Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 18-19 and 22 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.
Claim 18 is rejected because it depends from canceled claim 3.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted claim 18 is depended from claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected because it depends from canceled claim 4.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted claim 19 is depended from claim 1.
Reading claim 22, the phrase “wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a pusher” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “a pusher”; and it is unclear what is the function of “a pusher”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a pusher” as “wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a pusher; the pusher arranged above a rotor of said movable device for pressing the material to be shredded against the rotor”.
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, 5, 8-9 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (JP3219986U attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Sobel (US20160206168A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagahama discloses a shredding device (paragraphs 001 and 0012-0028) comprising:
a machine housing (figs1-4: (1)) in which a drive compartment (see fig.4 below) and a material-receiving chamber (figs.3-4: (2)) are formed;
a movable device (figs.3-4: (2a)) for shredding material comprising at least one of commercial waste and industrial waste which is arranged at least in part in said material-receiving chamber (figs.3-4: (2)) of said machine housing;
a drive device (figs.2 and 4: (2b)) which is configured to drive said movable device for shredding material and is arranged at least in part in said drive compartment (see fig.4 below) of said machine housing; and
a motor-operated ventilation mechanism (figs.1-4: (5)) which is configured to ventilate said drive compartment and comprises a cleaning device (figs.2-3: (5j)) for purifying air provided for ventilating said drive compartment.
said cleaning device of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air (paragraph 0024).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nagahama does not disclose the shredding device has a weight of at least 1000 kg;
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Nagahama to select the desired size and weight of the shredding device including the shredding device has a weight of at least 1000 kg, since it has held that "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.). In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.4 IV. A).
Nagahama does not disclose said cleaning device of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air;
Sobel teaches a cleaning device comprises an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air and a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air (fig.3 and paragraphs 0053).
Both of the prior arts of Nagahama and Sobel are related to an apparatus with cleaning device;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning device of the apparatus of Nagahama by to have an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air as taught by Sobel; since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having said cleaning device of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air and a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air.
Regarding claim 2, Nagahama discloses said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises a blower (paragraphs 0026 and figs.2 and 4: (6a)).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Nagahama discloses said motor-operated ventilation mechanism is structured to generate an overpressure in said drive compartment as compared to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a surrounding of said machine housing and (ii) said material-receiving chamber of said machine housing (fig.2: the cleaner mechanism having a fan to blows the air onto the motor (2b) in the direction (f) “corresponding generated overpressure”).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Nagahama discloses a cooling device for cooling air supplied into said drive compartment by said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (paragraph 0027).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Nagahama discloses where said drive compartment is not in communication with a surrounding of said machine housing by way of ventilation slits that are configured to allow ambient air to enter into said drive compartment (Nagahama does not disclose ventilation slits).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Nagahama discloses where said shredding device is a single-shaft or a multi-shaft shredder (figs.3-4: the shafts of the element (2b)).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, Nagahama discloses said motor-operated ventilation mechanism is structured to generate an overpressure in said drive compartment as compared to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) the surroundings of said machine housing and (ii) said material-receiving chamber of said machine housing (fig.2: the cleaner mechanism having a fan to blows the air onto the motor (2b) in the direction (f) “corresponding generated overpressure”).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Nagahama discloses said motor-operated ventilation mechanism is structured to generate an overpressure in said drive compartment as compared to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a surrounding of said machine housing and (ii) said material-receiving chamber of said machine housing (fig.2: the cleaner mechanism having a fan to blows the air onto the motor (2b) in the direction (f) “corresponding generated overpressure”).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Nagahama discloses a cooling device for cooling air supplied into said drive compartment by said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (paragraph 0027).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Nagahama discloses a cooling device for cooling air supplied into said drive compartment by said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (paragraph 0027).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Nagahama discloses a cooling device for cooling air supplied into said drive compartment by said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (paragraph 0027).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Nagahama discloses wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises at least one rotor shaft (figs.3-4: the shaft of the element (2a)).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (JP3219986U attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Sobel (US20160206168A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chan (US20120230876A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nagahama in view of Sobel does not disclose where said drive compartment comprises an outlet for letting out air supplied by said ventilation mechanism and wherein said outlet comprises an open-loop controlled or closed-loop controlled outlet.
Chan teaches a cleaning device for purifying air (abstract and paragraphs 0051-0058); comprising:
an outlet (fig.1: the outlet at element (19)) for letting out air supplied by a ventilation mechanism (exhaust fan) and wherein said outlet comprises an open-loop controlled or closed-loop controlled outlet (fig.1: sensor (23), CPU (24) to control the valve (22)).
Both of the prior arts of Nagahama and Chan are related to an apparatus with cleaning device;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nagahama in view of Sobel to have the configuration of the outlet, sensor, CPU and valve as taught by Chan, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having where said drive compartment comprises an outlet for letting out air supplied by said ventilation mechanism and wherein said outlet comprises an open-loop controlled or closed-loop controlled outlet.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (JP3219986U attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Sobel (US20160206168A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peter (WO2019025297A1).
Regarding claim 22, Nagahama in view of Sobel does not disclose wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a pusher.
Peter teaches a shredding device comprising a moveable device, a pusher (fig.2: (90)) arranged above the rotor for pressing the material to be shredded against the rotor (paragraphs 0035 and 0039-0041).
Both of the prior arts of Nagahama and Peter are related to a shredding device;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the moveable device of the apparatus of Nagahama in view of Sobel to have a pusher as taught by Peter in order to press the material to be shredded towards the shredding shaft (Peter: paragraph 0040).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (JP3219986U attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Cheng (US20160059169A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagahama discloses a shredding device (paragraphs 001 and 0012-0028) comprising:
a machine housing (figs1-4: (1)) in which a drive compartment (see fig.4 below) and a material-receiving chamber (figs.3-4: (2)) are formed;
a movable device (figs.3-4: (2a)) for shredding material comprising at least one of commercial waste and industrial waste which is arranged at least in part in said material-receiving chamber (figs.3-4: (2)) of said machine housing;
a drive device (figs.2 and 4: (2b)) which is configured to drive said movable device for shredding material and is arranged at least in part in said drive compartment (see fig.4 below) of said machine housing; and
a motor-operated ventilation mechanism (figs.1-4: (5)) which is configured to ventilate said drive compartment and comprises a cleaning device (figs.2-3: (5j)) for purifying air provided for ventilating said drive compartment;
said cleaning device of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air (paragraph 0024).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nagahama does not disclose the shredding device has a weight of at least 1000 kg;
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Nagahama to select the desired size and weight of the shredding device including the shredding device has a weight of at least 1000 kg, since it has held that "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.). In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.4 IV. A).
Nagahama does not disclose said cleaning device of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air;
Cheng teaches a cleaning device comprises an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air and a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air (fig.5 and paragraphs 0020).
Both of the prior arts of Nagahama and Cheng are related to an apparatus with cleaning device;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning device of the apparatus of Nagahama by to have an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air as taught by Cheng; since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having said cleaning device of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises an air pre- separator for separating dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air and a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being ventilated with the air.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (JP3219986U attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Chen (CN211887160U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Nagahama discloses a method for ventilating a drive compartment (see fig.4 above) which is formed in a machine housing (figs1-4: (1)) of a shredding device and in which a drive device (figs.2 and 4: (2b)) for a movable device (figs.3-4: (2a)) having a weight of at least 1000 kg for shredding material comprising at least one of commercial waste and industrial waste is arranged (paragraphs 001 and 0012-0028), the method comprising:
purifying air (figs.2-3: (5j)) from outside said machine housing; and
supplying (figs.2 and 4: (6a)) the purified air into said drive compartment of said shredding device with the aid of a motor-operated ventilation mechanism (figs1-4: (5)).
Nagahama does not disclose the shredding device has a weight of at least 1000 kg;
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Nagahama to select the desired size and weight of the shredding device including the shredding device has a weight of at least 1000 kg, since it has held that "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.). In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.4 IV. A).
Nagahama does not disclose and cooling;
Chen teaches method comprising a device for ventilating a drive compartment including a motor (4) is for operating a shredding device and a cooler device (fig.1: (9)) is configured to cool an exhaust air, the exhaust air is used to cool the motor; the method comprising: supplying the cooled air into said drive compartment of said shredding device (paragraphs 0024-0025).
Both of the prior arts of Nagahama and Chen are related to an apparatus with cleaning device;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning device of the method of Nagahama by the configuration of a cooler as taught by Chen; since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having purifying and cooling air from outside said machine housing; and supplying the purified and cooled air into said drive compartment of said shredding device.
Regarding claim 13, Nagahama discloses further comprising generating an overpressure in said drive compartment of said shredding device as compared to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a surrounding of said machine housing of said shredding device (ii) a material-receiving chamber formed in said machine housing (fig.2: the cleaner mechanism having a fan to blows the air onto the motor (2b) in the direction (f) “corresponding generated overpressure”).
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Chen teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725