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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed July 2, 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 14-17 remain 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 14-17 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 14-17, 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 14-17) 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.
Response to Declaration Filed Under 37 CFR 1.132
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed July 2, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of independent claims 1, 6 and 11, based upon the prior art to Fisher Engineering (NPL), in view of Ward (US 2003/0095732) and Ward et al. (US 6,318,898) - for claims 1+ and 6+; as well as the prior art to Fisher Engineering, in view of Ward, Ward et al. and the eBay listing item #301574829672 (NPL) - for claim 11+, as set forth in the last Office action, because the facts presented are essentially not germane to the grounds of rejection at issue. The statements made in Applicant’s declaration with respect to an apparent need in the sand and/or salt spreading art for a pillow block assembly having a PBT or PBT-based composite housing and at least one stainless steel roller bearing, are understood and have been fully considered. However, while the purported advantages detailed in the declaration may benefit marketability of the disclosed and claimed device(s), such is not considered when analyzing claims for patentability. For examination purposes, this Office must consider what a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and appreciate from the teachings of the prior art. In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize a potential for corrosion of parts of a salt spreader, such as that of the Fisher Engineering prior art system; particularly those parts which are prone to corrosion due to direct salt exposure, such as the parts which make up the pillow block assemblies of the Fisher system. Thus, one having ordinary skill would be motivated to look for a solution in the pillow block bearing art which would limit or prevent those corrosive effects. The prior art document to Ward (see, for example, paragraphs [0006] and [0009]) clearly acknowledges the potential for corrosion of known pillow block assemblies used in a variety of industries which have a metal housing, and teaches advantageously forming such pillow block housings from PBT or a PBT-based composite material, which is resistant to corrosion, and which also provides other manufacturing benefits, as set forth in at least paragraphs [0032] and [0033] of Ward. Similarly, the prior art document to Ward et al. clearly provides evidence that it was known before the effective filing date of the instant application to form ball bearings of pillow block assemblies from various corrosion-resistant materials, such as stainless steel. Thus, the evidence presented in the aforementioned declaration is not persuasive for the removal of the outstanding rejections.
Also, the aforementioned declaration essentially presents an argument that the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long standing in the art. However, there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. See MPEP § 716.04.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
In combination with the evidence presented in the declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.132 (see above), Applicant's arguments on pages 6-7 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed July 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beyond those arguments already addressed in paragraphs 7-9 of the instant Office action, Applicant 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 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. 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, 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.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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