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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Applicant traverses the Office's contentions that Nagahama pertains to both a "shredding device" and a "cleaning device." Such contentions are inconsistent and apparently done only to support the Office's combination of references”.
In response to this argument, the prior art of Nagahama explicitly and clearly discloses a shredding device and cleaning device (paragraphs 0001, 0005-0006, 0012-0030).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Under the Office's two-part test, Sobel, Chan and Cheng are nonanalogous art to the claimed invention, as vacuum cleaners and air purification apparatus and HEPA air filters, respectively, are not in the "same field of endeavor" as the claimed invention. Additionally, Sobel, Chan and Cheng are not "reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor" of the claimed invention, namely, to ventilate the drive compartment of a shredding device, as Sobel, Chan and Cheng are directed to the devices that filter air for recirculation into the ambient environment for inhalation by humans, not to ventilate the drive compartment of a shredding device”.
In response to applicant's argument that Sobel, Chan and Cheng are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, The Applicant is concerned about is concerned about the problem of collecting the dust of the air, and to solve this problem the Applicant discloses a cleaning device with dust collector for separating the dust from the air (paragraphs 0014 and 0028);
Sobel is concerned about the problem of collecting the dust of the air, and to solve this problem Sobel discloses a cleaning device with dust collector for separating the dust from the air (paragraphs 0021 and 0053);
Cheng is concerned about the problem of collecting the dust of the air, and to solve this problem Sobel discloses a cleaning device for separating the dust from the air (paragraphs 0006- 0023);
Chan is concerned about the problem of collecting the dust of the air, and to solve this problem Sobel discloses a cleaning device for separating the dust from the air (paragraphs 0051- 0058);
Therefore, Sobel, Chan and Cheng are "reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor" of the claimed invention of collecting the dust of the air.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Paragraph 24 of Nagahama discloses the filter 5j, which notably is intended for collecting shredded paper rather than protecting the drive compartment that is being ventilated against contamination”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., against contamination) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “contrary to the contentions in the Office Action, the filter 5j does not comprise the claimed combination of a pre-separator for separating dust and a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air prior to the drive compartment being ventilated with the air. Nowhere in Figures 2 and 3 of Nagahama or in the disclosure of Nagahama does Nagahama disclose that the filter 5j comprises a perforated plate and, as such, the filter 5j cannot provide the 2-step filtering process recited in Claims 1 and 12”.
In response to applicant's argument, Nagahama discloses the a filter (5j), and figs.2-3 clearly showing a filter plate;
Further, the definition of filter in art is a mesh, screen, or perforated plate physically blocks and collects particles larger than the pore size;
Therefore, Nagahama discloses the filter (5j) comprises a perforated plate;
Furthermore, and regrading the Applicant argument of “the filter 5j does not comprise the claimed combination of a pre-separator for separating dust and a perforated plate for coarse separation of impurities from the air prior to the drive compartment being ventilated with the air”;
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, the Applicant is correct, and the Examiner admit that in last the office action page 6; and
the Examiner used the teaching of the prior art of Sobel to teach “combination of a pre-separator for separating dust and a perforated plate for coarse separation”;
Nagahama discloses 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).
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 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 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.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Likewise, nowhere in Figure 3 or in the disclosure of Sobel (including, without limitation, and Paragraph [0053] of Sobel) does Sobel disclose that the primary filter 43 or secondary filter 5a comprise a perforated plate and, as such, the primary filter 43 and secondary filter 45a cannot provide the 2-step filtering process recited in Claims 1 and 12. Paragraph [0053] of Sobel discloses a vacuum cleaner with a canister 33, which has the primary filter 43 within it. Furthermore, a secondary fabric filter 45a is provided. During operation, the vacuum cleaner motor draws air out of the canister 33 and dirt into the canister 33, whereby the secondary fabric filter 45a is drawn into the primary filter 43 and expands. Sobel does not disclose that the primary filter 43 comprises a perforated plate. The secondary fabric filter 45a cannot, in principle, be formed as a perforated plate. Furthermore, the filters 43 and 45a of the vacuum cleaner of Sobel serve to collect dirt in the canister 33 and not to protect the drive compartment of a shredding device”.
In response to applicant's argument, the prior art of Sobel explicitly and clearly discloses 2-step filtering process in fig.3 (paragraph 0021-0038, 0043 and 0052-0053: two stage filter system);
Further, the prior art of Sobel discloses a filter (43), and figs.3-4 clearly showing a filter plate; and the definition of filter in art is a mesh, screen, or perforated plate physically blocks and collects particles larger than the pore size;
Therefore, Sobel discloses the filter (43) comprises a perforated plate;
Furthermore, and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Nagahama discloses 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).
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 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 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.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Cheng does not cure the deficiencies of Nagahama and Sobel, as nowhere in Figure 5 or in the disclosure of Cheng (including, without limitation, and Paragraph [0020] of Cheng) does Cheng disclose that the filter unit 10 or secondary filter 12 comprise a perforated plate and, as such, the filter unit 10 and secondary filter 12 cannot provide the 2-step filtering process recited in Claims 1 and 12. Paragraph [0020] of Cheng discloses that the filter unit 10 is arranged in a cover 20 of a filter cartridge of a dust separator 100 and that the outer side of the cover 20 is provided with a particle filter 30. It is further described that the dust separator 100 serves for coarse separation and the secondary filter 12 serves for fine filtration. However, the dust separator and filters disclosed in Cheng serve exclusively to improve the air to which the human body is exposed (see paragraph [0007] of Cheng - "After the first filtration, the dust still has motes and particulates which may jeopardize the human body."), and not to protect the drive compartment of a shredding device”.
In response to applicant's argument, the prior art of Cheng explicitly and clearly discloses 2-step filtering process in fig.3 (paragraph 0020: the dust collector 100 is used to collect the dust or fines generated by processing to carry out a first filtration; and the filter 12 is to carry out a second filtration for the dust and fines);
Further, the prior art of Sobel discloses the filter (12) is a filter having apertures (fig.2: (113), and figs.5 clearly showing a filter plate; and the definition of filter in art is a mesh, screen, or perforated plate physically blocks and collects particles larger than the pore size;
Therefore, Cheng discloses the filter (12) comprises a perforated plate;
Furthermore, and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Nagahama discloses 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).
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 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 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.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the prior art of Nagahama does not disclose “a perforated plate attached to the body of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism”.
In response to this argument, Nagahama discloses 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 (figs.2-3: (5j)) of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises a perforated plate attached to the body of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (figs.1-4: (5)).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “a motor-operated ventilation mechanism which is configured to ventilate” should be changed to “a motor-operated ventilation mechanism is configured to ventilate”.
The phrase “said motor comprising a body” should be changed to “said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprising a body”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claims 18 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-14 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 12, in lines 8-11 the phrase “separating, by an air separator, dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air and coarse separating, by a perforated plate attached to a body of said motor- operated ventilation mechanism impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “separating, by an air separator, dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air and coarse separating, by a perforated plate attached to a body of said motor- operated ventilation mechanism impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air” is the same as or different from “purifying air from outside said machine housing” that recited in line 5 of the same claim 12.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “separating, by an air separator, dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air and coarse separating, by a perforated plate attached to a body of said motor- operated ventilation mechanism impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air” is the same as “purifying air from outside said machine housing” that recited in line 5 of the same claim 12.
Claims 13-14 are rejected because they depend from claim 12.
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, 12-14 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 motor comprising a body (figs.2-4: the body of element (5)); and
wherein said cleaning device (figs.2-3: (5j)) of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises a perforated plate (figs.2-3: the filter (5j)) in form of a perforated plate) attached to the body of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (figs.2-4: the body of element (5)) 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 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 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.
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.2-4: (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)); and
separating, dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air and coarse separating, by a perforated plate (figs.2-3: the filter (5j)) attached to a body of said motor- operated ventilation mechanism (figs.2-4: the body of element (5)) impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air.
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 by an air separator,
Sobel teaches a cleaning device comprises an air pre- separator for separating dust from 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 Nagahama to have an air pre-separator for separating dust from 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 separating, by an air separator, dust from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air and coarse separating, by a perforated plate attached to a body of said motor- operated ventilation mechanism impurities from the air prior to said drive compartment being supplied with the air.
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 Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Nagahama discloses dissipating heat generated by said
drive device by forcing air heated in said drive compartment out from said drive
compartment with the aid of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (paragraph
0027)
Therefore, the modification of Nagahama in view of Sobel teaches the limitations of claim 14.
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 discloses wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a rotor (fig.3: (2a));
Nagahama in view of Sobel does not disclose wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a pusher, the pusher being arranged above the rotor for pressing the material to be shredded against the rotor.
Peter teaches a shredding device comprising a moveable device, wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a pusher (fig.2: (90)) and a rotor (fig.1: (21)), the pusher being arranged above the rotor for pressing the material to be shredded against the roto (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); thereby having wherein said movable device for shredding material comprises a pusher and a rotor, the pusher being arranged above the rotor for pressing the material to be shredded against the rotor.
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 motor comprising a body (figs.2-4: the body of element (5)); and
wherein said cleaning device (figs.2-3: (5j)) of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism comprises a perforated plate (figs.2-3: the filter (5j) in form of a perforated plate) attached to the body of said motor-operated ventilation mechanism (figs.2-4: the body of element (5)) 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 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 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights