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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevie (5,271,568)
Regarding claim 34, Stevie shows a broadcast spreader for spreading granular material (fig 1), the broadcast spreader comprising: a frame (8); a hopper (1) supported by the frame and configured to hold the granular material; a spinner (7) supported by the frame, the spinner being configured to turn about a spinning axis for spreading the granular material from the hopper while the broadcast spreader is being carried by a user; a material feeder (13) supported by the frame and configured to feed the granular material from the hopper to the spinner, the material feeder including a feed gate (70); and a feed rate actuator (72 and 66 make up the feed rate actuator) supported by the frame, the feed rate actuator configured to move the feed gate if the material feeder to change a rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner, wherein the feed rate actuator is a dial (element 66 includes element 72 which is a dial that is moved by the thumb) arranged on an exterior of the broadcast spreader (fig 6), the dial configured to be rotated by the user about an actuation axis different from the spinning axis to change the rate at which granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner (fig 6), wherein the actuation axis extends through the dial (fig 6) ; the broadcast spreader being configured to be carried by the user while spreading the granular material, (fig 1, 6)
Claim(s) 34, 40 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (2017/0049042)
Regarding claim 34, Hsu et al shows a broadcast spreader for spreading granular material (10), the broadcast spreader comprising: a frame (fig 1); a hopper (12) supported by the frame and configured to hold the granular material; a spinner (26) supported by the frame, the spinner being configured to turn about a spinning axis for spreading the granular material from the hopper while the broadcast spreader is being carried by a user; a material feeder (56) supported by the frame and configured to feed the granular material from the hopper to the spinner, the material feeder including a feed gate (58); and a feed rate actuator (22) supported by the frame, the feed rate actuator configured to move the feed gate of the material feeder to change a rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner, wherein the feed rate actuator is a dial (fig 1) arranged on an exterior of the broadcast spreader (fig 1,6), the dial configured to be rotated by the user about an actuation axis different from the spinning axis to change the rate at which granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner (fig 1, 6), wherein the actuation axis extends through the dial (fig 1, 6) ; the broadcast spreader being configured to be carried by the user while spreading the granular material, (fig 1, 6)
Regarding claim 40, wherein the dial has a cylindrical surface configured to be gripped by the user to rotate the dial about the actuation axis (fig 1).
Regarding claim 41, wherein the dial is mounted on a shaft (the inner center part of 22 is a shaft, fig 6c) that extends along the actuation axis, and rotation of the dial rotates the shaft to move the feed gate of the material feeder.
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) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevie (5,271,568)
Regarding claim 35, Stevie shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 34, including a set of indicia on the dial and a single indicia on the frame, the dial is rotatable by the user relative to the single indicia on the frame to indicate a corresponding degree of openness of the material feeder for feeding the granular material from the hopper to the spinner
but fails to disclose wherein the frame includes a set of indicia along the exterior of the broadcast spreader.
Stevie does show indicia 49 on a button in a different embodiment (fig 2)
The examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add a set of indicia on the frame, in order to permit the setting of the device to the same position in sequential operation as taught by Stevie (col 3, liens 50-51).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (2017/0049042)
Regarding claim 35, Hsu et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 34, including a set of indicia on the dial and a single indicia on the frame (fig 5b), the dial is rotatable by the user relative to the single indicia on the frame to indicate a corresponding degree of openness of the material feeder for feeding the granular material from the hopper to the spinner
but fails to disclose wherein the frame includes a set of indicia along the exterior of the broadcast spreader.
The examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to put the multiple indicia on the frame and the single indicia on the dial as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 1-8, 21-24, 26, 29, 30, 36, 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevie (5,271,568) in view of Gunzel, Jr. et al. (5,119,993).
Regarding claim 1, Stevie shows a broadcast spreader for spreading granular material (fig 1), the broadcast spreader comprising: a frame (8); a hopper (1) supported by the frame and configured to hold the granular material; a spinner (7) supported by the frame, the spinner being configured to turn about a spinning axis for spreading the granular material from the hopper while the broadcast spreader is being carried by a user; a material feeder (13) supported by the frame and configured to feed the granular material from the hopper to the spinner, the material feeder including a feed gate (70); and a feed rate actuator (72) supported by the frame and arraigned on an exterior of the broadcast spreader to be accessible to the user (fig 6), the feed rate actuator configured to be manually rotated by the user (72is a rotatable dial) move the feed gate to change a rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner by, the feed rate actuator being rotatable about an actuation axis different from the spinning axis (fig 6), the broadcast spreader being configured to be carried by the user while spreading the granular material (fig 6,
But fails to disclose that the feed gate rotates about an axis.
Gunzel, Jr. et al. shows a spreader that includes a rotatable feed gate (210), the feed gate including at least one opening therethrough (216). The feed gate is linear actuated by slide 340.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the rotatable feed of Gunzel, Jr. et al. that is rotated by a linear slide, in place of the sliding feed gate of Stevie in order to reduce the force required to operate the feed gate.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a driver (340 of Gunzel) operably connecting the feed rate actuator to the material feeder for adjusting the material feeder to change the rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the driver comprises at least a first gear (Gunzel 250a or 214).
Regarding claim 4 wherein the driver comprises a second gear (350b, 350a or 340) in mesh with the first gear and rotatable responsive to rotation of the first gear.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the driver includes a rack (340 or 214) in mesh with the second gear.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the material feeder includes a feed gate (210) movable to adjust the material feeder to change the rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner, the rack being operatively connected to the feed gate (fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the rack is movable conjointly with the feed gate (fig 3).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 including wherein the spinner is configured to spread the granular material away from a front side of the spreader (fig 1),
but fails to disclose and the feed rate actuator is located on a first lateral side of the spreader.
However, the examiner notes that since no criticality is provided for the feed rate actuator being on the lateral side of the spreader.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the feed rate actuator be located on a first lateral side of the spreader as an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that having it there solves any stated problem of is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the feed rate actuator be located on a first lateral side of the spreader
Regarding claim 21, wherein the material feeder includes an opening (216, Gunzel) through which the granular material flows as the granular material flows toward the spinner , the feed rate actuator configured to adjust a size of the opening to change the rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner.
Regarding claim 22, wherein the material feeder includes a material flow restrictor (13, Stevie) and the feed gate (210, Gunzel), the feed rate actuator configured to rotate the feed gate relative to the material flow restrictor to adjust the size of the opening to change the rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner.
Regarding claim 23, wherein the feed gate is rotatable between a closed position and an open position (fig 7 and 8 of Gunzel), wherein in the closed position the feed gate blocks the granular material from being fed to the spinner, and wherein in the open position the feed gate permits the granular material to be fed to the spinner.
Regarding claim 24, wherein the feed gate rotates in a first direction from the closed position toward the open position and rotates in a second direction different from the first direction from the open position toward the closed position (the feed gate of Gunzel rotes in this way).
Regarding claim 26, wherein the opening is a first opening (13, Stevie), wherein the material feeder includes a second opening (216 Gunzel) through which the granular material flows as the granular material flows toward the spinner, the feed rate actuator configured to adjust a size of the second opening to change the rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner (fig 6-9 Gunzel).
Regarding claim 29, wherein the second gear (350B) includes a first set of teeth in mesh with the first gear (214) and a second set of teeth (350a) different than the first set of teeth in mesh with the rack (340).
Regarding claim 30, wherein the material feeder includes an opening (13) through which the granular material flows as the granular material flows from the hopper toward the spinner, the material feeder configured to provide continuous uninterrupted flow of the granular material present in the hopper through the opening toward the spinner (when the gate is open).
Regarding claim 36, Stevie shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 34,
But fails to disclose wherein the material feeder includes a feed gate that defines at least one opening therethrough, wherein rotation of the dial by the user rotates the feed gate between a closed position and at least one open position.
Gunzel, Jr. et al. shows a spreader that includes a rotatable feed gate (210), the feed gate including at least one opening therethrough (216). The feed gate is linear actuated by slide 340.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the rotatable feed gate with a through opening of Gunzel, Jr. et al. that is rotated by a linear slide, in place of the sliding feed gate of Stevie in order to reduce the force required to operate the feed gate.
Regarding claim 37, wherein the actuation axis is nonparallel with the feed gate axis (fig 5).
Regarding claim 39, wherein the feed rate actuator is a dial (fig 6, element 72 is a dial moved by the thumb).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevie (5,271,568) as modified by Gunzel, Jr. et al. (5,119,993), further in view of Pullara Jr. (8,191,804)
Regarding claim 9, Stevie as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 8,
But fails to disclose a motor operatively connected to the spinner for automatically turning the spinner about the spinning axis; a power actuator configured to turn the motor or, the power actuator being movable independent of and relative to the feed gate to turn the motor on.
Pullara Jr. shows a spreader powered by a motor operatively connected to a spinner for automatically turning the spinner about the spinning axis (fig 3); a power actuator (13) configured to turn the motor or, the power actuator being movable independent of and relative to the feed gate (11) to turn the motor on.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the motor and power actuator of Pullara Jr., in the spreader of Stevie as modified above, in order to make the spreader rotate automatically without the need to hand crank it.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the on/off actuator being located on a second lateral side of the spreader opposing the first lateral side as an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that having it there solves any stated problem of is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the on/off actuator being located on a second lateral side of the spreader opposing the first lateral side.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevie (5,271,568) as modified by Gunzel, Jr. et al. (5,119,993) and Pullara Jr. (8,191,804) above, further in view of Sagol et al. (2006/0016918)
Regarding claim 10, Stevie as modified above, shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 9,
But fails to disclose a second actuator arranged on the exterior of the broadcast spreader to be accessible to the user, the second actuator configured to be moved by the user to adjust a speed at which the motor turns the spinner.
Sagol et al. shows a spreader that includes an actuator arranged on the exterior of the broadcast spreader to be accessible to the user, the actuator configured to be moved by the user to adjust a speed at which the motor turns the spinner [0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add the adjustable power switch 24 of Sagol et al. to the spreader of Stevie as modified above, in order to be able to control the power lever of the motor as taught by Sagol et al. [0037].
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevie (5,271,568) as modified by Gunzel, Jr. et al. (5,119,993) above, further in view of Bennie et al. (4,785,976).
Regarding claim 27, Stevie as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 21, but fails to disclose
wherein the feed rate actuator is rotatable about the actuation axis in a first direction to increase the rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner, wherein the material feeder is configured to increase a length of the opening responsive to rotation of the feed rate actuator by a first distance in the first direction and is configured to increase a width of the opening while keeping the length of the opening constant responsive to further rotation of the feed rate actuator in the first direction after the first distance
however, Bennie et al shows a feed gate wherein the feed gate (14) is rotatable about the actuation axis in a first direction to increase the rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner, wherein the material feeder is configured to increase a length of the opening responsive to rotation of the feed rate actuator by a first distance in the first direction (from closed to open) and is configured to increase a width of the opening while keeping the length of the opening constant responsive to further rotation of the feed gate in the first direction after the first distance (fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to shape the feed gate openings and the material feeder similar to that of Bennie et al. in order to better adjust the flow of granular material.
Claim(s) 28, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevie (5,271,568) in view of Pullara Jr. (8,191,804).
Regarding claim 31, Stevie shows a broadcast spreader for spreading granular material (fig 1), the broadcast spreader comprising: a frame (8); a hopper (1) supported by the frame and configured to hold the granular material; a spinner (7) supported by the frame, the spinner being configured to turn about a spinning axis for spreading the granular material from the hopper while the broadcast spreader is being carried by a user; a material feeder (13) supported by the frame and configured to feed the granular material from the hopper to the spinner, the material feeder including a feed gate (70); a feed rate actuator (72) arraigned on the exterior of the broadcast spreader to be assessable to the user, supported by the frame, the feed rate actuator configured to adjust the material feeder to change a rate at which the granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner, the feed rate actuator being rotatable about an actuation axis different from the spinning axis to change the rate at which granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner (fig 6),
But fails to disclose a motor operatively connected to the spinner for automatically turning the spinner about the spinning axis; a speed control actuator arranged on the exterior of the broadcast spreader to be accessible to the user, the speed control actuator discrete from the power actuator and configured to be moved by the user to adjust a speed at which the motor turns the spinner,
Pullara Jr. shows a spreader powered by a motor operatively connected to a spinner for automatically turning the spinner about the spinning axis (fig 3); a speed control actuator (13) arranged on the exterior of the broadcast spreader to be accessible to the user, the actuator configured to be moved by the user to adjust a speed at which the motor turns the spinner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the motor and speed control actuator of Pullara Jr., in the spreader of Stevie, in order to make the spreader rotate automatically without the need to hand crank it.
In the above combination rotation of the feed rate actuator is independent of operation of the motor turning the spinner; and the broadcast spreader being configured to be carried by the user while spreading the granular material.
The above combination still fails to disclose a power actuator arraigned on an exterior of the broadcast spreader to be assessable to the user, the power actuator configured to turn the motor or, the power actuator being movable independent of and relative to the feed gate to turn the motor on.
The examiner notes that on/off switches in electronic device are common for safety reasons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add a power actuator (on on/off switch) arraigned on an exterior of the broadcast spreader to be assessable to the user, the power actuator configured to turn the motor on, in order to prevent the user from accidently hitting the lever 13 and turning on the device unintentionally.
Regarding claim 28, wherein the feed rate actuator configured to be manually rotated by the user about the actuation axis to change the rate at which granular material is fed from the hopper to the spinner (fig 6).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevie (5,271,568) as modified by Pullara Jr. (8,191,804) further in view of Gunzel, Jr. et al. (5,119,993).
Regarding claim 32, Stevie as modified above, shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 31,
But fails to disclose wherein the feed gate that defines at least one opening therethrough, wherein rotation of the dial by the user rotates the feed gate between a closed position and at least one open position.
Gunzel, Jr. et al. shows a spreader that includes a rotatable feed gate (210), the feed gate including at least one opening therethrough (216). The feed gate is linear actuated by slide 340.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the rotatable feed gate with a through opening of Gunzel, Jr. et al. that is rotated by a linear slide, in place of the sliding feed gate of Stevie as modified above, in order to reduce the force required to operate the feed gate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/26/2026 with respect to claim 34 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the modified rejection of claim 34 above indicates that elements 66 and 72 are being considered the feed rate actuator that entire element is also being considered a dial because it can be rotated by ones finger.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the modification of Stevie by Gunzel above is simply substituting a known sliding spreader feed gate for different known rotational spreader feed gate. This both the siding and the rotating feed gates will have the same result of metering the feed flow to the spinner, the difference is one slides and the other rotates. One of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make the above modification since both feed gates are moved by a translating or sliding member.
The examiner stated in the above rejection that the reason for the substitution was the ease of movement of the feed gate. Rotating the feed gate of Gunzel will be substantially easier than siding the feed gate of Stevie due to the use of the gear members to reduce the force.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached on (571) 270-1814. 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights