4 of the translation].
However Miyata teaches a tumbler that uses two roller assemblies independently to support the barrel [Fig 6 & 14a-14c; the barrel (12) is supported by two roller assemblies (19 & 20)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the barrel and roller assembly as disclosed by Yu to have the one or more roller assemblies independently supports the outer barrel as taught by Miyata for the purpose of an alternative barrel support and barrel movement inducement structure [Miyata: Fig 7 & 14a-14c].
Regarding claim 2. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 1 further comprising a sound dampening cover [Yu: 30 is a cover for 20 & 11 and is sound dampening by creating more air-gaps as defined in claim 1].
Regarding claim 3. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 2, wherein said sound dampening cover comprises one or more panes of glass, polycarbonate, or acrylic [Yu: Col4:line4-5; 30 can be made from polycarbonate].
Regarding claim 4. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 2, but does not teach wherein said sound dampening cover is vacuum sealable.
However Liu further teaches wherein said sound dampening cover [2] is vacuum sealable [¶1 on pg 6 of the translation; 2 has air-tight seal (i.e. vacuum seal) to absorb more noise].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sound dampening cover as disclosed by Yu as modified to be vacuum sealable as disclosed by Liu for the purpose of absorbing more noise to make the tumbler even quieter [Liu: ¶1 on pg 6 of the translation].
Regarding claim 5. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 1 further comprising a programming unit [Liu: ¶4 on pg 4 of the translation; the controller].
Regarding claim 6. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 5, wherein said programming unit is operably attached to a sound dampening cover [The device of Yu as modified by Liu to have a controller would place the controller at 56 of Yu which is on a sound dampening cover (4), see Fig 1].
Regarding claim 7. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 1, wherein said air gaps are filled with a sound absorbing material [Yu: Fig 4; the air gap between 11 and 20 is filled with air and 42 both of which will absorb some of the sound of the tumbler].
Regarding claim 8. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 7, wherein said sound absorbing material comprises a sound absorbing gas [Fig 4; the air in the air gap is a gas that can absorb sound].
Regarding claim 9. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 1, wherein the inner barrel includes a shaped insert to facilitate smoothing of irregularly shaped objects [Yu: Fig 5-6; 11 is hexagon shaped to facilitate smoothing objects].
Regarding claim 10. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 1, wherein the inner barrel comprises a polygon shape [Yu: Fig 5-6; a hexagon is a polygon].
Regarding claim 11. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 1, wherein the inner and outer barrels are configured to provide a plurality of air gaps for absorbing sound [Yu: Fig 4].
Regarding claim 13-19. Claim(s) 13-19 recite(s) the same, similar limitations as those addressed for claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, & 10.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 & 5. Claim 13 further states "a plurality of rollers…wherein each of the plurality of rollers is shaped to cooperatively engage with a complimentary shape on a rolling surface of the housing assembly [Miyata: Fig 6 & 14a-14c show a plurality of rollers; Fig 6-8; each roller (19 & 20) is designed to engage a complimentary shape (round/circular) at each end of the barrel with a reduced diameter in the middle of the roller to not contact the middle of the barrel; This would apply to Yu by have the rollers have reduce clearance avoid the polygon shape in the middle of the barrel and contact rounded ends of the barrel for inducing movement of the barrel]" Claim 13 further states " a housing including a motor and drive belt operably coupled to the barrel wheel for tumbling the barrel wheel [Yu: Col3:line59-60; drive belts can be used to connect the motor (50) to the axle (52)]"
Claim 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4
Claims 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 7-8
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 10
Claim(s) 13-19 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, & 10.
Regarding claim 20. The rock tumbler as taught by Yu as modified in claims 1-2, 5, & 9 disclose rock tumbler that can perform the method for abrading, polishing and finishing of at least one irregularly shaped hard object [Col1:lines42-62] comprising:
obtaining an irregularly shaped hard object [Col1:lines50-53];
obtaining a programmable rock tumbler [The tumbler of Yu as modified in claims 1-2, 5, 9, & 13] including a double barrel assembly comprising an outer barrel, an inner barrel, a removable inner barrel lid, and a roller assembly,
wherein said outer barrel and inner barrel are configured to form one or more air gaps therebetween,
wherein said inner barrel is formed of a shape to foster smoothing of irregular objects contained therein when inner barrel and outer barrel are rotated, and
wherein said inner barrel is a smaller diameter than said outer barrel and is positioned within said outer barrel;
wherein said roller assembly comprises a core and an axle, said axle in cooperation with bearings; a means for moving or tumbling said rock tumbler,
wherein said roller assembly and outer wheel are shaped to cooperatively engage with one another;
wherein said means is operably attached to said rock tumbler,
wherein said means for moving or tumbling said rock tumbler is programmable; and at least one sound absorbing cover;
placing said at least one irregularly shaped hard object into said inner barrel with water or an aqueous solution and an abrasive powder [Yu: Col1:lines50-56];
closing said inner barrel lid [Yu: Col1:lines50-56]; closing said sound absorbing cover [Yu: Col1:lines50-56]; programming said rock tumbler; and
allowing said rock tumbler to tumble until said at least one irregularly shaped hard object become smooth [Yu: Col1:lines60-62].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Liu further in view of Kondo et al. (JP H06270033 A), hereinafter Kondo.
Regarding claim 12. Yu as modified teaches the rock tumbler of claim 1 but does not teach further comprising speakers for incorporating sounds that cancel or distract from the sound of the smoothing of the irregularly shaped objects.
However Kondo teaches a grinding/polishing device with a noise suppression speaker [21] for incorporating sounds that cancel or distract from the sound of the smoothing of the irregularly shaped objects [Abstract; grinding or polishing are operations that are used to smooth objects].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rock tumbler as taught by Yu as modified to have speakers for incorporating sounds that cancel or distract from the sound of the smoothing of the irregularly shaped objects as taught by Kondo for the purpose of further reducing the noise of the tumbler after sound insulating and sound absorbing methods have been applied to the tumbler [Kondo: ¶3 of the translation].
Claim(s) 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Liu further in view of O’Brien et al. (US 3863902), hereinafter O’Brien.
Claims 21-38 claim a variety of different shapes the roller assembly and outer barrel can have to cooperatively engage one another. These shapes are complementary V shapes, complementary dual V shapes, complementary bevel shapes, complementary dome shapes, complementary dual dome shapes, & complementary round cylindrical shapes.
Yu as modified teaches a complimentary round cylindrical shapes [Fig 4-5; 55 is round cylindrical shape that is complimentary to 37 which is also a round cylindrical shape].
Yu as modified is silent in regards to the other complimentary shapes.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shape the roller assembly and outer barrel to cooperatively engage each other for the purpose of keeping the roller assembly and outer barrel engaged with each other while in motion (i.e. preventing misalignment) [Obrien: Fig 8-14; Col4:line63 – Col5:line50; these Fig and citation give various examples of roller assembly and barrel shapes that cooperatively engage each other to keep the roller assembly and barrel engaged with each other], since applicant has not disclosed that having these particular shapes provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose other than the same purpose that Yu as modified & O’Brien and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the different complimentary shapes, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that the newly added limitation in claims 1, 13, & 20 are not disclosed or taught by the prior art of record. However the new grounds of rejection teach the added limitations, see above.
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 AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights