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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vratil et al (USP 3,265,227) in view of Welch (US Pub 2013/0306524 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Vratil discloses a livestock silage sorting assembly comprising: (a) a hopper (element 12) comprising an interior area that tapers (see Fig. 5; elements 31 and 32) downward to a trough (see Fig. 5; elements 27 and 28), the interior area containing one or more rotating rods (element 22), and an auger (elements 24 and 25) positioned within the trough, the auger having a first end, and a second, free end, and wherein the rotating rods and auger cooperate to transport the silage at a controlled rate (element 34), and wherein the screen of the rotating drum separates silage material into fines and retentate, but Vratil does not disclose (b) a rotating drum comprising a screen in cylindrical form, the rotating drum having an intake end, a retentate end, an interior, and a drum surface, wherein internal fins protrude from the drum surface toward the interior, the internal fins configured to throw silage as it rotates within the drum and transport the silage at a controlled rate to the intake end of the rotating drum. Welch teaches disclose (b) a rotating drum comprising a screen in cylindrical form (element 12), the rotating drum having an intake end (paragraph 0060; where element 6 deposits material at the entrance of element 12) a retentate end (see Fig. 3; element 12 at the opposite end of elements 6 and 7), an interior (element 12, interior of drum), and a drum surface (element 12, interior mesh), wherein internal fins protrude from the drum surface toward the interior (element 15), the internal fins configured to throw silage as it rotates within the drum (paragraph 0060) and transport the silage at a controlled rate to the intake end of the rotating drum (see Fig. 3; element 6) for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material (paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material.
Regarding claim 2, Vratil discloses a livestock silage sorting assembly comprising: (a) a hopper (element 12) comprising an interior area that tapers downward to a trough (see Fig. 5; elements 31 and 32), the interior area containing one or more rotating rods (element 22), and an conveyor (elements 24 and 25) positioned within the trough, the conveyor having a first end, and a second, free end, and wherein the rotating rods and conveyor cooperate to transport the silage at a controlled rate (element 34), and wherein the screen of the rotating drum separates silage material into fines and retentate, but Vratil does not disclose (b) a rotating drum comprising a screen in cylindrical form, the rotating drum having an intake end, a retentate end, an interior, and a drum surface, wherein internal fins protrude from the drum surface toward the interior, the internal fins configured to throw silage as it rotates within the drum and transport the silage at a controlled rate to the intake end of the rotating drum. Welch teaches disclose (b) a rotating drum comprising a screen in cylindrical form (element 12), the rotating drum having an intake end (paragraph 0060; where element 6 deposits material at the entrance of element 12) a retentate end (see Fig. 3; element 12 at the opposite end of elements 6 and 7), an interior (element 12, interior of drum), and a drum surface (element 12, interior mesh), wherein internal fins protrude from the drum surface toward the interior (element 15), the internal fins configured to throw silage as it rotates within the drum (paragraph 0060) and transport the silage at a controlled rate to the intake end of the rotating drum (see Fig. 3; element 6) for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material (paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material.
Regarding claim 4, Vratil discloses the hopper is provided with a fixed, adjustable angle of inclination (see Fig. 1; element 35 outlet of hopper having a changeable angle for silageing).
Regarding claim 5, Vratil discloses the one or more rotating rods comprise a surface, and wherein studs project from the surface (elements 21 attached to element 22).
Regarding claim 7, Vratil discloses the studs are dimensionally uniform across the surface of each rotating rod (elements 21).
Regarding claim 8, Vratil discloses the rotating rods include identical studs (elements 21).
Regarding claim 9, Vratil discloses the auger is driven by a force applied to the first end (see Fig. 4; elements 48).
Regarding claim 10, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Welch teaches the rotating drum has a constant diameter along its axis (see Fig. 3; element 12) for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material (paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material.
Regarding claim 11, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Welch teaches the screen comprises uniform aperture sizes (paragraph 0060 separating small sized materials) for the purpose of for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material (paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material.
Regarding claim 12, Vratil in view of Welch does not explicitly disclose the screen has an aperture size in a range of 0.5 inches to 1 inch. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to screen material because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific aperture size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Vratil in view of Welch, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either aperture size because both apertures would perform the same function of screening material for the purpose of obtaining a specific size of material through the screen.
Regarding claim 13, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Welch teaches the drum is pitched at a fixed, adjustable downward angle from the intake end (see Fig. 3; element 12) for the purpose of for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material (paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of separating desired material from base fluid material.
Regarding claim 22, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Welch teaches the drum is adjustable between a lowered, storage position and a vertically higher, operating position that is angled downward from the intake end (col. 3, lines 17-20) for the purpose of increasing production rates of the material (col. 1, lines 57-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of increasing production rates of the material.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vratil/Welch and in further view of Neier (USP 3,790,138).
Regarding claim 6, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Neier teaches the hopper comprises two rotating rods (see Fig. 5; elements 5 and 6 on both sides) for the purpose of thoroughly blending the mass of materials (col. 2, lines 48-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Neier, for the purpose of thoroughly blending the mass of materials.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vratil/Welch and in further view of Mugler (USP 4,115,257).
Regarding claim 15, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Mugler teaches a mobile unit that is provided on a trailer (element 10 and 12) for the purpose of increasing production rates of the material (col. 1, lines 57-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Mugler, for the purpose of increasing production rates of the material.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vratil/Welch and in further view of Brewster (USP 889,433).
Regarding claim 16, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Brewster teaches a fan that moves air through the rotating drum (page 1, lines 89-101; element C) for the purpose of drawing material through the drum screen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Brewster, for the purpose of drawing material through the drum screen.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vratil/Welch and in further view of Benemilk (WO 2016/126234 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Vratil discloses a method of using a livestock silage sorting assembly to prepare a livestock feed ration, the method comprising steps of: - providing a silage material to, the sorting assembly of claim 1 (col. 6, lines 20-24), but Vratil does not disclose combining the fines produced by the sorting assembly into a ration for lactating cows, and - combining the retentate produced by the sorting assembly with concentrate to produce a dry cow silage or a young stock silage. Benemilk teaches combining the fines produced by the sorting assembly into a ration for lactating cows (page 9, lines 9-10), and - combining the retentate produced by the sorting assembly with concentrate to produce a dry cow silage or a young stock silage (page 9, lines 20-22) for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of milk production (page 10, lines 14-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Benemilk, for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of milk production.
Regarding claim 19, Vratil does not disclose the claim limitations. Benemilk teaches the step of combining the fines into a ration for lactating cows comprises combining the fines with one or more of corn silage, protein, corn, alfalfa, vitamins, minerals, and whey permeate (page 25, lines 12-14) for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of milk production (page 10, lines 14-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Benemilk, for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of milk production.
Regarding claim 20, Vratil does not disclose the claim limitations. Benemilk teaches the step of combining the retentate with concentrate to produce a dry cow silage or a young stock silage comprises combining the retentate with one or more of corn silage, protein canola, alfalfa, whey permeate and vitamins and minerals (page 16, line 4 and page 17, lines 32-33) for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of milk production (page 10, lines 14-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Benemilk, for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of milk production.
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vratil/Welch and in further view of Merrel (USP 856,894).
Regarding claim 21, Vratil does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Merrel teaches discloses the auger extends from the hopper (element 12) for the purpose of increasing the working area and efficiency of material separation (col. 1, lines 42-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Vratil, as taught by Merrel, for the purpose of increasing the working area and efficiency of material separation. However, Vratil in view of Merrel does not explicitly disclose an upward angle toward the drum from the auger. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to silageing material because Applicant has not disclosed that the angle of silageing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Vratil in view of Merrel, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either angle of silageing because both silageing angles would perform the same function of silageing material to the drum for the purpose of aiding in the separation of the material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” The Welch reference describes an underwater gold ore processing machine that crawls along the sea floor to scoop and process material. The entire machine and process are underwater and process solid material - gravel, rocks, and gold ore - in that underwater environment. Thus, the subject matter, function, and structure of the livestock silage sorting apparatus recited in the present claims is distinct from the field of endeavor of the Welch reference,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Vratil discloses a livestock silage sorting assembly. Welch is being used to teach a rotating drum with a screen with an intake, retentate end, and internal fins. While Welch separates materials that are different than the present invention, the teaching of Welch is directed to the separation of materials using internal fins (paragraph 0060). In this case, the field of endeavor and pertinence of the Welch reference is the separation of different solid materials from one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious modification to Vratil in view of Welch to further aid in the separation of materials using a rotating drum include internal fins.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” As illustrated in FIG. 3, the inner fins 15 are presented as sinusoidal elements inside the rotating drum, and they assist in moving the medium and large sized unwanted gravel and rocks from the forward end (near conveyor 7) to the aft end, and finally out the open end of the drum. Applicant respectfully submits that the fins described in the Welch reference are not configured to toss or throw a material as it rotates within the drum. In fact, if the inner fins 15 of Welch were configured to throw material inside the drum, this would counteract the operation of the overall apparatus underwater. The fins 15 of the Welch reference act to convey the medium and large sized unwanted gravel and rocks along the bottom of the drum 15 to the rear open end of the drum. See FIG. 3, wherein gravel and rocks are visible in the cutaway portion at the bottom of the drum. The Welch reference is thus processing hard materials such as gravel, rocks, and gold ore. This is significantly different from the silage material processed by the apparatus recited in Claims 1 and 2. Further, the Welch reference is processing materials completely underwater,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts, as stated above, while Welch separates materials that are different than the present invention, the teaching of Welch is directed to the separation of materials using internal fins (paragraph 0060). Furthermore, the claim language states, “the internal fins configured to throw silage as it rotates within the drum,” does not claim which portion within the drum the materials are being moved. Materials within the drum of Welch are being separated and the internal fins are used to facilitate that separation.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” To the extent the Welch reference discloses fins, these fins operate to convey material from one end of a trommel to the opposite, open end. The fins are configured in a sinusoidal shape to assist moving gravel, rocks and other solid sea floor material along the bottom of a trommel to an open end of the trommel, where they fall by gravity back to the sea floor. Due to the physics of water inside a rotating trommel, fins would not be configured to throw material inside the rotating trommel. Throwing material inside the rotating trommel would not achieve the Welch objective of "processing as much ore as possible in a given time period." See para. [0016] of Welch. To the contrary, this throwing action would introduce yet another force on particles within the rotating underwater trommel,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that the materials within Welch are being moved and separated using rotational energy from the motor and drum (paragraph 0060). Furthermore, the claim states,” fins configured to throw a silage,” does not specify how far or forceful the ‘throw’ the drum and fins apply, and, as such, Welch’s rotating drum and internal fins are an obvious modification for separating the materials being fed to the rotating drum.
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 Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights