DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 10, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 should include a colon after the term “comprising” and claims 2-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 should begin with “the grinding mill” rather than “a grinding mill” to make clear that it is the previously recited grinding mill. Further, claim 1 recite the limitation that the paddles “extend transversely across the body” twice so one of these recitations should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “body enlarges spirally so that all of the plurality of paddles extend beyond the outer edge of the body to the same amount” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In particular, Fig. 8 shows each section 44 including a curved portion with a cutout, i.e., the section by paddle 32.3, and then the remaining section appears to vary in thickness through the entire length with the body including thicker portions next to the outer portions of paddles 32.2 and 32.1, recesses at the area in which paddles 32.2 and 32.1 are positioned, and a thicker portion between paddles 32.1 and 32.2. It is unclear from this drawing how the body is enlarging spirally as the thickness appears to vary through the whole body and the most noticeable thickness reduction is from the cutout by paddle 32.3. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the body enlarges spirally within each group of associated paddles so that all the plurality of paddles extend beyond the outer edge of the body by the same amount” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required for a body to enlarge spirally in such a manner that the paddles extend beyond the edge by the same amount. Merriam-Webster defines spiral as “a winding around a center or pole and gradually receding from or approaching it” and thus it is unclear if the body itself is curved in such a manner with an enlarging happening throughout the length or if enlarging of the body itself is in a shape of a spiral, i.e., is the longitudinal axis of the body a spiral with the thickness of the body enlarging towards or away from the center or is the longitudinal axis of the body a constant curve that has a thickness enlarging in a spiral manner. The body is recited as including an outer portion that “forms a ring and an inner portion of the body forms spokes leading from the ring towards the axis of rotation,” i.e., the body includes both the parts of the rotor extending from the axis of rotation out to the edge of the ring. It is noted that the drawings show the outer edge of the ring of the outer portion having a curvature that may be part of a spiral, but the other portions of the body, e.g., the outer edge of the inner portion by the slot, do not appear to have any spiral features and also have variations in the size of the body due to the presence of the slot. It is unclear if “enlarge spirally” simple means that the outer edge of the ring has a curvature that may be present in a spiral or if the body itself is supposed to be enlarging in some manner, i.e., the distance from the axis of rotation to the outer edge of the ring or the thickness of the body over the spiral curvature or the total mass of the body over the spiral curvature. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the body itself is in a spiral form and throughout the length of the body the thickness enlarges such that all the plurality of paddles extend beyond the outer edge of the body by the same amount.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 8-10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 210171649 U to Li in view of US 2018/0207644 A1 to Heath.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a grinding mill rotor for a grinding mill that is configured to stir a slurry of particulate material, a grinding medium, and water thereby to cause turbulence within the slurry to promote attrition of the particulate material through interaction with the grinding medium (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; the grinding mill rotor is capable of stirring a slurry with particulate matter, grinding medium and water to cause turbulence), the grinding mill rotor comprising
a planar body 11 having an axis of rotation around which the body is configured to rotate during use (Figs. 1-2; P. 2, paragraph starting “The turbine blade comprises a grinding plate 11” and P. 3, paragraph starting “The center of the grinding plate 11”), and the body 11 having opposed planar surfaces and an outer edge (Figs. 1-2 show the opposed planar surfaces and the outer edge of the plate 11);
a plurality of paddles 12 provided on the body 11 and extending transversely across the body 11 (Figs. 1-2; P. 2, paragraph starting “The turbine blade comprises a grinding plate 11”), the paddles 12 being spaced apart from each other around the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2), at least some of the paddles 12 having a rotationally leading face that is angled relative to an orthogonal line extending orthogonally from the axis of rotation of the body 11 (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraph starting “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; the blades 12 are inclined relative to an orthogonal line from the axis of rotation at an angle of 5 to 25 degrees);
wherein an offset angle β between the leading face and the orthogonal line is selected to be between 10 and 35 degrees (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraph starting “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; the blades 12 are inclined relative to an orthogonal line from the axis of rotation at an angle of 5 to 25 degrees), and wherein the offset angle β is selected to control a rate at which the slurry slides across the planar body during use, thereby to regulate a rate at which the body and the paddles experience frictional wear when the slurry is outwardly deflected (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraph starting “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; it is noted that this is an apparatus claim and, as discussed in MPEP 2114, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present claim, the apparatus of Li includes the blade features of the claimed rotor and the blades are capable of regulating a rate at which the body and paddles experience frictional wear caused by the slurry being outwardly deflected), and
wherein the paddles 12 extend transversely across the body 11 (Figs. 1-2).
Li fails to explicitly teach the paddles extend beyond the outer edge.
Heath teaches a grinding mill rotor for a grinding mill (Abstract, Figs. 9-10) including a body 21 and a plurality of paddles 25 (Figs. 9-10; Paras. [0089] and [0090]), and the paddles extend beyond the outer edge of the body 21 (Fig. 9; Para. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rotor of Li to include the paddles extending beyond the outer edge as taught by Heath so that the paddles create a zone around the outer edge of the rotor body that minimizes the amount of wear on the body (Heath, Para. [0093]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), wherein the paddles 12 are blocks having a rectangular cross-section, a triangular cross-section, a V-shaped cross-section, or an arcuate segment shaped cross-section (Figs. 1-2 show that the paddles 12 are blocks having a rectangular cross-section).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), wherein the body 11 comprises opposed surfaces being parallel to each other (Figs. 1 and 2 show that the body 11 includes flat top and bottom surfaces that are parallel to each other) and wherein the paddles 12 extend from at least one of the opposed surfaces (Figs. 1-2 show the paddles 12 extending from the top and bottom surfaces).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), further comprising a number of arcuate passages 15 extending through the body 11, whereby an outer portion of the body 11 forms a ring and an inner portion of the body 11 forms spokes leading from the ring towards the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraphs starting “The center of the grinding plate 11” and “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; the feeding holes 15 are arranged around center of the body 11 such that spokes, i.e., the solid surfaces between the holes 15, are present in the body 11).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 5 (Figs. 1-2), wherein at least one of the plurality of paddles 12 extends across each of the spokes (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraph starting “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; the specification states that the blades 12 are “arranged in the area between the feeding hole 15,” i.e., the blades 12 are arranged across the spokes between the holes 15).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), wherein a distal edge of the paddles 12 is orientated tangential to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2 show that the end of the paddles 12 is arranged tangential to the axis of rotation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), wherein the offset angle β for each paddle 12 is between 10 to 20 degrees (P. 3, paragraph starting “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; the paddles are each oriented at 5-25 degrees, and preferably 15 degrees).
Regarding claim 10, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), wherein the offset angle β for each paddle 12 is about 15 degrees (P. 3, paragraph starting “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; the paddles 12 are preferably inclined at an angle of 15 degrees).
Regarding claim 12, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), wherein each paddle 12 has a curved profile, being curved radially away from or towards an operational direction of rotation of the body 11, whereby the offset angle β varies along the length of the paddle with a smaller offset angle β1 nearer to the axis of rotation and with a larger offset angle β2 further away from the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraph starting “The first arc-shaped blade 12”; the paddles 12 are each arc-shaped, i.e., curved radially, with the arc being curved away from the angle of rotation and having a smaller offset by the axis of rotation and a larger offset angle away from the axis of rotation, as shown in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of paddles 12 are integrally formed with the body 11 (P. 3, paragraph starting “Grinding plate 11 and grinding blade 12”; the specification states that the body 11 and paddles are formed integrally).
Regarding claim 18, modified Li teaches a grinding mill comprising a grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2; Abstract).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Heath in further view of CN 106179616 A to Lu.
Regarding claim 7, modified Li teaches the grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 5 (Figs. 1-2).
Li fails to explicitly teach the rotor comprising one or more slots extending through the outer portion of the body, wherein each slot leads into one of the number of arcuate passages.
Lu teaches a rotor comprising a body 1 having paddles 4 and arcuate passages 3 (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraph starting “As Figure 1-4”) and further comprising one or more slots 7 extending through the outer portion of the body, wherein each slot 7 leads into one of the number of arcuate passages 3 (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, paragraph starting “As Figure 1-4”; each slot is positioned between two paddles 4 and leads to one of the passages 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rotor of Li to include slots leading to the passages as taught by Lu so that the rotor generates additional centrifugal force when it is rotated to assist with the grinding operation (Lu, P. 3, paragraph starting “As Figure 1-4”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Heath in further view of US 2021/0107011 A1 to Massafra.
Regarding claim 14, modified Li grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of paddles are associated into groups within which each paddle that rotationally follows another extends further outwardly than its preceding paddle.
Massafra teaches a rotor for grinding a slurry (Abstract) including a body 10 and a plurality of paddles 20 wherein each paddle is manufactured to have a different length to extend beyond the outer circumference of the body (Paras. [0030]-[0031] and [0090]; Figs. 9-10; Para. [0031] states that the beams 20 may be manufactured with different lengths instead of having adjustable lengths).
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that (1) modified Li teaches the paddles extending beyond the outer edge of the body and Massafra teaches the paddles extending beyond the outer edge of the body at different lengths, (2) these elements could be combined by known methods with each of the paddles merely performing the same function in the combination as they do separately (i.e., facilitating the grinding in the slurry), and (3) the results of this combination would be predictable (i.e., the rotor with the plurality of paddles performing the grinding operation along with the slurry), thus it would have been obvious to combine the paddle elements of Li and Massafra according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is noted that combining these references results in the plurality of paddles are associated into groups within which each paddle that rotationally follows another extends further outwardly than its preceding paddle as the groups may be chosen in any manner, thus two groups may be made with the first group having the longest paddle and the paddle following it and the second group having the second longest paddle and the paddle following it.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Heath in further view of US 3,185,398 to Hughes.
Regarding claim 17, modified Li teaches grinding mill rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein the paddles comprise rubber polymer or polyurethane structures that are bonded to the body.
Hughes teaches a grinding mill rotor including paddles 6 (Fig. 1; Col. 5, Lns. 14-23) wherein the paddles comprise rubber polymer connected to the body of the rotor (Fig. 1; Col. 5, Lns. 14-23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the material of the paddle in the rotor of Li with the material of the paddles in Hughes as those features and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of providing a paddle material that has enough strength and rigidity to be used in grinding operations over a long period of time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated September 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the objection to the claims, drawings, rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112 and the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the claims, Applicant does not appear to have addressed these objections at all in the amendments or the remarks.
Regarding the objection to the drawings and the rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112, Applicant points to a marked-up drawing and states that the “body portion/ring portion within each of the groups [of paddles] enlarges spirally” to show this feature being present in the drawings. Remarks, PP. 5-6. Applicant further states that the feature in claim 15 “relates to the consistent distance to which the paddles extend beyond the outer edge” shown in the drawings and the claim amendments that further define the body and paddle groups clarify the indefinite language. Id. at PP. 5-7. These arguments have been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. While Applicant has shown that each of the groups of paddles separated by the slots have different curvatures, it is still unclear how the body is enlarging spirally. The body is recited as including an outer portion that “forms a ring and an inner portion of the body forms spokes leading from the ring towards the axis of rotation,” i.e., the body includes both the parts of the rotor extending from the axis of rotation out to the edge of the ring. It is noted that the drawings show the outer edge of the ring of the outer portion having a curvature that may be part of a spiral, but the other portions of the body, e.g., the outer edge of the inner portion by the slot, do not appear to have any spiral features and also have variations in the size of the body due to the presence of the slot, e.g., there is less total body material in the areas with the slot than there is in the area without slots despite the outer edge extending further out in the area with a slot. It is unclear if “enlarge spirally” simply means that the outer edge of the ring has a curvature that may be present in a spiral or if the body itself is supposed to be enlarging in some manner, e.g., the thickness of the body over the spiral curvature enlarges or the total mass of the body over the spiral curvature increases. It appears from Applicant’s remarks that the feature that enlarges spirally is the outer edge of the outer portion of the body, but the claim language is directed to the body as a whole, i.e., the inner and outer portions.
Regarding the rejections of under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Li that the shape and configuration of the grinding blades/paddles has any impact on the service life” and “does not discuss or even consider reducing the wearing of the circumferential edge of the turbine disc/rotor.” Remarks, PP. 8-9. Applicant provides additional support for this argument by highlighting passages of Li in which the blades are discussed as being flush with the edge of the disc. Id. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. As discussed in MPEP 2145(IV), “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments suffer from attacking the references individually rather than addressing the combination of the references. While Applicant is correct that Lin fails to discuss reducing the wear on the circumferential edge of the disc by extending the blades beyond the edge, Heath teaches that extending the blades beyond the edge of the disc provides this feature, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find beneficial for extending the life of the disc.
Applicant also argues that Li teaches the blade being flush with the edge of the grinding plate and did not incorporate the teachings of Heath despite being “filed quite a few years after Heath.” Remarks, P. 9. Applicant further argues that Li and Heath are directed to “achieving diverging objectives” with Li “not at all considering capturing a pocket of slurry to protect and reduce wear on the planar surface of the disc” and Heath teaches “’capturing’ rotating pockets of slurry to minimize slippage of the slurry” which would be negated by the curvature of the blades in the manner taught by Li. Id. at 9-10. These arguments have been carefully considered and they are not persuasive. It is not relevant that Lin came later than Heath without incorporating the teachings of Heath because obviousness rejections only require the “rationale [to combine] may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.” MPEP 2144(I) (citing In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The prior art has provided such a rationale in Heath, as discussed above. Obviousness rejections are not required to show that a previous person of ordinary skill in the art has made such a combination of the art. According to Applicant’s position, no reference that is newer than a secondary reference could be used as a primary reference in an obviousness rejection. Finally, Applicant’s arguments regarding the curvature of Li negating the benefits of extending the blades beyond the edge taught by Heath is attorney argument that is not supported by the disclosures.
Applicant further argues that Heath teaches some embodiments include the blades being flush with the end of the disc and “[i]t is thus apparent that Heath did not consider or teach capturing of any slurry beyond the outer edge of the discs because this would not be possible with the examples of paddles that terminate flush with the circumferential edge.” Remarks, P. 10. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. The embodiment of Heath relied upon includes the blades, i.e., blocks 25 in Fig. 9, extending beyond the edge which provides the benefit of reducing the amount of wear on the disc, as discussed in Para. [0093] of Heath. Applicant’s argument regarding capturing the slurry is irrelevant to the combination of art in the rejection as the rationale for the combination relies upon the teaching of Heath that extending the blades beyond the edge provides the benefit of reducing wear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record alone or in combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the body enlarges spirally within each group of associate paddles so that all the plurality of paddles extend beyond the outer edge of the body by the same amount, as recited in claim 15.
Li teaches the body of the rotor has a constant curvature and thickness (Figs. 1-2), and therefore fails to teach the body enlarges spirally.
Heath teaches the paddles all extending beyond the outer edge of the body by the same amount (Fig. 9), however the rejection of claim 15 depends from claim 14 which requires the paddles to be in groups within which each paddle that rotationally follows another extends further outwardly than its preceding paddle. The paddles of Heath all extend the same distance outwardly (Fig. 9), thus this reference fails to teach a reference with both the paddles extending further outwardly and the body enlarges spirally so that all of the paddles extend beyond the outer edge of the body by the same amount.
Massafra teaches the paddles may be made with different lengths (Para. [0031]), however the paddles are all shown as being positioned at the same starting location on the body (Figs. 8-9). Thus, the paddles would all extend beyond the outer edge of the body by different amounts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725