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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 25-34 and 37-48) in the reply filed on November 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-34 and 37-48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 38, and 48, the claims are depended upon the cancelled claim 24. For the purpose of examination, these claims are treated as they are depended upon claim 25.
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 33 and 37-48 are 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 33, line 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 37, the metes and bounds of claim 37 are unclear because it is not clear what Applicant is relying on in the screw conveyor claim 25 for patentability. Claim 37 should be rewritten in an independent form with all of the intended limitations. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as it is relied on all of the limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 48, the metes and bounds of claim 48 are unclear because it is not clear what Applicant is relying on in the screw conveyor claim 25 for patentability. Claim 48 should be rewritten in an independent form with all of the intended limitations. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as it is relied on all of the limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 48, line 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-26, 30-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Schwarz (DE 10 2006 002 016 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Schwarz discloses a screw conveyor (fig. 1) for a separator device for dewatering moist masses, the screw conveyor comprising:
a shaft (12) extending in an axial direction along an axis of rotation (fig. 1); and
a screw flight (14, 30, 36);
arranged helically around the shaft (12) (fig. 1);
connected to the shaft (12) at the outer circumference of the shaft (fig. 1); and
extending in the axial direction along at least a portion of the shaft (fig. 1);
wherein the screw flight (14, 30, 36) is an additively manufactured metallic structure (see fig. 6-7) (it is noted that “an additively manufactured structure” is a structure that is manufactured in multiple layers, figs. 6-7 shows the screw flight is manufactured in two layers (30, 36) and has, on an outer circumference thereof, an outer edge in which is arranged at least one recess (34) (see fig. 6).
Regarding the recitations, “for receiving fibrous material” in the last line, said recitation is used to describe an intended use of the screw conveyor. Recitations of intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art teaches the structures of the claimed invention, then the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, therefore, the prior art meets the claimed limitation. See In Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114(11).
Regarding claim 26, the screw conveyor according to claim 25, wherein the screw flight (30, 36) has a cross sectional profile with a first width (see the drawing #1 below) in the region of the outer circumference of the screw flight (see fig. 6) and a second width (see the drawing #1 below) in the region of the inner circumference (see fig. 6) of the screw flight, and the first width in the region of the outer circumference of the screw flight is greater than (see the drawing #1 below) the second width in the region of the inner circumference of the screw flight.
Drawing #1:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, the screw conveyor according to claim 24, wherein the screw conveyor has at least two screw flights (see a screw flight on each shaft section as noted in the drawing #2 below) arranged offset from one another in a circumferential direction (it is noted that the Examiner defines this circumferential direction is of the screw flight, not of the screw shaft [see the drawing below)) in regular intervals defined by 360° divided by the number of screw flights (see the drawing #2 below) and are of uniform design (see the drawing #2 below); and wherein each of the screw flights has a plurality of recesses (see 34 in fig. 3 for clarity) in the circumferential direction (see 34 in the drawing #2 below) and the recesses of one screw flight are offset in the axial direction from the recesses of another screw flight (see the drawing #2 below, which shows the recesses (34) in the screw flights are spiral in an angle, and thus they are offset from one another).
Drawing #2:
PNG
media_image2.png
377
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, the screw conveyor according to claim 30, wherein in the screw flight (14) in the circumferential direction within an angular range of 360° (i.e. 360° around the shaft (12)) at least one recess (34) is arranged (see the drawing #2 above). It is noted that the claim is written to require one of two options; therefore, the Examiner does not consider the second option in the second paragraph of the claim).
Regarding claim 32, the screw conveyor according to claim 30, wherein each screw flight has several spaced recesses (see 34 in fig. 2-3);
the recesses (34) are arranged at a uniform distance from each other in the circumferential direction on the screw flight (see fig. 3). (It is noted that the claim is written to require one of four options; therefore, the Examiner does not consider the first, second and fourth options in the second, third and fifth paragraphs of the claim).
Regarding claim 34, the screw conveyor according to claim 25, wherein the screw conveyor has an envelope (i.e. an outer surface of the shaft 12) which tapers from a first end of the screw conveyor to a second end of the screw conveyor (see the drawing #3 below).
Drawing #3:
PNG
media_image3.png
293
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 33 and 48, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (DE 10 2006 002 016 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Schwarz discloses wherein a cross-sectional profile of the screw flight (14) has a negative flank angle on at least one side in at least one section (see the drawing #4 below), in the form of a linear course of the cross-sectional profile side or in the form of a course of a continuous function such as a parabola (see the parabola curve of the flight (14) in the drawing #3 above); and the screw flight has an inner diameter (see the drawing #4 below) and an outer diameter (see the drawing #4 below) and the screw flight (14) is formed wider in the region of the outer diameter than in the region of the inner diameter( see the drawing #4 below).
Drawing #4:
PNG
media_image4.png
371
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to wherein the screw flight is formed at least twice as wide in the region of the outer diameter as in the region of the inner diameter, the applicant has not disclosed that the region of the outer diameter is twice as wide as the region of the inner diameter solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see para. 58 of the specification of this instant invention). Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the region of the outer diameter twice as wide as the region of the inner diameter because such specific width does not appear to provide any unexpected result. It is noted that paragraph 58 of this application also discloses that it is preferable that the region of the outer diameter is 1.5 wider than the region of the inner diameter. Schwarz also discloses the region of the outer diameter is 1.5 wider than the region of the inner diameter as shown in the drawing #4 above.
Regarding claim 48, Schwarz discloses a screw conveyor (see the rejections of claims 25 and 33 above) for use in a separator (10).
With regard to the limitation, “for dewatering moist masses, including digestates and/or liquid manure”, it is an intended use recitation, which do not differentiate the limitations from a prior art. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claims 25-28, 37-38, 42, 44, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheidhammer et al. (hereinafter “Scheidhammer”) (DE 10 2017 103 068 A1) in view of Schwarz (DE 10 2006 002 016 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Scheidhammer discloses a screw conveyor (fig. 1) comprising:
a shaft (20) extending in an axial direction along an axis of rotation (fig. 1); and
a screw flight (22);
arranged helically around the shaft (20) (fig. 1);
connected to the shaft (20) at the outer circumference of the shaft (fig. 1); and
extending in the axial direction along at least a portion of the shaft (fig. 1);
wherein the screw flight (22) is an additively manufactured metallic structure (see “welding layer 28, 26” in fig. 4 and para. 43-44 of the English translation).
Scheidhammer does not disclose on an outer circumference of the screw flight, at least one recess is arranged on an outer edge.
Schwarz, also in a solid-liquid dewatering art, discloses a separator device having a screw conveyor, wherein an outer circumference of a screw flight (30) of the screw conveyor have at least one recess (34) is arranged on an outer edge (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screw flight of Scheidhammer to include at least one recess arranged on an outer edge, as taught by Schwarz, for improving in collecting and transporting solid components (see abstract).
Regarding claim 26, the screw conveyor according to claim 25, Scheidhammer discloses wherein the screw flight (22) has a cross sectional profile with a first width (see the drawing #5 below) in the region of the outer circumference of the screw flight (see the drawing #5 below) and a second width (see the drawing #5 below) in the region of the inner circumference (see below) of the screw flight, and the first width in the region of the outer circumference of the screw flight is greater than (see the drawing #5 below) the second width in the region of the inner circumference of the screw flight.
Drawing #5:
PNG
media_image5.png
241
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, the screw conveyor according to claim 25, Scheidhammer discloses wherein the screw flight (22) is produced by a wire-based additive manufacturing (see “the melting of the welding wire” in para. 16) by means of arc welding, including gas metal arc welding (GMAW), including metal inert gas welding (MIG) and/or metal active gas welding (MAG) (see “inert gas welding device 24” in para. 43 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 28, the screw conveyor according to claim 25, Scheidhammer discloses wherein the screw flight is built up in layers (see multiple layers 28 in fig. 4), obtained by: applying several metallic paths (28, each path is where each layer occupied) by means of melting off a metal wire (from welding, see “welding wire” in para. 19 of the English translation), wherein the paths are arranged parallel to one another and run along a thread running direction of the screw flight (24) (see fig. 4, which discloses layers 28 run parallel to one another along a thread running direction).
Regarding claim 37, a method for manufacturing a screw conveyor according to claim 25, Scheidhammer discloses the method comprising the steps of:
providing a shaft (20) which extends in an axial direction along an axis of rotation as a machined or preformed shaft (see fig. 1);
performing additive manufacturing of a screw flight on the shaft by layer-by-layer material deposition (see gas welding device 24 in fig. 1 and fig. 4, and para. 43-44 of the English translation document), comprising:
applying a metallic path by means of melting a metal material (see “the melting of the welding wire” in para. 16 of the English translation document), wherein the path extends along a thread running direction of the screw flight (see fig. 1 and 4); and
applying further paths, which are arranged parallel to the applied path (see multiple paths/layers 28 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 38, the method according to claim 37, Scheidhammer discloses wherein the screw flight (22) is built up in layers (fig. 4) such that the screw flight (22) has a cross-sectional profile with a width in the region of the outer circumference (see the drawing #5 above) of the screw flight and a width in the region of the inner circumference of the screw flight and the width in the region of the outer circumference (see the drawing #5 above) of the screw flight is greater than (see the drawing #5 above) the width in the region of the inner circumference of the screw flight; and the screw flight is built up in layers in such a way that the screw flight has, on the outer circumference of the screw flight, several recesses (see the modification in claim 37 above) spaced apart from one another.
Regarding claim 42, the method according to claim 37, Scheidhammer discloses wherein the manufacture of the screw conveyor takes place by wire-based additive manufacturing (see “the melting of the welding wire” in para. 16) by means of arc welding, including gas metal arc welding (GMAW), metal inert gas welding (MIG), and/or metal active gas welding (MAG), by means of at least one welding robot (24) (see “inert gas welding device 24” in para. 43 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 44, the method according to claim 42, Scheidhammer discloses wherein the shaft (20) is clamped in a holder (82 in fig. 1) and is rotatable about the axis of rotation by means of movement of the holder (fig. 1) (see “turning” in para. 62); and the at least one welding robot (24) has at least two electromechanically driven axes (see movement in an axial direction 14 and a radial direction 16 in para. 44).
Regarding claim 46, the method according to claim 37, wherein the number of parallel paths (26, 28) in the inner diameter of the screw flight is less than the number of parallel paths (28) in the area of the outer diameter of the screw flight (see drawing #6 below).
Drawing #6:
PNG
media_image6.png
443
506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 39-41, 43, 45, and 47 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show:
US 2018/0290240 discloses wire-based additive manufacturing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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 L 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725