Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Simons, Zhang, Chen and Moon under 35 U.S.C. § 103”.
In response to this argument, the Applicant’s specification paragraph 0023 discloses: “and the two horizontal grinder rotors 10 are fixed by latches 132 or other methods”;
the applicant does not disclose any benefit for “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade”;
So, it appears that “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor” is a design choice;
Furthermore, choosing the configuration of the fixing means is very know in art would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have “a plurality of latches and each of the plurality of latches is arranged on apart of the central body close to a corresponding blade of the plurality of blades, each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor”, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Under another interpretation, 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 prior art of Zhang teaches one or more pins, the one or more pins are provided on at least one side of each of the multiple blades; and
the prior art of Moon is used to teach only “a plurality of latches and each of the plurality of latches is arranged on apart of the central body close to a corresponding blade of the plurality of blades”;
Further, there is no written description for supporting the limitation of “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor”;
the Applicant is relying only on the drawings for supporting the limitation of “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor”; and
the Applicant’s specification paragraph 0023 discloses: “and the two horizontal grinder rotors 10 are fixed by latches 132 or other methods”;
the applicant does not disclose any benefit for “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade”;
So, it appears that “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor” is a design choice;
Furthermore, choosing the configuration of the fixing means is very know in art would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade”, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-6 and 8 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 1, in line 12 the phrase “the plurality of blades” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the plurality of blades” is the same as or different from “multiple blades” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 1.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the plurality of blades” is the same as “multiple blades” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 1.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
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, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons (US20180104698A1) in view of Zhang (CN204816716U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Simons discloses a horizontal grinder rotor (abstract and paragraphs 0018-0027) comprises:
a grinding ring (fig.2: (30)); multiple blades (fig.2: (35)); and a center body (fig.2: the central body at element (19));
Simons does not disclose wherein the grinding ring, the multiple blades and the central body are formed by 3D printing, however, the phrase “wherein the grinding ring, the multiple blades and the central body are formed by 3D printing” is a product by process limitation so all that is required is that the end product is the same, so claim 1 does not require “wherein the grinding ring, the multiple blades and the central body are formed by 3D printing”. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
the multiple blades are located between the grinding ring and the central body, the multiple blades are arranged at intervals, the multiple blades are arranged in pairs and symmetrical with respect to the central body (fig.2),
Simons does not disclose the horizontal grinder rotor further comprises a plurality of pins, the plurality of pins are provided on at least one side of each of the multiple blades.
Zhang teaches a grinder rotor (abstract and paragraphs 0004, 0013) comprises:
multiple blades (fig.1: (2)); and
a plurality of pins (fig.1: (3)), the plurality of pins are provided on at least one side of each of the multiple blades.
Both of the prior arts of Simons and Zhang are related to a grinding rotor;
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 blades of the apparatus of Simons to have one or more pins, the one or more pins are provided on at least one side of each of the multiple blades as taught by Zhang in order to increase the effective area of grinding (Zhang: paragraph 0013).
Simons in view of Zhang does not disclose a plurality of latches and each of the plurality of latches is arranged on apart of the central body close to a corresponding blade of the plurality of blades, each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor;
However; the Applicant’s specification paragraph 0023 discloses: “and the two horizontal grinder rotors 10 are fixed by latches 132 or other methods”;
the applicant does not disclose any benefit for “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade”;
So, it appears that “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor” is a design choice;
Furthermore, choosing the configuration of the fixing means is very know in art would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have “a plurality of latches and each of the plurality of latches is arranged on apart of the central body close to a corresponding blade of the plurality of blades, each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor”, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Simons in view of Zhang does not disclose wherein a shape of the pins is a cylindrical protrusion;
However, Zhang teaches wherein a shape of the pins is a hemisphere protrusion;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the shape of the pin to be any shape as desired, such as a cylindrical protrusion in order to increase the effective area of grinding (Zhang: paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 5, Simons discloses wherein the central body is provided with a through hole (fig.2: the hole at element (15)), and at least one keyway is formed on an inner wall of the through hole (paragraph 0021).
Therefore, the modification of Simons in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Simons in view of Zhang does not disclose wherein a material of the horizontal grinder rotor is selected from a group consisting of plastic steel material, artificial ceramics, and carbon fiber.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Simons in view of Zhang to have wherein a material of the horizontal grinder rotor is selected from a group consisting of plastic steel material, artificial ceramics, and carbon fiber, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its properties for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 8, Simons discloses wherein a number of multiple blades is an even number (fig.2).
Therefore, the modification of Simons in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons (US20180104698A1) in view of Zhang (CN204816716U attached NPL, English Machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN215087682U attached NPL, English Machine translation)
Regarding claims 2-3, Simons in view of Zhang does not disclose a cladding layer on a surface of the horizontal grinder rotor; and wherein a material of the cladding layer is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, and polypropylene.
Chen teaches a grinder rotor (abstract and paragraphs 0001, 0010 and 0024) comprises:
a cladding layer on a surface of the grinder rotor; and wherein a material of the cladding layer is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, and polypropylene (paragraph 0024).
Both of the prior arts of Simons and Chen are related to a grinding rotor;
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 surface of the rotor of the apparatus of Simons in view of Zhang to have a cladding layer as taught by Belke 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 a cladding layer on a surface of the grinder rotor; and wherein a material of the cladding layer is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, and polypropylene.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons (US20180104698A1) in view of Zhang (CN204816716U attached NPL, English Machine translation) and Moon (KR20090128710A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Simons discloses a horizontal grinder rotor (abstract and paragraphs 0018-0027) comprises:
a grinding ring (fig.2: (30)); multiple blades (fig.2: (35)); and a center body (fig.2: the central body at element (19));
Simons does not disclose wherein the grinding ring, the multiple blades and the central body are formed by 3D printing, however, the phrase “wherein the grinding ring, the multiple blades and the central body are formed by 3D printing” is a product by process limitation so all that is required is that the end product is the same, so claim 1 does not require “wherein the grinding ring, the multiple blades and the central body are formed by 3D printing”. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
the multiple blades are located between the grinding ring and the central body, the multiple blades are arranged at intervals, the multiple blades are arranged in pairs and symmetrical with respect to the central body (fig.2),
Simons does not disclose the horizontal grinder rotor further comprises a plurality of pins, the plurality of pins are provided on at least one side of each of the multiple blades.
Zhang teaches a grinder rotor (abstract and paragraphs 0004, 0013) comprises:
multiple blades (fig.1: (2)); and
a plurality of pins (fig.1: (3)), the plurality of pins are provided on at least one side of each of the multiple blades.
Both of the prior arts of Simons and Zhang are related to a grinding rotor;
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 blades of the apparatus of Simons to have one or more pins, the one or more pins are provided on at least one side of each of the multiple blades as taught by Zhang in order to increase the effective area of grinding (Zhang: paragraph 0013).
Simons in view of Zhang does not disclose a plurality of latches and each of the plurality of latches is arranged on apart of the central body close to a corresponding blade of the plurality of blades, each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor;
Moon teaches a grinder rotor (abstract) comprises:
multiple blades (fig.4: (35)); and
a plurality of latches (fig.4: (33)) and each of the plurality of latches is arranged on apart of a central body (fig.4: (30)) close to a corresponding blade of a plurality of blades (fig.4) (page 4).
Both of the prior arts of Simons and Moon are related to a grinding rotor;
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 rotor of the apparatus of Simons in view of Zhang to have a plurality of latches as taught by Moon, 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 a plurality of latches and each of the plurality of latches is arranged on apart of the central body close to a corresponding blade of the plurality of blades.
Simons in view of Zhang and Moon does not disclose each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor;
However, the Applicant’s specification paragraph 0023 discloses: “and the two horizontal grinder rotors 10 are fixed by latches 132 or other methods”;
the applicant does not disclose any benefit for “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade”;
So, it appears that “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade for mounting the horizontal grinder rotor to another rotor” is a design choice;
Furthermore, choosing the configuration of the fixing means is very know in art would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have “each of the plurality of latches is located on the same straight line as the plurality of pins on the corresponding blade”, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725