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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed February 18, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. The addition of “new” claims 18 and 19 is also acknowledged. Thus, claims 1-12 and 14-19 are pending and are addressed below.
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, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Fisher Engineering non-patent literature document (NPL “U”, on the PTO-892 provided with the Office action mailed December 9, 2024), in view of Ward, US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0095732 and Ward et al., USPN 6,318,898.
Regarding the instant prior art rejection as it pertains to the scope of claims 1, 2, 6 and 7, it should first be noted that combination-type independent claim 11 of the instant application and its dependents (while not specifically being rejected in the instant ground of rejection), represents the most comprehensive claim/claim-set of the instant application, with independent claim 6 being a non-patentably distinct subcombination of the claim 11 combination, and with independent claim 1 being a non-patentably distinct subcombination of the claim 6 combination.
It should also be noted that the primary prior art document to Fisher Engineering, relied upon for this ground of rejection, was first published no later than 2013, and the Fisher Engineering document clearly shows a diagram of a sand and/or salt spreader system which is 100% structurally identical to Fig. 5 of the instant application. Since Applicant has relied upon the Fig. 5 system depiction (see also, Applicant’s specification paragraph [0034]) to fully illustrate all of the claimed features of at least the spinner shaft assembly combination (claims 6+) and the sand and/or salt spreader system combination (claims 11+), as required by 37 CFR 1.83(a), then it is abundantly clear that at least all of the structural limitations of those combination claims were in the public domain well before the filing date of the instant application.
Thus, Fisher Engineering clearly anticipates each and every structural element, and the cooperating structural and functional limitations thereof, recited in (at least) claims 1, 2, 6 and 7. However, it cannot be gleaned from the Fisher Engineering document whether or not the pillow block assembly housing is composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite; and it cannot be gleaned from the Fisher Engineering document whether or not the bearing is composed of stainless steel.
As to the limitation regarding the housing being composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite, Ward (‘732) shows a pillow block assembly (see Fig. 1) having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering, with the structural limitations of the claimed pillow block assembly also clearly reading on the construction of the pillow block assembly shown by Ward (‘732). Ward (‘732) also expressly discloses that the corresponding housing (10) of the pillow block assembly is composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite (see paragraph [0032]). Ward (‘732) states that PBT is a material which was readily “available from numerous commercial sources” (see again, paragraph [0032]), and permits manufacturing by injection molding (see again, paragraph [0032]), which in turn results in the advantageous aspect of permitting the formation of “relatively large volumes of material in certain regions of housing 10 in combination with relatively thin structures in other regions while resisting material drawing” (see paragraph [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the pillow block assembly housing shown by Fisher Engineering, from PBT or a PBT-based composite, as taught by Ward (‘732), since PBT is a material which was readily “available from numerous commercial sources” at the time of filing of the instant application, and PBT permits manufacturing by injection molding, which in turn results in the advantageous aspect of permitting the formation of relatively large volumes of material in certain regions of the housing in combination with relatively thin structures in other regions while resisting material drawing, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As to the limitation regarding the bearing being composed of stainless steel, Ward (‘898) shows a pillow block assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2) having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering, with the structural limitations of the claimed pillow block assembly also clearly reading on the construction of the pillow block assembly shown by Ward (‘898). Ward (‘898) also expressly discloses that it was conventional for known pillow block assemblies at the time to form various components of the corresponding bearing element, including “balls” and “rollers” from “stainless steel or a similar corrosion-resistant metal” (see column 1, lines 47-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bearing of the pillow block assembly shown by Fisher Engineering, from stainless steel, as taught to be “conventional” by Ward (‘898), since stainless steel is corrosion-resistant (as stated by Ward ‘898), which would clearly be advantageous when the bearing is employed as part of a salt spreading system, as salt material is well-known to be corrosive to a great number of other metals, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 3-5, 8-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher Engineering, as modified by Ward (‘732), and Ward et al. (‘898), and eBay listing item #301574829672 for the “Salt Spreader Pillow Block Bearing w/ Zerk Bottom” non-patent literature document (NPL “V”, on the PTO-892 provided with the Office action mailed December 9, 2024), including the evidence of the aforementioned NPL “V” publication pre-dating the filing date of the instant application, as per the evidence provided on the eBay “Revision Summary for Item #301574829672” non-patent literature document (NPL “W”, on the PTO-892 provided with the Office action mailed December 9, 2024).
To continue making the record clear, it is again noted that while the modifying “eBay” reference relied upon for this ground of rejection does not show a definitive publication date so as to clearly demonstrate that the publication is applicable prior art to the instant claimed device, the non-patent literature document “W” clearly shows that the “Salt Spreader Pillow Block Bearing w/ Zerk Bottom” (NPL “V”) existed as a publication as early as April 24, 2015, with the last record for “Revised Information” of the “description” and “pictures” of the listing occurring no later than July 18, 2020. Thus, it is abundantly clear that what is shown and described in NPL “V” was a readily available publication more than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the instant application.
Thus, as to claims 11, 12 and 14-19, as previously noted, the combination-type independent claim 11 of the instant application and its dependents represents the most comprehensive claim/claim-set of the instant application, with independent claim 6 being a non-patentably distinct subcombination of the claim 11 combination, and with independent claim 1 being a non-patentably distinct subcombination of the claim 6 combination. Thus, for the sake of brevity in the instant Office action, this most comprehensive claim set (11, 12 and 14-19) will be addressed first for the instant ground of rejection.
As essentially previously stated, it is readily apparent that Fisher Engineering clearly anticipates each and every structural element, and the cooperating structural and functional limitations thereof, recited in the claims, with the exception of the following features. First, it cannot be gleaned from the Fisher Engineering document whether or not the pillow block assembly housing is composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite. Also, it cannot be gleaned from the Fisher Engineering document whether or not the bearing is composed of stainless steel. Further, Fisher Engineering does not clearly show a grease zerk disposed on the planar surface of the central body, and wherein one wall of the chute has an opening through which the grease zerk extends out of the chute, with the grease zerk having a dimension that corresponds with a dimension of the opening such that one or more materials is prevented from passing between the opening and the grease zerk, and wherein the grease zerk extends in a direction away, perpendicularly from and relative to, the planar surface of the central body.
As to the limitation regarding the housing being composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite, Ward (‘732) shows a pillow block assembly (see Fig. 1) having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering. Ward (‘732) also expressly discloses that the corresponding housing (10) of the pillow block assembly is composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite (see paragraph [0032]). Ward (‘732) states that PBT is a material which was readily “available from numerous commercial sources” (see again, paragraph [0032]), and permits manufacturing by injection molding (see again, paragraph [0032]), which in turn results in the advantageous aspect of permitting the formation of “relatively large volumes of material in certain regions of housing 10 in combination with relatively thin structures in other regions while resisting material drawing” (see paragraph [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the pillow block assembly housing shown by Fisher Engineering, from PBT or a PBT-based composite, as taught by Ward (‘732), since PBT is a material which was readily “available from numerous commercial sources” at the time of filing of the instant application, and PBT permits manufacturing by injection molding, which in turn results in the advantageous aspect of permitting the formation of relatively large volumes of material in certain regions of the housing in combination with relatively thin structures in other regions while resisting material drawing, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As to the limitation regarding the bearing being composed of stainless steel, Ward (‘898) shows a pillow block assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2) having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering. Ward (‘898) also expressly discloses that it was conventional for known pillow block assemblies at the time to form various components of the corresponding bearing element, including “balls” and “rollers” from “stainless steel or a similar corrosion-resistant metal” (see column 1, lines 47-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bearing of the modified pillow block assembly shown by Fisher Engineering, from stainless steel, as taught to be “conventional” by Ward (‘898), since stainless steel is corrosion-resistant (as stated by Ward ‘898), which would clearly be advantageous when the bearing is employed as part of a salt spreading system, as salt material is well-known to be corrosive to a great number of other metals, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As to the limitations regarding the location, orientation and mounting arrangement with respect to the recited grease zerk element, non-patent literature document “V” from eBay, as discussed above being applicable prior art against the claims of the instant application, clearly shows a pillow block assembly having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering, with the structural limitations of the claimed pillow block assembly/assemblies also clearly reading on the construction of the pillow block assembly shown in the eBay document. Further, the eBay document clearly shows and describes a grease zerk disposed on the corresponding planar surface of the corresponding central body, wherein the grease zerk extends in a direction away, perpendicularly from and relative to, the planar surface. The eBay document also clearly describes the pillow block assembly as being designed for use with a “Salt Spreader”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a bottom-located zerk fitting, as taught in the aforementioned eBay document, with the pillow block assemblies of the modified Fisher Engineering system, since the eBay document clearly states that the shown pillow block assembly was designed for use with salt spreaders, and when viewing the construction of the spreader system shown by Fisher Engineering, it is abundantly clear that the bottom-located grease zerk elements would then be accessible through holes of the chute, when mounted in the manner as clearly designed by, and shown by, Fisher Engineering, which would obviously provide the advantage that one can easily access the zerk fittings with a grease gun nozzle without having to reach into the chute or disassemble the chute to re-lubricate the bearings.
Further (in view of the above discussion), as to claims 3-5 and 8-10, since the claims completely overlap in scope with (at least) claims 11, 12, 14 and 15, the claims are unpatentable for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 3-5, 8-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher Engineering, as modified by Ward (‘732), and Ward et al. (‘898), and Lower, USPN 4,183,590.
As to claims 11, 12 and 14-19, as previously noted, the combination-type independent claim 11 of the instant application and its dependents represents the most comprehensive claim/claim-set of the instant application, with independent claim 6 being a non-patentably distinct subcombination of the claim 11 combination, and with independent claim 1 being a non-patentably distinct subcombination of the claim 6 combination. Thus, for the sake of brevity in the instant Office action, this most comprehensive claim set (11, 12 and 14-19) will be addressed first for the instant ground of rejection.
As essentially previously stated, it is readily apparent that Fisher Engineering clearly anticipates each and every structural element, and the cooperating structural and functional limitations thereof, recited in the claims, with the exception of the following features. First, it cannot be gleaned from the Fisher Engineering document whether or not the pillow block assembly housing is composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite. Also, it cannot be gleaned from the Fisher Engineering document whether or not the bearing is composed of stainless steel. Further, Fisher Engineering does not clearly show a grease zerk disposed on the planar surface of the central body, and wherein one wall of the chute has an opening through which the grease zerk extends out of the chute, with the grease zerk having a dimension that corresponds with a dimension of the opening such that one or more materials is prevented from passing between the opening and the grease zerk, and wherein the grease zerk extends in a direction away, perpendicularly from and relative to, the planar surface of the central body.
As to the limitation regarding the housing being composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite, Ward (‘732) shows a pillow block assembly (see Fig. 1) having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering. Ward (‘732) also expressly discloses that the corresponding housing (10) of the pillow block assembly is composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite (see paragraph [0032]). Ward (‘732) states that PBT is a material which was readily “available from numerous commercial sources” (see again, paragraph [0032]), and permits manufacturing by injection molding (see again, paragraph [0032]), which in turn results in the advantageous aspect of permitting the formation of “relatively large volumes of material in certain regions of housing 10 in combination with relatively thin structures in other regions while resisting material drawing” (see paragraph [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the pillow block assembly housing shown by Fisher Engineering, from PBT or a PBT-based composite, as taught by Ward (‘732), since PBT is a material which was readily “available from numerous commercial sources” at the time of filing of the instant application, and PBT permits manufacturing by injection molding, which in turn results in the advantageous aspect of permitting the formation of relatively large volumes of material in certain regions of the housing in combination with relatively thin structures in other regions while resisting material drawing, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As to the limitation regarding the bearing being composed of stainless steel, Ward (‘898) shows a pillow block assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2) having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering. Ward (‘898) also expressly discloses that it was conventional for known pillow block assemblies at the time to form various components of the corresponding bearing element, including “balls” and “rollers” from “stainless steel or a similar corrosion-resistant metal” (see column 1, lines 47-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bearing of the modified pillow block assembly shown by Fisher Engineering, from stainless steel, as taught to be “conventional” by Ward (‘898), since stainless steel is corrosion-resistant (as stated by Ward ‘898), which would clearly be advantageous when the bearing is employed as part of a salt spreading system, as salt material is well-known to be corrosive to a great number of other metals, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As to the limitations regarding the location, orientation and mounting arrangement with respect to the recited grease zerk element, Lower shows a pillow block assembly (see Figs. 1-4) having a construction which is remarkably similar to the construction of the pillow block assemblies (8) shown by Fisher Engineering, with the structural limitations of the claimed pillow block assembly/assemblies also clearly reading on the construction of the pillow block assembly shown by Lower. Further, Lower shows and describes inclusion of a grease zerk (35), wherein the grease zerk can be located on a top portion (13) of the corresponding central body (as defined by 12 and 13), or alternatively, on the corresponding bottom, planar surface (as defined by 12, but not shown in the drawings) of the corresponding central body (“projecting through the base aperture 44”, emphasis added), wherein the grease zerk, in this alternative configuration, would thus extend in a direction away, and perpendicularly from and relative to, the planar surface (see column 4, lines 2-6). As essentially stated in the aforementioned passage of Lower, alternatively locating the grease zerk as projecting through the bottom, planar surface would be an obvious configuration, “as may be desirable for some installations”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a bottom-located zerk fitting, as taught by Lower, with each of the pillow block assemblies of the modified Fisher Engineering system, since Lower essentially states that locating the zerk fitting(s) in this manner would be an obvious configuration, “as may be desirable for some installations”, which, in this case, it would be abundantly clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, when viewing the construction of the spreader system shown by Fisher Engineering, that bottom-located grease zerk elements, as expressly taught by Lower, would be desirable for such an installation, as the grease zerks would then be readily accessible through holes of the chute, when mounted in the manner as clearly designed by, and shown by, Fisher Engineering, which would obviously provide the advantage that one can easily access the zerk fittings with a grease gun nozzle without having to reach into the chute or disassemble the chute to re-lubricate the bearings.
Further (in view of the above discussion), as to claims 3-5 and 8-10, since the claims completely overlap in scope with (at least) claims 11, 12, 14 and 15, the claims are unpatentable for the same reasons discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pages 6-7 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant again continues to argue that the prior art document to Ward (US 2003/0095732), relied upon to teach the claim limitation regarding the housing being composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite, “teaches away from changing Fisher Engineering’s pillow block housings from metal to plastic”. Applicant again continues attempting to support this assertion by quoting a portion of paragraph [0007] from the Ward document, which is clearly taken out of context of the entire Ward disclosure. It is thus again noted that paragraph [0007] of Ward is located in the specification under the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” portion of the disclosure (emphasis added). Thus, in this context, paragraph [0007] of Ward describes the shortcomings of plastic bearing housings which are not (emphasis added) composed of PBT or a PBT-based composite. More importantly, as set forth in paragraphs [0032]-[0033], Ward very clearly teaches the advantages of PBT pillow block housing composition, as compared to the conventional pillow block housings (discussed in paragraph [0007]) which were composed of metal or other plastic materials that are not PBT or a PBT-based composite. Thus, in absolutely no way whatsoever, does the prior art to Ward (‘732) “teach away” from PBT or PBT-based composite pillow block housing composition. In fact, it is without question that the opposite is true. The rejection(s) are therefore maintained.
Applicant also directs the reader’s attention to a “Declaration of Brian Capone, filed concurrently herewith”. Since no such Declaration was actually filed with the response of February 18, 2026, it is assumed that Applicant is referring to the declaration filed as part of the response of July 2, 2025. Since each and every aspect of that declaration was fully addressed in paragraphs 7-9 of the Office action mailed August 18, 2025, Applicant is hereby directed to those paragraphs of the aforementioned Office action, the positions of which have not changed.
All remaining assertions from the aforementioned section of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed February 18, 2026 simply mirror the assertions associated with the aforementioned declaration, and all of which have been fully addressed by this Office. Therefore, the rejection(s) continue to be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights