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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated September 11, 2025 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated June 25, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection in the Non-final Rejection is maintained as explained below.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 rejection in the Non-final Rejection is maintained for the reasons given below.
Response to Arguments
On page 2 of the Amendment, in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection in the previous Non-final Rejection, Applicant asserts page 12 of the specification fully supports claim 12 by quoting an excerpt of page 12 without further explanation as to how the cited excerpt, or any other portion of the specification, provides support for the new matter identified in numbered paragraph 9 on page 3 of the Non-final Rejection. Therefore, Examiner does not find the assertion persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is made final.
Next, at the bottom of page 3, Applicant argues the grinder according to Sackett (U.S. Patent No. 3,044,718) is specifically designed for grinding phosphatic rock, not for a mixture of fragile materials and plastic. Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s cited claim recitation is an intended use recitation contained within the preamble of claim 3 such that it is not considered a limitation for claim construction. See M.P.E.P. §2111.02,II.
Then, starting at the top of page 4, Applicant argues grid 21 of Sackett are configured to grind material not stop it. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant is correct in arguing grid 21 is configured to grind the material, the material must be stopped from exiting the drum in order to be ground. That is, grid 21 stops material from exiting the drum so that it may be ground.
Next, starting at the bottom of page 4, Applicant argues Examiner’s rejection of the last limitation clause of claim 3 is incorrect because the size of the gap between the peripheral rotational path of hammers 30 and grid structure 21 in Fig. 1 is smaller than hole 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As was pointed out in the rejection, the size of the gap “is greater than at least the diameter of holes 19 and 20 in the upper portion of wall sections 15 and 17”. Emphasis added. That is, the size of holes 19 and 20 in the upper portion of walls 15 and 17 are smaller than the size of holes 19 and 20 in the lower portion of the walls. The gap is larger than the diameter size of the smaller holes in the upper section of the walls.
Then, starting in the paragraph spanning from page 7 to 8, Applicant argues Tokyo (Netherlands Patent Publication Document No. NL 8100817 A) grinds the material between hammers 34 and screen 27a such that the external sifter is not a stopping element for the material. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Screen 27a may reasonably be interpreted as a stop element in that screen 27a stops some of the material from exiting the drum so that it may be ground.
Next, in the bottom half of page 9, Applicant’s rebuttal to Examiner’s explanation in numbered paragraph 15 on page 6 of the Non-final Rejection is moot in view of Examiner’s explanations above.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 is presented twice in the listing of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 includes the limitation “wherein actuator elements (6) and stop elements (12) each having a rounded shaped with a radius of the same dimension order as the minimum distance between the actuator elements (6) and stop elements (12).” The radius dimension of a rounded shape of stop elements (12) and the relationship of that radius dimension with the minimum distance between actuator elements (6) and stop elements (12) is not disclosed in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. While the third and fourth full paragraphs on page 12 of the written description do describe the relationship between the connection radius R of actuator elements (6) and the length of the free space between actuator elements (6) and stop elements (12), no such specification is provided for stop elements (12). The third full paragraph of page 12 merely describes stop elements (12) as “not having sharp edges.” Therefore, the limitation contains new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the stop means (12)" in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the recitation as “the stop elements (12)” to provide sufficient antecedent basis.
The term “not sharp” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “not sharp” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The shape of stop means (12) is therefore indefinite. Examiner will interpret “stop means (12) which have not sharp edges” as stop means (12) have edges which come to points where the angle between the surfaces of the points is greater than 90 degrees.
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 1,821,912 to Pfeiffer, hereinafter “Pfeiffer”.
Regarding claim 3, Pfeiffer discloses a device for grinding heterogeneous materials comprising both frangible materials and plastic materials (pulverizing mill device in Figs. 1-4; p. 1, l. 87-97), said device comprising:
- a holed drum (1) provided with holes (11) on its outer surface (Fig. 3 shows a drum provided with holed screen 12; p. 2, l. 9-19);
- a central rotating shaft (7) positioned inside the holed drum (1) (rotating shaft rod 18 in Fig. 3 is positioned inside the drum as shown; p. 2, l. 19-23);
- a plurality of actuator elements (6) positioned inside said holed drum (1), fastened by flexible elements (61) to said central rotating shaft (7) (plurality of actuator element hammers 19 are positioned inside the holed drum shown in Fig. 3 fastened by flexible element pivot pins 59 to shaft rod 18 via tool holders 17; p. 2, l. 19-26 and p. 3, l. 98-106),
and wherein
said holed drum (1) comprises also, on its inner surface, a plurality of stop elements (12), configured to stop a material projected against said stop elements (12) (stop element conical bosses 56 in Fig. 3 are configured to stop material projected against them so the material may be broken; p. 3, l. 87-97), wherein said material are projected by said actuator elements (6) to an outer region with respect to a volume affected by a movement of said actuator elements (6) (material is projected by actuator hammers 19 to the outer region of the drum chamber where conical bosses 56 reside),
said stop elements (12) being configured to cause, during a grinding step, the stopping of material, in an outer region of said holed drum (1), not affected by rotation of said flexible elements (61) nor of said actuator elements (6) (stop element conical bosses 56 stop material in an outer region of the drum chamber not affected by rotation of flexible element pivot pins 59 nor actuator hammers 19);
and wherein
said actuator elements (6) and said stop elements (12) being configured such that they do not reach, during a grinding process, mutual distances equal or lower than the dimension of a maximum particle size allowed for a grinded material discharge; said size is defined by a diameter (D) of said holes (11) provided on the outer surface of said holed drum (1) (the distance between actuator hammers 19 and stop conical bosses 56 is larger than the diameter of the holes of screen 12 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Pfeiffer anticipates the device according to claim 3 as explained above. Pfeiffer further discloses said actuator elements (6) have a section of rounded shape in the portion facing the stop means (12) (rectangular head 61 of actuator hammer 19 in Fig. 10 is shown with a rounded top face which would face stop element conical bosses 56) which have not sharp edges (stop element conical bosses 56 are shown as truncated cones such that they do not have sharp edges).
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 3-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,044,718 to Sackett, hereinafter “Sackett”, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sackett in view of Netherlands Patent Publication Document No. NL 8100817 A by Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Tokyo, hereinafter “Tokyo Agency Publication”. Translation accompanies this Action.
Regarding claim 3, Sackett discloses a device for grinding heterogeneous materials comprising both frangible materials and plastic materials (the grind device chain hammer mill shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 1, line 50-55), said device comprising:
- a holed drum provided with holes on its outer surface (wall sections 15-17 and grid structure 21 in Fig. 1 with holes 19 and 20; col. 2, line 31-43);
- a central rotating shaft positioned inside the holed drum (rotary shaft 1 in Fig. 1; col. 2, line 16);
- a plurality of actuator elements positioned inside said holed drum, fastened by flexible elements to said central rotating shaft (actuator element hammers 30 in Fig. 1 fastened by flexible element chain 27 to shaft 1; col. 2, line 54-67),
and wherein
said holed drum comprises also, on its inner surface, a plurality of stop elements, configured to stop a material projected against said stop elements, wherein said material are projected by said actuator elements to an outer region with respect to a volume affected by a movement of said actuator elements (grid structure 21 in Fig. 1 is shown with stop elements protruding inwardly toward the center of the drum which stop material projected against it by hammers 30),
said stop elements being configured to cause, during a grinding step, the stopping of material, in an outer region of said holed drum, not affected by rotation of said flexible elements nor of said actuator elements (stop element grid structure 21 in Fig. 1 stops material from exiting the drum); and wherein
said actuator elements and said stop elements being configured such that they do not reach, during a grinding process, mutual distances equal or lower than the dimension of a maximum particle size allowed for a grinded material discharge; said size is defined by a diameter (D) of said holes provided on the outer surface of said holed drum (the gap between the peripheral rotational path of hammers 30, shown as the segmented line circle in Fig. 1, and wall sections 15 and 17 of the drum is greater than at least the diameter of holes 19 and 20 in the upper portion of wall sections 15 and 17).
Alternatively, regarding the last limitation clause of claim 3, in the same field of hammer mills, the Tokyo Agency Publication teaches it is known to set gap C1 in Fig. 1 between impact members 33 and screen 27a to be larger than 70% of the mesh size of screen 27a (see the inequalities shown on page 4 of the Tokyo Agency Publication) which would include making gap C1 larger than the diameter of the holes in screen 27a.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Sackett’s gap larger than the holes in the wall sections in the same way the Tokyo Agency Publication teaches making the gap larger than the holes in the screen. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of the Tokyo Agency Publication to Sackett’s device would achieve the predictable result of Sackett’s device where the grinding gap is larger than the holes in the surrounding drum.
Regarding claim 4, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 3 as explained above. However, Sackett does not disclose wherein said actuator elements (6) are configured to be kept, during their rotation around said shaft (7) at a minimum distance from said stop elements (12) higher than three times the diameter of said holes (11) provided on said holed drum (1).
The Tokyo Agency Publication teaches it is known to set gap C1 in Fig. 1 between impact members 33 and screen 27a to be larger than 70% of the mesh size of screen 27a (see the inequalities shown on page 4 of the Tokyo Agency Publication) which would include making gap C1 at a minimum of three times larger than the diameter of the holes in screen 27a. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of the Tokyo Agency Publication to Sackett’s hammer mill by sizing the gap of Sackett’s hammer mill to be at least three times the size of the holes in Sackett’s drum when the mill is setup to grind larger heterogenous starting material achieving the predictable result of Sackett’s mill with a minimum gap of three times the drum hole size.
Regarding claim 5, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 3 as explained above. Sackett further discloses wherein said actuator elements (6) are configured so that, their cumulated axial dimensions take up substantially a whole axial size of the device (Fig. 2 shows actuator element hammers 30 taking up substantially the whole axial size of the mill).
Regarding claim 6, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 5 as explained above. Sackett further discloses wherein, in an axial direction, a clear span between adjacent actuator elements (6) is lower than the clear span between adjacent flexible elements (61) (the clear span between adjacent actuator element hammers 30 in Fig. 2 is shown as being less than the clear span between adjacent chains 27).
Regarding claim 7, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 6 as explained above. Sackett further discloses wherein said clear span between adjacent actuator elements (6) is lower than three times the diameter (D) of said holes (11) on said holed drum (1) (Fig. 2 shows the clear span between adjacent actuator element hammers 30 is less than three times the diameter of hole through openings 19).
Regarding claim 8, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 7 as explained above. Sackett further discloses wherein said clear span between adjacent actuator elements (6) is lower than the diameter (D) of said holes (11) on the holed drum (1) (Fig. 2 shows the clear span between adjacent actuator element hammers 30 is less than the diameter of hole through openings 19).
Regarding claim 9, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 8 as explained above. Sackett further discloses wherein said flexible elements (61) comprise metal cables or chains (flexible element chains 27 in Fig. 1 are comprised of chains).
Regarding claim 10, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 3 as explained above. Sackett further discloses comprising:
- an outer case (2) enclosing said holed drum (1), so that said holes (11) put the inside of said holed drum (1) in communication with a space contained between the same and the outer case (2) (wall sections 5, 6 and 7 in Fig. 1 enclose drum walls 15, 17 and 21 so that holes 19 and 20 are in communication with the space between them as shown in Fig. 1);
- a charging hopper (3) configured to allow an introduction of material to be grounded inside said holed drum (1) (charging hopper chute 12 in Fig. 1; col. 1, line 23);
- a discharge mouth (4) configured to allow an expulsion of the material from the space comprised between said holed drum (1) and said outer case (2) (Fig. 3 shows a discharge mouth below the mill’s drum).
Regarding claim 11, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 3 as explained above. Sackett further discloses wherein said actuator elements (6) fastened to said rotating shaft (7) are arranged aligned in a plurality of rows, said rows being arranged angularly at equal distance (Fig. 1 shows actuator element hammers 30 fastened to rotating shaft 1 angularly arranged and aligned in a plurality of rows at equal distances apart).
Regarding claim 13, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 3 as explained above. Sackett further discloses wherein said actuator elements (6) are arranged aligned on multiple rows, arranged angularly at equal distance. Fig. 2 of Sackett shows actuator element hammers 30 are arranged aligned in multiple rows, with Fig. 1 showing the rows are arranged at equal distances.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sackett in view of Great Britian Patent Publication No. GB 25,346 by Quenner, hereinafter “Quenner”.
Regarding claim 14, Sackett anticipates or renders unpatentable the device of claim 3 as explained above. However, Sackett does not disclose actuator element hammers 30 are arranged according to an helicoidal pattern.
In the same field of hammer mills, Quenner teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the mill’s hammers according to an helicoidal pattern to effect travel of material within the mill. See Fig. 4 where the dashed line indicates the helicoidal pattern arrangement of hammers P and Fig. 6. See page 3, line 37-45.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Sackett’s actuator hammers 30 in an helicoidal pattern to effect travel of material with the mill drum in the same way Quenner teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Quenner to the device of Sackett would achieve the predictable result of Sackett’s device with helicoidally arranged hammers as Quenner teaches.
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725