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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 23, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In particular, JP 2008-073620, the English language abstract of that reference, and the search report for PCT/IN2023/050520 are listed in the IDS (and the IDS even notes that the English abstract is submitted), but none of these documents were submitted with the IDS. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more sealing assemblies… configured to impede the fluid from leaking from the interior volume” in claims 1 and 11.
In particular, the phrase “one or more sealing assemblies… configured to impede the fluid from leaking from the interior volume” recites a generic placeholder (“one or more sealing assemblies”) modified by a function language (“configured to impede the fluid from leaking from the interior volume”) without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the sealing assemblies discussed in Para. [0049] (i.e., wiper seal assemblies, mechanical seal assemblies, labyrinth seal assemblies and lip seal assemblies) and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 5-6, 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0284675 A1 to Amburgey in view of US 9,644,746 B2 to Yanagisawa in further view of US 4,538,821 to Wallace.
Regarding claim 1, Amburgey teaches a fluid-immersion shredder (Abstract; Figs. 2-4) comprising:
a shredding chamber (Figs. 2-4) comprising:
a wall 18 that is configured to contain a fluid within an interior volume of the shredding chamber (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0014]; the interior chamber is the area between the inlet 20 and outlet 22 in which the shafts 12a, b with teeth are positioned, as best shown in Figs. 3 and 4, and Para. [0014] states that the chamber receives a fluid that is contained therein);
wherein the wall 18 comprises an opening 24 (Figs. 3-5; Para. [0014]);
a drive shaft 12a, b extending through the opening 24 and into the interior volume of the shredding chamber (Figs. 3-5; Para. [0014]), the drive shaft 12a, b comprising an outer diameter surface (Figs. 3-5 show that each shaft 12a, b has an outer diameter surface);
a sleeve 36 (Fig. 5; Para. [0015]), wherein the sleeve is coupled to the drive shaft 12a, b (Fig. 5; Para. [0015]), wherein the sleeve 36 is positioned in the opening 24 of the wall of the shredding chamber (Figs. 4-5; Para. [0021]);
one or more sealing assemblies 32 coupled to at least one of the wall 18 of the shredding chamber or the sleeve 36 (Figs. 3-5; Paras. [0014]-[0016]), wherein the one or more sealing assemblies are configured to impede the fluid from leaking from the interior volume of the shredding chamber (Figs. 3-5; Paras. [0014]-[0016] and [0029]).
Amburgey fails to explicitly teach a spacer coupled to the drive shaft, wherein the spacer comprises an outer terminal edge, a first face that faces towards the wall, a second face that faces away from the wall, and an angled annular face extending from a peripheral edge of the second face to the outer terminal edge, and wherein the angled annular face transitions in diameter from a smaller dimension from the peripheral edge to a larger dimension at the outer terminal edge.
Yanagisawa teaches a seal assembly for a rotating shaft (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a spacer 30 coupled to the drive shaft 200 (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 50-55; the spacer 30 is coupled to the shaft 200 by a screw 33), wherein the spacer comprises an outer terminal edge, a first face that faces towards the wall, and a second face that faces away from the wall (Fig. 1 shows the spacer 30 includes an outer terminal edge, i.e., the top of the spacer near plate 50, a first face that faces towards the wall, i.e., the side of the spacer facing housing 300, and a second face that faces away from the wall, i.e., the side of the spacer facing away from housing 300).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shredder of Amburgey to include a spacer as taught by Yanagisawa so that additional sealing may be provided between the opening of the wall and the interior of the fluid filled chamber.
Wallace teaches a system including a chamber including a wall 12 defining an inner chamber containing fluid (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Ln. 66 through Col. 3, Ln. 4), a drive shaft 10 positioned within the opening (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Ln. 66 through Col. 3, Ln. 4), a sleeve 26 coupled to the drive shaft 10 and positioned within the opening (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 14-20) and a spacer 22 comprising an outer terminal edge, a first face that faces towards the wall, a second face that faces away from the wall, and an angled annular face extending from a peripheral edge of the second face to the outer terminal edge, and wherein the angled annular face transitions in diameter from a smaller dimension from the peripheral edge to a larger dimension at the outer terminal edge (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 is provided below to show these features of the spacer 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wallace teaches that it is known to utilize an angled annular face extending from a peripheral edge of the second face to the outer terminal edge wherein the angled annular face transitions in diameter from a smaller dimension from the peripheral edge to a larger dimension at the outer terminal edge in a spacer used in a seal in a grinding environment so as to efficiently seal off the rotating shaft opening in the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacer of Yanagisawa to include an angled annular face as taught by Wallace, since Wallace teaches that such shape allows for sufficient functionality. Further selecting from known shapes allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 5, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 1 (Figs. 3-5), wherein: the one or more sealing assemblies 32 comprise a mechanical seal 46, 94 comprising a first seal 46 and a second seal 94 (Fig. 5; Paras. [0016] and [0029]; the labyrinth seal 94 defines a space along with the shroud 46 to create a seal from the fluid in the chamber); the first seal 46 is fixedly coupled relative to the sleeve 36 and is configured to rotate with the drive shaft 12 and rotate relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0016]; the shroud is “rotationally coupled to the sleeve 36” which rotates with the shaft according to Para. [0015] while the wall 18 is stationary); and the second seal 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0029]; the seal 94 is mounted to the casing 28 which is mounted to the wall 18 according to Para. [0014], i.e., the seal 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18).
Regarding claim 6, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 1 (Figs. 3-5), wherein: the one or more sealing assemblies 32 comprise a wiper seal 58 (Fig. 5; Para. [0018]; sealing element 58 presses against the sleeve to prevent fluid flow into the race 54 and therefore functions as a wiper seal); and the wiper seal 58 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18 and comprises one or more wipers 66 that engage the sleeve 36 (Fig. 5; Paras. [0018]-[0019]; the wiper seal is stationary and presses against the sleeve 36, i.e., engages the sleeve).
Regarding claim 8, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 1 (Figs. 3-5), wherein: the one or more sealing assemblies 32 comprise a labyrinth seal 46, 94 comprising a rotor 46 (Fig. 5; Para. [0016]; the shroud 46 is “rotationally coupled to the sleeve 36”) and a stator 94 (Fig. 5; Para. [0029]; the seal 94 is mounted to the casing 28 which is mounted to the wall 18 according to Para. [0014], i.e., the seal 94 is stationary); the rotor 46 is fixedly coupled relative to the sleeve 36 and is configured to rotate with the drive shaft 12 and rotate relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0016]; the shroud is “rotationally coupled to the sleeve 36” which rotates with the shaft according to Para. [0015] while the wall 18 is stationary); and the stator 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0029]; the seal 94 is mounted to the casing 28 which is mounted to the wall 18 according to Para. [0014], i.e., the seal 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18).
Regarding claim 21, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 1 (Figs. 3-5), wherein the spacer rotates with the drive shaft when the drive shaft rotates (Yanagisawa, Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 50-55; modified Amburgey includes the spacer of Yanagisawa, which is attached to the shaft via a screw 33 that causes the spacer to rotate with the shaft).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amburgey in view of Wallace in further view of Yanagisawa in further view of US 4,482194 A to Chambers.
Regarding claim 2, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 1 (Figs. 3-5).
Amburgey fails to explicitly teach the spacer comprises a through hole having a hole shape profile with one or more linear sides, wherein the drive shaft comprises a first cross-sectional profile that is a same shape as the hole shape profile and that is smaller than the hole shape profile, and wherein the drive shaft extends through the through hole of the spacer. Modified Amburgey includes the spacer 30 of Yanagisawa (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 50-55), which is silent regarding the shape of the hole.
Chambers teaches a seal for a rotating shaft (Fig. 2; Abstract) in which the sealing components include a through hole having a hole shape profile with one or more linear sides (Fig. 2; Col. 4, Lns. 1-6) and wherein the drive shaft 10 comprises a first cross-sectional profile 10a that is a same shape as the hole shape profile and that is smaller than the hole shape profile (Figs. 2-3; Col. 4, Lns. 1-6; the shaft and the sealing components each have a hexagonal profile, and the shaft is positioned within the hole of the sealing component so it is smaller), and wherein the drive shaft extends through the through hole of the spacer (Fig. 3).
Chambers teaches that it is known to utilize shape with linear sides for the shaft and a hole in the sealing components in a grinding environment so as to efficiently seal the shaft the keep the components in position. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amburgey to include or have the shape of the shaft and the hole of the sealing components (including the spacer) have linear sides as taught by Chambers, since Chambers teaches that such shape allows for sufficient functionality. Further selecting from known shapes allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 3, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 2 (Figs. 3-5), wherein the first face comprises a central portion and a peripheral portion (Yanagisawa, Fig. 1; modified Amurgey includes the spacer of Yanagisawa, and Fig. 1 shows the first face having a central portion, i.e., the area by the spacer surrounding the drive shaft, and a peripheral portion, i.e., the area by the housing 300 of the chamber), wherein the central portion abuts the sleeve (it is noted in modified Amburgey the sleeve would extend out to the spacer as Yanagisawa teaches the spacer positioned at the front of the other sealing components) and the peripheral portion that faces and abuts the wall of the shredding chamber (Fig. 3; modified Amburgey includes the spacer in front of the sealing assembly, and Fig. 3 shows that such a configuration would result in the spacer being positioned to face and abut the wall of the housing).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amurgey in view of Yanagisawa in further view of Wallace in further view of US 3,866,924 to French.
Regarding claim 7, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 1 (Figs. 2-5).
Amburgey fails to explicitly teach wherein: the one or more sealing assemblies comprise a lip seal; and the lip seal is fixedly coupled relative to the wall and comprises one or more lip seal edges that engage the sleeve.
French teaches a sealing assembly for a moving shaft extending into a chamber with fluid (Abstract; Col. 1, Lns. 4-24) wherein the one or more sealing assemblies comprise a lip seal 14, 15, 16 (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lns. 51-61); and the lip seal 14, 15, 16 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall and comprises one or more lip seal edges that engage the rod (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Ln. 67 through Coo. 2, Ln. 3; the seals 14, 15, 16 are each attached to a retainer ring that fixes them relative to the walls of the device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute sealing element (i.e., sealing element 58 shown in Fig. 5 and discussed in Para. [0018]) in the shredder of Amburgey with the lips seals of French as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of sealing the components of the system around the shaft from the fluid the shaft is operating on. It is noted that replacing the sealing element of Amburgey with the lip seals would result in the one or more lip seals engaging the sleeve as the sealing element in Amburgey is positioned over the sleeve.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amburgey in view of Wallace in further view of Irwin in further view of Chambers.
Regarding claim 9, Amburgey teaches a fluid-immersion shredder (Abstract; Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a shredding chamber comprising a wall 18 that is configured to contain a fluid within an interior volume of the shredding chamber (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0914]; the interior chamber is the area between the inlet 20 and outlet 22 in which the shafts 12a, b with teeth are positioned, as best shown in Figs. 3 and 4, and Para. [0014] states that the chamber receives a fluid that is contained therein), and wherein the wall 18 comprises an opening 24 (Figs. 3-5; Para. [0014]);
a drive shaft 12a, b extending through the opening 24 and into the interior volume of the shredding chamber, the drive shaft comprising an outer diameter surface (Figs. 3-5; Para. [0014]; Figs. 3-5 show that each shaft 12a, b has an outer surface diameter and is positioned in the opening 24);
a sleeve 36, wherein the sleeve is coupled to the shaft 12a, b (Fig. 5; Para. [0015]), wherein the sleeve 36 is positioned in the opening 24 of the wall (Figs. 4-5; Para. [0021]).
Amburgey fails to explicitly teach a spacer comprising a through hole comprising a hole shape profile with one or more linear sides, wherein the drive shaft extends through the through hole and comprises a first cross-sectional profile shape that is a same shape as the hole shape profile and this is smaller than the hole shape profile; and the spacer having a first face, wherein a central portion of the first face abuts the sleeve and a peripheral portion of the first face faces and abuts the wall.
Wallace teaches a system including a chamber including a wall 12 defining an inner chamber containing fluid (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Ln. 66 through Col. 3, Ln. 4), a drive shaft 10 positioned within the opening (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Ln. 66 through Col. 3, Ln. 4), a sleeve 26 coupled to the drive shaft 10 and positioned within the opening (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 14-20) and
a spacer 22 comprising
a through hole receiving the drive shaft 10 that extends through the hole and has the same shape (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows the spacer includes a through hole that receives the drive shaft and the cross-sectional shape of the drive shaft corresponds to the hole shape profile of the spacer);
a first face, wherein a central portion of the first face of the spacer faces and abuts the sleeve and a peripheral portion of the first face of the spacer faces and abuts the wall (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows the first face of the spacer having a central portion abutting the sleeve and a peripheral portion abutting the wall of the chamber).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shredder of Amburgey to include a spacer as taught by Wallace so that additional sealing may be provided between the opening of the wall and the interior of the fluid filled chamber.
Chambers teaches a seal for a rotating shaft (Fig. 2; Abstract) in which the sealing components include a through hole having a hole shaped profile with one or more linear sides (Fig. 2; Col. 4, Lns. 1-6) wherein the drive shaft 10 comprises a first cross-sectional profile 10a that is a same shape as the hole shape profile and that is smaller than the hole shape profile (Figs. 2-3; Col. 4, Lns. 1-6; the shaft and the sealing components each have a hexagonal profile, and the shaft is positioned within the hole of the sealing component so it is smaller), and wherein the drive shaft extends through the through hole of the spacer (Fig. 3).
Chambers teaches that it is known to utilize shape with linear sides for the shaft and a hole in the sealing components in a grinding environment so as to efficiently seal the shaft the keep the components in position. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amburgey to include or have the shape of the shaft and the hole of the sealing components (including the spacer) have linear sides as taught by Chambers, since Chambers teaches that such shape allows for sufficient functionality. Further selecting from known shapes allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 10, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 9, wherein the spacer comprises an angled annular face extending from a peripheral edge to an outer terminal edge of the spacer (modified Amburgey includes the spacer of Wallace, and Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows the annular face of the spacer extending from a peripheral edge to an outer terminal edge), wherein the angled annular face faces away from the wall (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1) and transitions in diameter from smaller dimension near a peripheral edge to a larger dimension at an outer terminal edge (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 9 (Figs. 3-5) further comprising, one or more sealing assemblies 32 coupled to at least one of the wall 18 or the sleeve 36 and configured to impede the fluid from leaking from the interior volume (Figs. 3-5; Paras. [0014]-[0016] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 11 (Figs. 3-5), wherein the one or more sealing assemblies 32 comprises: a wiper seal 58 that is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0018]; sealing element 58 presses against the sleeve to prevent fluid flow into the race 54 and therefore functions as a wiper seal); and a mechanical seal 46, 94 (Fig. 5; Paras. [0016] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 12 (Figs. 3-5), wherein: the mechanical seal 46, 94 comprises a first seal 46 and a second seal 94 (Fig. 5; Paras. [0016] and [0029]); the first seal 46 is fixedly coupled relative to the sleeve 36 and is configured to rotate with the drive shaft 12 and rotate relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0016]; the shroud is “rotationally coupled to the sleeve 36” which rotates with the shaft according to Para. [0015] while the wall 18 is stationary); and the second seal 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0029]; the seal 94 is mounted to the casing 28 which is mounted to the wall 18 according to Para. [0014], i.e., the seal 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18).
Regarding claim 14, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 9 (Figs. 3-5), wherein: the central portion of the first face of the spacer is recessed relative to the peripheral portion (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows the first face include a recessed portion by the central portion, i.e., the area by the sleeve and shaft 10); the first face comprises an annular shoulder that connects the central portion to the peripheral portion (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows that the bottom of the first face, i.e., the area by the sleeve, there is a shoulder that connects the face between the central portion and the peripheral portion, i.e., the area by seal 24).
Regarding claim 15, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 14 (Figs. 3-5), wherein: the annular shoulder comprises a first diameter (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows the annular shoulder of the spacer includes a first diameter); and the sleeve 36 comprises a second diameter, which is smaller than the first diameter (Fig. 5; modified Amurgey includes the spacer of Wallace, which teaches the annular shoulder includes first diameter while the sleeve includes a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter because the sleeve is received within the spacer).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amurgey in view of US 5,551,708 to Vesey in further view of French.
Regarding claim 16, Amburgey teaches a fluid-immersion shredder (Abstract, Figs. 3-5) comprising:
a shredding chamber comprising a wall 18 that is configured to contain a fluid within an interior volume within an interior volume of the shredding chamber (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0914]; the interior chamber is the area between the inlet 20 and outlet 22 in which the shafts 12a, b with teeth are positioned, as best shown in Figs. 3 and 4, and Para. [0014] states that the chamber receives a fluid that is contained therein), wherein the wall 18 comprises an opening 24 (Figs. 3-5; Para. [0014]);
a drive shaft 12a, b extending through the opening 24 and into the interior volume of the shredding chamber (Figs. 3-5; Para. [0014]), the shaft 12a, b comprising an outer diameter surface (Figs. 3-5 show that each shaft 12a, b has an outer diameter);
a sleeve 36 (Fig. 5; Para. [0015]), wherein the sleeve 36 is coupled to the shaft 12a, b (Fig. 5; Para. [0015]), wherein the sleeve 36 is positioned in the opening 24 (Figs. 4-5; Paras. [0015] and [0021]; it is noted that this claim is interpreted as only one component of the sleeve needs to be positioned within the hole, and sleeve 36 is positioned within the hole); and
a labyrinth seal 46, 94 comprising a rotor 46 and a stator 94 (Fig. 5; Paras. [0016] and [0029]; the labyrinth seal 94 defines a space along with the shroud 46 to create a seal from the fluid in the chamber), wherein the rotor 46 is fixedly coupled relative to the multi-component sleeve 36 and is configured to rotate with the drive shaft 12 and rotate relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0016]; the shroud is “rotationally coupled to the sleeve 36” which rotates with the shaft according to Para. [0015] while the wall 18 is stationary), and wherein the stator 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18 (Fig. 5; Para. [0029]; the seal 94 is mounted to the casing 28 which is mounted to the wall 18 according to Para. [0014], i.e., the seal 94 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall 18).
Amburgey fails to explicitly teach a multi-component sleeve comprising a first sleeve circumscribing the drive shaft and a second sleeve circumscribing the drive shaft, wherein the first sleeve and the second sleeve are fixedly attached to one another via a fastener, and one or more lip seals fixedly coupled relative to the wall and comprising one or more lip seal edges that engage the multi-component sleeve.
Vesey teaches a sealing assembly for a moving shaft 13 (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising a multi-component sleeve 36, 37 comprising a first sleeve 37 circumscribing the drive shaft 13 and a second sleeve 36 circumscribing the drive shaft 13 (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 3-16; each of the sleeve 37 and collar 36 circumscribe the drive shaft), wherein the first sleeve 37 and the second sleeve 36 are fixedly attached to one another via a fastener (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 3-16; the collar 36 and sleeve are secured to each other via the bolt shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sleeve assembly of Amburgey to include the rear facing seal component (i.e., spacer 88 in Amburgey) being secured to and part of the sleeve assembly as taught by Vesey so that the sealing in the rear of the assembly remains tight versus an assembly where the components are separate. It is noted that such a modification results in the multi-component sleeve having the recited features, i.e., coupled to the shaft and positioned in the opening, and, further, the spacer 88 is no longer coupled to the housing as it is coupled to the sleeve as taught by Vesey.
French teaches a sealing assembly for a moving shaft extending into a chamber with fluid (Abstract; Col. 1, Lns. 4-24) wherein the one or more sealing assemblies comprise a lip seal 14, 15, 16 (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lns. 51-61); and the lip seal 14, 15, 16 is fixedly coupled relative to the wall and comprises one or more lip seal edges that engage the rod (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Ln. 67 through Coo. 2, Ln. 3; the seals 14, 15, 16 are each attached to a retainer ring that fixes them relative to the walls of the device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute sealing element (i.e., sealing element 58 shown in Fig. 5 and discussed in Para. [0018]) in the shredder of Amburgey with the lips seals of French as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of sealing the components of the system around the shaft from the fluid the shaft is operating on. It is noted that replacing the sealing element of Amburgey with the lip seals would result in the one or more lip seals engaging the multi-component sleeve as the sealing element in Amburgey is positioned over the sleeve.
Regarding claim 17, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 16 (Figs. 2-5), wherein each of the one or more lip seals 14, 15, 16 comprises a first lip seal 14 and a second lip seal 15 (French, Fig. 1; modified Amburgey includes the lip seals of French, which teaches having at least first 14 and second 15 seals).
Regarding claim 18, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 17 (Fig. 2-5), wherein: the wall 18 comprises an annular recess (Figs. 2-5; the wall 18 includes the opening 24, i.e., a recess, in which the sealing assembly is positioned); and the first lip seal 14 is positioned in the annular recess and secured between the wall and a lip-seal retaining bracket 18 (French, Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lns. 66-68; modified Amburgey includes the lip seals of French, which teaches positioning the seal 14 within a recess between the bracket 13 and the wall, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 18 (Figs. 2-5), wherein: the lip-seal retaining bracket 18 comprises a second annular recess (French, Fig. 1; modified Amburgey includes the lip seals of French, which teaches the bracket 13 and spacer 18 define a second annular recess in which seals 15 and 16 are positioned, as shown in Fig. 1); and a second lip seal 15 is positioned in the second annular recess and is secured between the lip-seal retaining bracket 13 and a lip-seal retaining flange 21 (French, Fig. 1; modified Amburgey includes the lip seals of French, which teaches providing a flange 21 at the end of the seal assembly and positioning the seal 15 between the bracket 13 and flange 21).
Regarding claim 20, modified Amburgey teaches the fluid-immersion shredder of claim 19, wherein: a fastener extends through the lip-seal retaining flange 21 and through the lip-seal retaining bracket 13 to fixedly secure together the first lip seal 14, the second lip seal 15, the lip-seal retaining flange 21, and the lip-seal retaining bracket 13 (French, Fig. 1; modified Amburgey includes the lip seals of French, which teaches a fastener securing the flange 21 to the bracket 13 to define the space in which the seals 14, 15, 16 are positioned). However, modified Amburgey fails to explicitly teach the fastener also a fastener extends into the wall. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sealing assembly of Amburgey to also have the fastener extend into the wall so that the sealing assembly is securely positioned within the housing of the shredder thus ensuring the housing is unable to move in any manner that would allow fluid to escape from the inner chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated June 12, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 103 and the 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 are made in view of US 5,551,708, US 9,644,746, and US 4,482,194 A, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725