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
Upon consideration of the amended specification and claims, all previous objections to the disclosure are hereby withdrawn except for the objection to Claim 7 discussed below. However, the amended claim language has introduced new objections to Claims 11 and 16, which are discussed below.
Upon consideration of the amended Claims 1, 7, 11, and 16, all previous rejections thereto under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn. However, the amended claim language of Claim 16 has introduced a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), which is discussed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of the Remarks filed 02/26/2026, regarding Tsuda (for Claim 11) and the combination of Gronholz and Tsuda (for Claim 1) no longer teaching all the limitations of the amended claims, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Tsuda nor Gronholz teach feeding and crushing soil as a processing object, and that the processing objects they do teach—Tsuda teaches crushing waste fluorescent light bulbs and Gronholz teaches crushing slag—will not spread in the claimed manner. While this is true, it is noted that Claims 1 and 11 are both apparatus claims, and thus the soil and the spreading thereof are merely considered to be the intended use of the apparatus and are not positively recited as part of the claimed invention. As long as the disclosed apparatuses of Tsuda and Gronholz are capable of feeding soil such that the soil spreads in the first direction, this limitation of the claim is met. Both of the apparatuses of Tsuda and Gronholz are capable of receiving soil as a processing object, and due to the rotational movement of the impactor in the horizontal plane of Tsuda, if said soil was fed to the apparatus, it would be made to spread at least partially in a first direction in the horizontal plane. Furthermore, it is noted that the term “spread” is not defined in such a way as to preclude the fluorescent bulbs of Tsuda from being able to spread in the first direction, as is required by the amended claims. When the bulbs are fed via slope 7 to crush blade 6 as shown in Figure 6, the glass parts of the bulbs are crushed ([0025] lns 8-9) and the movement of the blades will carry said crushed glass along the first direction, thereby “spreading” the processing object in the first direction.
The rejections of Claims 1 and 11 are therefore maintained.
Regarding Claim 7, which Applicant discusses on page 11 of the Remarks, because it is a method claim the type of processing object, i.e. the soil, must be given patentable weight. Accordingly, the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being unpatentable over Gronholz in view of Tsuda is hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously-cited prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in Claim 7 line 9, “a tip side” should read “the tip side”, as this limitation is already recited in line 7; in Claim 11 line 2, “crushes a soil” should read “crushes soil”; and in Claim 16 line 2, “feeding the impactor” should read “feeding the soil to the impactor” to improve clarity.
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 16 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(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended Claim 16 recites “wherein feeding the soil includes feeding the [soil to the] impactor such that a center of mass of the soil is positioned at the position of the center of percussion.” This does not appear to have support in the original disclosure. The specification states “the raw material soil having a shape symmetrical about the position of the center of percussion of the impact member” (see para. [0028]-[0029]), but does not make any mention of the center of mass of the soil. As there are multiple different kinds of symmetry (e.g. reflectional, rotational, translational, and point symmetry), it cannot be assumed that “a center of mass of the soil is positioned at the position of the center of percussion” is meant to be synonymous with “the raw material soil having a shape symmetrical about the position of the center of percussion of the impact member”. Accordingly, this limitation is considered to be a recitation of new matter, and Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Examiner note: no art has been applied to Claim 16; however, the claim as currently set forth is not deemed allowable and Applicant is required to clarify in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and the protection sought.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuda (JP 5055477). For text citations of Tsuda, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature with the Office action mailed 12/05/2025.
Regarding Claim 11, Tsuda discloses (Figures 1 and 5-6) a rotary crushing apparatus (crusher 1) comprising: an impactor (crushing blade 6) that is connected to a rotating shaft (output shaft of motor 4) and crushes a processing object by means of rotation of the rotating shaft ([0014] lns 1-5); and a feeder (slope 7) that feeds the processing object such that it spreads in a first direction (direction of rotation indicated by arrows in figures; [0025] lns 3-9: when the waste fluorescent tubes are fed to crushing blade 6 in the configuration shown in Figure 6, the glass parts thereof are crushed and carried by the blades along the direction of rotation, i.e. the crushed glass is spread in the first direction) and that feeds the processing object to the impactor via an inlet member (guide plate 22; [0012] ln 6), the feeder and the inlet member being positioned to feed the processing object between a position of a center of gravity of the impactor and a tip located on a side opposite to the rotating shaft (based on Figure 6, it is clear that at least part of the fluorescent tubes, i.e. the processing object, are fed to the impactor between a center of gravity and a tip thereof).
Examiner note: regarding the limitations “crushes soil”, “feeds the soil”, and “such that the soil spreads in a first direction”, it is noted that the soil is the workpiece upon which the claimed rotary crushing works and is therefore not a part of the claimed invention itself. Therefore, these limitations are considered to be recitations of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). As the rotary crushing apparatus disclosed by Tsuda is capable of receiving soil as a workpiece, these limitations of the claim are met.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronholz (US 2020/0129986) in view of Tsuda (JP 5055477). For text citations of Tsuda, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature with the Office action mailed 12/05/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Gronholz discloses (Figures 1-2) a rotary crushing apparatus (device 10) comprising: an impactor (striking tools 20/21/22/23 on chain links 24/25) that is connected to a rotating shaft (rotor shaft 12) that extends in a vertical direction and crushes a processing object by means of rotation of the rotating shaft about the vertical direction ([0031] lns 2-4, [0033] lns 1-6), wherein the impactor has a movement component in a first direction included in a horizontal plane (planes 16/17/18/19) when crushing the processing object ([0032] lns 10-11: the direction of rotation of the striking tools on the rotor shaft is interpreted as the movement component in the first direction); and a feeder (feed-hopper 13) that is positioned to feed the processing object between a center of gravity of the impactor and a tip side of the impactor (based on the configuration showed in Figure 1, it is clear that at least some of the processing objects will be fed between a center of gravity and a tip of the striking tools), wherein the impactor crushes the processing object between the center of gravity of the impactor and the tip side of the impactor ([0033] lns 1-6: the “capture range” of the striking tools is interpreted as an area between the center of gravity and the tip side of the respective striking tools).
Gronholz does not disclose the feeder feeding the processing object such that it spreads in the first direction or that it feeds the processing object to be crushed along the first direction; the feed-hopper 13 appears to be positioned to have the processing objects fall substantially vertically into the rotor chamber 11. In a related field of endeavor, Tsuda teaches (Figures 1 and 5-6) a rotary crushing apparatus (crusher 1) comprising an impactor (crush blade 6) that has a movement component in a first direction (direction of rotation indicated by arrows in figures) included in a horizontal plane when crushing a processing object; and a feeder (slope 7) that feeds the processing object such that it spreads in the first direction ([0025] lns 3-9: when the waste fluorescent tubes are fed to crushing blade 6 in the configuration shown in Figure 6, the glass parts thereof are crushed and carried by the blades along the direction of rotation, i.e. the crushed glass is spread in the first direction), and feeds the processing object to be crushed along the first direction ([0025] lns 1-4), wherein the impactor crushes the processing object between the center of gravity of the impactor and the tip side of the impactor and along the first direction (based on Figure 6, it is clear that at least part of the fluorescent tubes are crushed by the impactor between a center of gravity and a tip thereof). This configuration allows a user to control the crushing force of the impactor without changing the operating conditions of the crushing apparatus in order to accommodate different types of processing objects (see para. [0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary crushing apparatus disclosed by Gronholz by replacing the disclosed feeder configuration with that taught by Tsuda, in which the feeder feeds the processing object such that the processing object spreads in the first direction and feeds the processing object to be crushed along the first direction, wherein the impactor crushes the processing object between the center of gravity of the impactor and the tip side of the impactor and along the first direction, in order to control the amount of crushing force used and therefore accommodate a greater range of processing objects.
Examiner note: regarding the limitations “crushes soil”, “feeds the soil”, and “such that the soil spreads in a first direction”, it is noted that the soil is the workpiece upon which the claimed rotary crushing works and is therefore not a part of the claimed invention itself. Therefore, these limitations are considered to be recitations of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). As the rotary crushing apparatuses disclosed by Gronholz and Tsuda are both capable of receiving soil as a workpiece, these limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding Claim 2, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Gronholz and Tsuda, Tsuda teaches (Figures 6-7) a position of the feeder (slope 7) is determined based on a moment of inertia of the impactor (crush blade 6) and a mass of the impactor (see para. [0012]: the position of the slope is determined based on the amount of crushing force needed, which directly correlates to the moment of inertia and mass of the crush blade).
Regarding Claim 3, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Gronholz and Tsuda, Tsuda teaches (Figures 5-6) the feeder (slope 7) is positioned to feed the processing object to the impactor (crush blade 6) in such a way as to put the processing object in a position of a center of percussion of the impactor ([0012] lns 1-3; based on Figure 6, it is clear that at least part of the fluorescent tubes, i.e. the processing object, is put in a position of a center of percussion of the crush blade).
Regarding Claim 5, Gronholz discloses (Figure 1) the rotating shaft (rotor shaft 12) is cantilevered by a bearing member ([0042] ln 11) provided above the impactor ([0023] ln 8: the rotor shaft 12 is mounted on top of the rotor chamber 11, therefore the bearings must be located above the striking tools 20/21/22/23).
Regarding Claim 6, Gronholz discloses (Figure 1) when the impactor (assembly of striking tools 20/21/22/23 and chain links 24/25) is centrifugally rotated ([0032] lns 10-11: the striking tools rise due to centrifugal force from the rotation of the rotor shaft), an amount of deflection of the rotating shaft (rotor shaft 12) is minimized ([0042] lns 9-14: the rotor shaft is isolated from the rotor chamber 11 to that, during use, vibration caused by the knocking tools will not affect the rotor shaft, i.e. so that deflections of the rotating shaft are minimized). Gronholz is silent to the amount of deflection as a function of the length of the shaft; however, as the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of the claimed deflection ratio range that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the rotary crushing apparatus such that the length of the rotating shaft is set in such a way that when the impactor is centrifugally rotated, an amount of deflection of the rotating shaft is 1/800 to 1/3,000 of the length of the rotating shaft, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Regarding Claim 12, Gronholz discloses (Figure 2) the impactor includes a chain (chain links 24/25) and a collision member (striking tools 20/21/22/23), the chain being connected to the rotating shaft ([0032] lns 3-7), and the collision member being provided at a tip of the chain (clearly seen in figure) and configured to collide with the processing object and crush the processing object by means of rotation of the rotating shaft ([0033] lns 1-6); and a length of the collision member is 50% to 80% of a total length of the impactor (striking tools 20/21/22/23 each appear to be between 50-80% of the total length of their respective impactors).
Regarding Claim 13, Gronholz discloses (Figure 2) the length of the collision member is 60% to 80% of the total length of the impactor (striking tools 20/21/22/23 each appear to be between 60-80% of the total length of their respective impactors).
Regarding Claim 14, Gronholz discloses (Figure 2) the length of the collision member is 70% to 80% of the total length of the impactor (striking tools 22/23 each appear to be between 70-80% of the total length of their respective impactors).
Regarding Claim 17, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Gronholz and Tsuda, Tsuda teaches (Figures 5-6) the feeder (slope 7) feeds the processing object to the impactor (crush blade 6) in such a way as to put the processing object in a position of a center of percussion of the impactor ([0012] lns 1-3; based on Figure 6, it is clear that at least part of the fluorescent tubes, i.e. the processing object, is put in a position of a center of percussion of the crush blade).
Regarding Claim 19, Gronholz discloses (Figure 1) the rotating shaft (rotor shaft 12) is cantilevered by a bearing member ([0042] ln 11).
Regarding Claim 20, Gronholz discloses (Figure 1) the rotating shaft (rotor shaft 12) is cantilevered by a bearing member ([0042] ln 11).
Claims 7-9, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronholz (US 2020/0129986) in view of Akagami et al., hereinafter Akagami (JP 2013-096053), and Tsuda (JP 5055477). For text citations of Akagami and Tsuda, refer to the machine translations provided as Non-Patent Literature with the Office actions mailed 05/05/2025 and 12/05/2025, respectively.
Regarding Claim 7, Gronholz discloses (Figures 1-2) a rotary crushing method comprising: rotating an impactor (striking tools 20/21/22/23 on chain links 24/25) by means of rotation of a rotating shaft (rotor shaft 12) that extends in a vertical direction about the vertical direction (vertical axis 40) in a horizontal plane (planes 16/17/18/19), the impactor configured to crush a processing object ([0033] lns 1-6), wherein the impactor includes a movement component in a first direction included in the horizontal plane when crushing the processing object ([0032] lns 10-11: the direction of rotation of the striking tools on the rotor shaft is interpreted as the movement component in the first direction); and feeding the processing object between a position of a center of gravity of the impactor and a tip side of the impactor (based on the configuration of the feed-hopper 13 showed in Figure 1, it is clear that at least some of the processing objects will be fed between a center of gravity and a tip of the striking tools), wherein the impactor crushes the processing object between the center of gravity of the impactor and a tip side of the impactor ([0033] lns 1-6: the “capture range” of the striking tools is interpreted as an area between the center of gravity and the tip side of the respective striking tools).
Gronholz does not disclose that the impactor is configured to crush soil; rather, the workpiece of the method disclosed by Gronholz is slag, slag lumps, and conglomerates. Akagami teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) a rotary crushing method using the same kind of rotary crushing apparatus as that disclosed by Gronholz (see Figures 1-2 of Gronholz), comprising rotating an impactor (rotary striking body 49) configured to crush soil ([0017] lns 143-145) and feeding the soil (earth and sand 12) between a position of a center of gravity of the impactor and a tip side of the impactor (based on the figures, it is clear that at least some of the soil fed to crushing means 30 via earth and sand introduction port 22 will be fed between a center of gravity and a tip of the rotary striking body 49), wherein the impactor crushes the soil between the center of gravity of the impactor and a tip side of the impactor ([0020] lns 188-189: rotary striking body 49 crushes the soil after it has been fed between the center of gravity and the tip of the impact member). Therefore, it is known that a rotary crushing method using the kind of rotary crushing apparatus disclosed by Gronholz is also capable of crushing soil as the processing object; accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Gronholz such that soil is used as the processing object, as taught by Akagami, as this will have a reasonable expectation of success.
Gronholz as modified by Akagami does not disclose feeding the soil such that it spreads in the first direction and crushing the soil along the first direction; the configuration of feed-hopper 13 suggests that processing objects fall substantially vertically into rotor chamber 11. In a related field of endeavor, Tsuda teaches (Figures 1 and 5-6) a rotary crushing method comprising: rotating an impactor (crush blade 6) including a movement component in a first direction (direction of rotation indicated by arrows in figures) included in a horizontal plane when crushing a processing object; and feeding the processing object such that the processing object spreads in the first direction ([0025] lns 3-9: when the waste fluorescent tubes are fed to crushing blade 6 in the configuration shown in Figure 6, the glass parts thereof are crushed and carried by the blades along the direction of rotation, i.e. the crushed glass is spread in the first direction) and feeding the processing object along the first direction ([0025] lns 1-4), wherein the impactor crushes the processing object between the center of gravity of the impactor and a tip side of the impactor and along the first direction (based on Figure 6, it is clear that at least part of the fluorescent tubes are crushed by the impactor between a center of gravity and a tip thereof). This method allows a user to control the crushing force of the impactor without changing the operating conditions of the crushing apparatus in order to accommodate different types of processing objects (see para. [0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify feeding step of the rotary crushing method disclosed by Gronholz and modified by Akagami such that the soil is fed such that it spreads in the first direction and along the first direction, wherein the impactor crushes the soil along the first direction, as taught by Tsuda, in order to control the amount of crushing force used and therefore accommodate a greater range of processing objects.
Regarding Claim 8, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Gronholz, Akagami, and Tsuda, Tsuda teaches (Figures 6-7) feeding the processing object includes feeding the processing object based on a moment of inertia of the impactor (crush blade 6) and a mass of the impactor (see para. [0012]: the position of the slope is determined based on the amount of crushing force needed, which directly correlates to the moment of inertia and mass of the crush blade). When the combination of Gronholz, Akagami, and Tsuda is made, soil is used as the processing object of the method.
Regarding Claim 9, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Gronholz, Akagami, and Tsuda, Tsuda teaches (Figures 5-6) feeding the processing object includes feeding the processing object to the impactor (crush blade 6) in such a way as to put the processing object in a position of a center of percussion of the impactor ([0012] lns 1-3; based on Figure 6, it is clear that at least part of the fluorescent tubes, i.e. the processing object, is put in a position of a center of percussion of the crush blade). When the combination of Gronholz, Akagami, and Tsuda is made, soil is used as the processing object of the method.
Regarding Claim 15, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Gronholz, Akagami, and Tsuda, Tsuda teaches (Figures 5-6) feeding the processing object includes feeding the processing object to the impactor (crush blade 6) in such a way as to put the processing object in a position of a center of percussion of the impactor ([0012] lns 1-3; based on Figure 6, it is clear that at least part of the fluorescent tubes, i.e. the processing object, is put in a position of a center of percussion of the crush blade). When the combination of Gronholz, Akagami, and Tsuda is made, soil is used as the processing object of the method.
Regarding Claim 21, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Gronholz, Akagami, and Tsuda, Tsuda teaches (Figures 1 and 5-7) detecting a load change of a motor (motor 4) that rotates the impactor (crush blade 6; [0022] lns 1-7: different crushing forces are observed, i.e. detected, based on the angle and speed with which the processing objects are fed to the crusher; as motor load directly correlates to crushing force of the impactor, this limitation of the claim is met).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights