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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21AUG2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) Claim Rejection of Claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) Claim Rejection of Claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues prior art Romanovich, et alia (US 2013/0001342) fails to disclose tracks as claimed (pages 12-14). Examiner respectfully notes that Romanovich in combination with Picone is used to teach the limitations claimed, and that arguing against single prior art when combinations of prior art are used to reject claimed limitations is prohibited.
Applicant further argues that combined prior art Romanovich/Picone fails to disclose the configuration of tracks used for cleaning. Examiner respectfully notes that apparatus claims may only claim the structural aspects of the claimed invention and configurations for specific purposes may be inferred from prior art, provided the prior art does not preclude such uses. This is the basis for the rejection as stated in the FINAL REJECTION mailed 22FEB2024. Therefore the rejection as stated in the FINAL REJECTION is proper.
Applicant further argues that prior art Romanovich fails to disclose a feeding apparatus, citing (102) in Para [0035]. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the element (102) does in fact provide a mechanism to feed the cutting apparatus, and the fact that it is also a component of the cutting apparatus in no way precludes its use as a feeding mechanism, since it also serves to trap material against the cutting elements as disclosed in Para [0035], which also discloses that (102) may be referred to as cutting elements as well” (emphasis added), explicitly disclosing that (102) has more than one function.
Finally, Applicant further argues that Romanovich fails to disclose the feeding mechanism is positioned above the pair of cutting devices. Examiner notes Applicant is again arguing piecemeal by omitting the fact that the rejection relies not upon Romanovich, but upon the combination of prior art Romanovich/Schwelling, as stated in the FINAL REJECTION mailed 22FEB2024. Examiner notes Schwelling teaches feeding elements (140) (150) positioned above cutting elements (120) (130) as clearly illustrated in at least Fig 5.
Examiner notes the arguments against the Claim Rejections of Claims 11 and 18, similarly made, would be similarly answered.
Examiner notes Applicant makes no specific argument against the Claim Rejections of Claims 4-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, or 19-20.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 11, Ln 11, the limitation “device”. Examiner suggests “devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 7-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanovich, et alia (US 2013/0001342), hereinafter Romanovich, in view of Picone (US 11,243,710, hereinafter Picone, O'Rourke (US 2013/0200186), hereinafter O'Rourke, Schwelling (US 2004/0104289), hereinafter Schwelling and Summers (US 4,000,748), hereinafter Summers.
Regarding Claim 1, Romanovich discloses a grinding device (Para [0002], Ln 1-3) comprising:
a housing (comprised of [11], [14]; as illustrated in Fig 1);
a chute (38) formed through the housing (as illustrated in Fig 1 );
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig EX-1 (annotated Romanovich Fig 11)
Romanovich discloses a pair of tracks formed within an interior of the chute (as illustrated in FIG EX-1 ), however Romanovich is silent to tracks on opposing sides of the chute.
Picone teaches a grinding device (104) (col 6, Ln 57; as illustrated in Fig 1) for destroying material, a related art. Picone further teaches a pair of tracks (124) (Col 10, Ln 6; as illustrated in Fig.s 1 A, 1 D) formed within an interior of the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1 A), on opposing sides of the chute, allowing the mechanism supported by the tracks to slide within the chute.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device as disclosed by Romanovich, to include a pair of tracks formed within an interior of the chute, on opposing sides of the chute, as taught by Picone, allowing the mechanism supported by the tracks to slide within the chute.
Romanovich further discloses a shredding mechanism (17) (Para [0022], Ln 4; as illustrated in at least Fig 2). Romanovich is silent to the shredding mechanism slidable within the pair of tracks.
Picone teaches the shredding mechanism slidable within the pair of tracks (Col 10, Ln 8-10), wherein opposing ends of the shredding mechanism slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, the pair of tracks positioning the shredding mechanism within the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1 A). Picone is not explicit to allowing the shredding mechanism to slide in and out of the pair of tracks and the housing for use and cleaning, however nothing in the disclosure prevents such action.
Picone further teaches a pair of cutting devices (25), (27) (Para [0040], Ln 5; as illustrated in at least Fig 2), wherein opposing ends of each of the pair of cutting devices slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, slidable within the pair of tracks within the chute (Col 10, Ln 8-10; as illustrated in Fig 1 A), the pair of tracks aligning the pair of cutting devices to be parallel with each other within the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1A).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone, to include the tracks, formed within the interior of the chute allowing movement of the shredding mechanism and the cutting devices and positioning them parallel to each other within the chute, in order to promote smooth cutting action and prevent poor performance, by providing for cleaning.
Romanovich further discloses the shredding mechanism comprises a heating element (Para [0053], Ln 25-27) positioned within each of a pair of cutting devices (25), (27) (Para [0040], Ln 5). Romanovich is silent to temperature sensors positioned within each of the pair of cutting devices.
O'Rourke teaches a paper shredder, a related art. O'Rourke further teaches temperature sensors within the paper shredder (180) (Para [0031], Ln 1-2), included in order to provide accurate temperature readings to a temperature controller (190) (Para [0031], Ln 11 ).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone, to include temperature sensors positioned within each of the pair of cutting devices, in order to provide accurate temperature readings to a temperature controller.
Romanovich further discloses a feeding mechanism (102) (Para [0035], Ln 3).
Romanovich is silent to a pair of feeding members. Schwelling teaches a similar grinding/shredding device (Para [0001], Ln 1). Schwelling further teaches a pair of feeding members (140), (150), an individual feeding member positioned above a corresponding cutting device of the pair of cutting devices (120), (130) (Para [0034-0036]; as illustrated in at least Fig 5), each individual feeding member comprising: a carriage (141), (151) and a plurality of feeding blades positioned on the carriage (143), (153) (as illustrated in at least Fig 5), wherein movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices (Para [0036], Ln 2-12). Schwelling further teaches the advantage of the individual elements in that they allow for consistent material feeding without jamming (Para [0036], Ln 2-12).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke, to include a pair of feeding members, an individual feeding member positioned above a corresponding cutting device of the pair of cutting devices, each individual feeding member comprising: a carriage, and a plurality of feeding blades positioned on the carriage, as taught by Schwelling, in order to allow for consistent material feeding without jamming.
Romanovich further discloses the feeding mechanism (102) (Para [0035], Ln 3-6) comprises a feeding member, feeding member comprising a carriage (102) and a plurality of feeding blades (104) positioned on the carriage (as illustrated in Fig 11). Romanovich is not explicit to more than one feeding mechanism, however the number of such elements would be the result of routine engineering and experimentation, since Romanovich discloses the feeding mechanism cooperates with the cutting elements (Para [0035], Ln 5), more than one such feeding mechanism could be provided, each to cooperate with its respective cutting element.
Romanovich is further not explicit to each individual feeding member having opposing ends which slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, however Romanovich discloses the feeding member being carriage mounted, and combined Romanovich/Picone teaches the cutting members sliding within the pair of tracks. A skilled Artisan would recognize that a sliding pair of cutting elements, fed by carriage mounted feeding elements would enhance to operation of the shredder, by combining the action of the feeding and cutting mechanisms.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling, to include a pair of feeding mechanisms, in order to provide more complete disintegration of the material to be ground by the device and further to supply the sliding cutting elements by means of complementary sliding feeding elements, in order to enhance to operation of the shredder.
Romanovich is further not explicit to movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices. Summers teaches a grinding device (Col 1, Ln 10-12; as illustrated in at least Fig 2). Summers further teaches the feed mechanism (20) mounted above the cutting mechanism (26) (Fig 1) so as to be movable over the cutting mechanism. Summers further teaches fixed feeding elements (48) (Col 3, Ln 76-11) which serve to guide material away from the cutting elements. The claim of the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices has been interpreted as intended use an not a structural limitation. The apparatus of Summers, namely elements (26) and (48) being inverted would serve exactly the same function as the claimed apparatus, without any modification other than position. A skilled Artisan, possessing the grinding apparatus of Romanovich and of Summers, would readily observe that material being guided in one direction relative to the cutting elements, would also be guided in the other, provided the design of the guides, as is taught by Summers, facilitated this use.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling, to include movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices, as taught by Summers, in order to completely guide material to be shredded into the cutting elements.
Regarding Claim 4, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich is silent to a heating controller coupled to the heating element, however, as stated above, O'Rourke teaches the controller.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke, to include a heating controller coupled to the heating element, as taught by O'Rourke, to provide for control of the heating elements within each of the pair of cutting devices.
Regarding Claim 5, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich further discloses the pair of cutting devices are positioned across and within the chute, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 6, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich further discloses each of the pair of cutting devices comprises a hollow tube member (Para [0040], Ln 13) and a plurality of cutting blades positioned on the hollow tube member (Para [0022], Ln 4-5).
Regarding Claim 9, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich further discloses a motor (13) coupled to the shredding mechanism (Para [0033] Ln 2-3); a pair of sprocket members [54], [56] coupled to the motor and the shredding mechanism (Para [0032) Ln 1-4); a chain [52] (Para [0032], Ln 6) coupled to the motor and the pair of sprocket members (as illustrated in at least Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Romanovich discloses a grinding device (Para [0002], Ln 1-3) comprising:
a housing (comprised of [11], [14]; as illustrated in Fig 1);
a chute (38) formed through the housing (as illustrated in Fig 1 );
Romanovich discloses a pair of tracks formed within an interior of the chute (as illustrated in FIG EX-1), however Romanovich is silent to tracks on opposing sides of the chute.
Picone teaches a grinding device (104) (col 6, Ln 57; as illustrated in Fig 1) for destroying material, a related art. Picone further teaches a pair of tracks (124) (Col 10, Ln 6; as illustrated in Fig.s 1 A, 1 D) formed within an interior of the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1 A), on opposing sides of the chute, allowing the mechanism supported by the tracks to slide within the chute.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device as disclosed by Romanovich, to include a pair of tracks formed within an interior of the chute, on opposing sides of the chute, as taught by Picone, allowing the mechanism supported by the tracks to slide within the chute.
Romanovich further discloses a shredding mechanism (17) (Para [0022], Ln 4; as illustrated in at least Fig 2). Romanovich is silent to the shredding mechanism slidable within the pair of tracks.
Picone teaches the shredding mechanism slidable within the pair of tracks (Col 10, Ln 8-10), wherein opposing ends of the shredding mechanism slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, the pair of tracks positioning the shredding mechanism within the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1 A). Picone is not explicit to allowing the shredding mechanism to slide in and out of the pair of tracks and the housing for use and cleaning, however nothing in the disclosure prevents such action.
Picone further teaches a pair of cutting devices (25), (27) (Para [0040], Ln 5; as illustrated in at least Fig 2), wherein opposing ends of each of the pair of cutting devices slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, and positioned across and within the chute, the pair of tracks positioning the shredding mechanism within the chute, the pair of tracks aligning the pair of cutting devices to be parallel with each other within the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1A).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone, to include the tracks, formed within the interior of the chute allowing movement of the shredding mechanism and the cutting devices and positioning them parallel to each other within the chute, in order to promote smooth cutting action and prevent poor performance, by providing for cleaning.
Romanovich further discloses a hollow tube member ( Para [0040], Ln 13), and a plurality of cutting blades positioned on the hollow tube member (Para [0022], Ln 4-5);
a heating element positioned within the hollow tube member of each of the pair of cutting devices (Para [0053], Ln 25-27),
a feeding mechanism (102) (Para [0035], Ln 3) positioned above the pair of cutting devices (as illustrated in Fig 11 ).
Romanovich is silent to temperature sensors positioned within each of the pair of cutting devices.
O'Rourke teaches a paper shredder, a related art. O'Rourke further teaches a temperature sensor (180) (Para [0031], Ln 1-2), included in order to provide accurate temperature readings to a temperature controller ( 190) ( Para [0031], Ln 11 ) .
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone, to include temperature sensors positioned within each of the pair of cutting devices, in order to provide accurate temperature readings to a temperature controller.
Romanovich is silent to a pair of feeding members. Schwelling teaches a grinding device (Para [0001], Ln 1 ). Schwelling further teaches a pair of feeding members (140), (150), an individual feeding member positioned above a corresponding cutting device of the pair of cutting devices (120), (130) (Para [0034-0036]; as illustrated in at least Fig 5), each individual feeding member comprising: a carriage (141), (151) and a plurality of feeding blades positioned on the carriage (143), (153) (as illustrated in at least Fig 5), wherein movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices (Para [0036], Ln 2-12). Schwelling further teaches the advantage of the individual elements in that they allow for consistent material feeding without jamming ( Para [0036], Ln 2-12).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke, to include a pair of feeding members, an individual feeding member positioned above a corresponding cutting device of the pair of cutting devices, each individual feeding member comprising: a carriage, and a plurality of feeding blades positioned on the carriage, as taught by Schwelling, in order to allow for consistent material feeding without jamming.
Romanovich further discloses the feeding mechanism (102) (Para [0035], Ln 3-6) comprises a feeding member, feeding member comprising a carriage (102) and a plurality of feeding blades (104) positioned on the carriage (as illustrated in Fig 11 ). Romanovich is not explicit to more than one feeding mechanism, however the number of such elements would be the result of routine engineering and experimentation, since Romanovich discloses the feeding mechanism cooperates with the cutting elements (Para [0035], Ln 5), more than one such feeding mechanism could be provided, each to cooperate with its respective cutting element.
Romanovich is further not explicit to each individual feeding member having opposing ends which slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, however Romanovich discloses the feeding member being carriage mounted, and combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling teaches the cutting members sliding within the pair of tracks. A skilled Artisan would recognize that a sliding pair of cutting elements, fed by carriage mounted feeding elements would enhance to operation of the shredder, by combining the action of the feeding and cutting mechanisms.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling, to include a pair of feeding mechanisms, in order to provide more complete disintegration of the material to be ground by the device and further to supply the sliding cutting elements by means of complementary sliding feeding elements, in order to enhance to operation of the shredder.
Romanovich is further not explicit to movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices. Summers teaches a grinding device (Col 1, Ln 10-12; as illustrated in at least Fig 2). Summers further teaches the feed mechanism (20) mounted above the cutting mechanism (26) (Fig 1) so as to be movable over the cutting mechanism. Summers further teaches fixed feeding elements (48) (Col 3, Ln 76-11) which serve to guide material away from the cutting elements. The claim of the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices has been interpreted as intended use an not a structural limitation. The apparatus of Summers, namely elements (26) and (48) being inverted would serve exactly the same function as the claimed apparatus, without any modification other than position. A skilled Artisan, possessing the grinding apparatus of Romanovich and of Summers, would readily observe that material being guided in one direction relative to the cutting elements, would also be guided in the other, provided the design of the guides, as is taught by Summers, facilitated this use.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling, to include movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices, as taught by Summers, in order to completely guide material to be shredded into the cutting elements.
Regarding Claim 13, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich is silent to a heating controller coupled to the heating element, however, as stated above, O'Rourke teaches the controller.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke, to include a heating controller coupled to the heating element, as taught by O'Rourke, to provide for control of the heating elements within each of the pair of cutting devices.
Regarding Claim 16, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich further discloses a motor (13) coupled to the shredding mechanism (Para [0033] Ln 2-3); a pair of sprocket members [54], [56] coupled to the motor and the shredding mechanism (Para [0032) Ln 1-4); a chain [52] (Para [0032], Ln 6) coupled to the motor and the pair of sprocket members (as illustrated in at least Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Romanovich discloses a grinding device (Para [0002], Ln 1-3) comprising:
a housing (comprised of [11], [14]; as illustrated in Fig 1);
a chute (38) formed through the housing (as illustrated in Fig 1 );
Romanovich discloses a pair of tracks formed within an interior of the chute (as illustrated in FIG EX-1 ), however Romanovich is silent to tracks on opposing sides of the chute.
Picone teaches a grinding device (104) (col 6, Ln 57; as illustrated in Fig 1) for destroying material, a related art. Picone further teaches a pair of tracks (124) (Col 10, Ln 6; as illustrated in Fig.s 1 A, 1 D) formed within an interior of the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1 A), on opposing sides of the chute, allowing the mechanism supported by the tracks to slide within the chute.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device as disclosed by Romanovich, to include a pair of tracks formed within an interior of the chute, on opposing sides of the chute, as taught by Picone, allowing the mechanism supported by the tracks to slide within the chute.
Romanovich further discloses a shredding mechanism (17) (Para [0022], Ln 4; as illustrated in at least Fig 2). Romanovich is silent to the shredding mechanism slidable within the pair of tracks.
Picone teaches the shredding mechanism slidable within the pair of tracks (Col 10, Ln 8-10), wherein opposing ends of the shredding mechanism slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, the pair of tracks positioning the shredding mechanism within the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1 A). Picone is not explicit to allowing the shredding mechanism to slide in and out of the pair of tracks and the housing for use and cleaning, however nothing in the disclosure prevents such action.
Picone further teaches a pair of cutting devices (25), (27) (Para [0040], Ln 5; as illustrated in at least Fig 2), wherein opposing ends of each of the pair of cutting devices slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, and positioned across and within the chute, the pair of tracks positioning the shredding mechanism within the chute, the pair of tracks aligning the pair of cutting devices to be parallel with each other within the chute (as illustrated in Fig 1A).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device as disclosed by Romanovich, to include the tracks, formed within the interior of the chute allowing movement of the shredding mechanism and the cutting devices and positioning them parallel to each other within the chute, in order to promote smooth cutting action and prevent poor performance, by providing for cleaning.
Romanovich further discloses a hollow tube member ( Para [0040], Ln 13), and a plurality of cutting blades positioned on the hollow tube member (Para [0022], Ln 4-5);
Romanovich further discloses a feeding mechanism (102) (Para [0035], Ln 3).
Romanovich is silent to a pair of feeding members. Schwelling teaches a similar grinding/shredding device (Para [0001], Ln 1). Schwelling further teaches a pair of feeding members (140), (150).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone, to include a pair of feeding mechanisms, as taught by Schwelling, in order to provide more complete disintegration of the material to be ground by the device.
Romanovich is not explicit to opposing ends of the feeding mechanism which slide within a corresponding track of the pair of tracks, however Romanovich discloses the feeding member being carriage mounted, and combined Romanovich/Picone teaches the cutting members sliding within the pair of tracks. A skilled Artisan would recognize that a sliding pair of cutting elements, fed by carriage mounted feeding elements would enhance to operation of the shredder, by combining the action of the feeding and cutting mechanisms.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/Schwelling, to include the sliding cutting elements by means of complementary sliding feeding elements, in order to enhance to operation of the shredder.
Romanovich is further not explicit to an individual feeding member positioned above a corresponding cutting device of the pair of cutting devices.
Schwelling teaches an individual feeding member positioned above a corresponding cutting device of the pair of cutting devices (120), (130) (Para [0034-0036]; as illustrated in at least Fig 5), each individual feeding member comprising: a carriage (141), (151) and a plurality of feeding blades positioned on the carriage (143), (153) (as illustrated in at least Fig 5), wherein movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices (Para [0036], Ln 2-12). Schwelling further teaches the advantage of the individual elements in that they allow for consistent material feeding without jamming (Para [0036], Ln 2-12).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/Schwelling, to include a pair of feeding members, an individual feeding member positioned above a corresponding cutting device of the pair of cutting devices, each individual feeding member comprising: a carriage, and a plurality of feeding blades positioned on the carriage, as taught by Schwelling, in order to allow for consistent material feeding without jamming.
Romanovich is further not explicit to movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices. Summers teaches a grinding device (Col 1, Ln 10-12; as illustrated in at least Fig 2). Summers further teaches the feed mechanism (20) mounted above the cutting mechanism (26) (Fig 1) so as to be movable over the cutting mechanism. Summers further teaches fixed feeding elements (48) (Col 3, Ln 76-11) which serve to guide material away from the cutting elements. The claim of the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices has been interpreted as intended use an not a structural limitation. The apparatus of Summers, namely elements (26) and (48) being inverted would serve exactly the same function as the claimed apparatus, without any modification other than position. A skilled Artisan, possessing the grinding apparatus of Romanovich and of Summers, would readily observe that material being guided in one direction relative to the cutting elements, would also be guided in the other, provided the design of the guides, as is taught by Summers, facilitated this use.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/Schwelling, to include movement of the carriage causing the plurality of fixed blades to move contents towards the pair of cutting devices, as taught by Summers, in order to completely guide material to be shredded into the cutting elements.
Romanovich further discloses the shredding mechanism comprises a heating element (Para [0053], Ln 25-27) positioned within each of a pair of cutting devices (25), (27) (Para [0040], Ln 5). Romanovich is silent to temperature sensors positioned within each of the pair of cutting devices.
O'Rourke teaches a paper shredder, a related art. O'Rourke further teaches temperature sensors within the paper shredder (180) (Para [0031], Ln 1-2), included in order to provide accurate temperature readings to a temperature controller (190) (Para [0031], Ln 11 ).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/Schwelling/Summers, to include temperature sensors positioned within each of the pair of cutting devices, in order to provide accurate temperature readings to a temperature controller.
Claims 7, 14 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanovich, in view of Picone, O'Rourke, Schwelling, Summers, and Jenni, et alia (US 2008/0208234).
Regarding Claims 7, 14 & 19, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich is not explicit to a rotary joint coupled to one end of each of the pair of cutting devices, however such a joint must logically exist, because the motor turns the cutting devices.
Jenni teaches a drive for a shredding device (Para [0001], Ln 1-2). Jenni further teaches a rotary joint (18) (Para [0028], Ln 1-7) coupled to one end of the cutting device ( Para [0027], Ln 1 -5).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers, to include a rotary joint, coupled to one end of each of the cutting devices, in order to connect them to the drive element.
Claims 10, 17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanovich, in view of Picone, O'Rourke, Schwelling, Summers, and Titmas, et alia (US 4,985,976), hereinafter Titmas.
Regarding Claims 10, 17 & 20, combined Romanovich/Picone/O'Rourke/Schwelling/Summers teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Romanovich is silent to a hopper.
Titmas teaches a shredding device. Titmas further teaches a hopper attached to the housing above the chute.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding device, as taught by combined Romanovich/Picone/Schwelling/Summers/O'Rourke, to include a hopper, as taught by Titmas, in order to guide the material into the grinding device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
5,645,233 Chen teaches a shredding device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on (571) 270-3818. 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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724