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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 7/17/2025.
The Examiner notes claims 1-38 are currently pending and have been examined; all claim(s) 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), hereinafter Yu and Liu, 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]; a roller assembly [Fig 4] that includes 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].
PNG
media_image1.png
538
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Yu does not teach where said motor is programmable.
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].
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 [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 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] 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 OBrien.
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 & OBrien 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 10, filed 9/23/24 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that the limitation in claims 1, 13, & 20 of “wherein said outer barrel and inner barrel are configured to create energy absorbing air-gaps therebetween” are not clearly shown in the rejection of 1/16/2025.However the rejection has been updated to clarify the structure and an annotated figure has been added.
Conclusion
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
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 30 July 2025
Prosecution Insights