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 .
The reply to the rule 105 requirement is acknowledged. The accompanying declaration by Ryan Hutar has been considered.
The claim amendment dated 27 August 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 8985702 Busley which described the milling machine including frame 2; milling assembly including rotor housing 11 and rotor 4, the rotor having rotor shell 10 on spindle ( described as 14, but possibly misnumbered in the figures as 11 in fig 3 between 15 and 46 ); and removable (col. 5 line 17) support ring 52 positioned upon a mount member 54 that is welded (col. 5 line 15) on an inner surface of the rotor shell; the support ring plainly between the rotor shell and spindle and separate from the rotor shell and carrying a load as called for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: the support ring of Busley is on the inner surface of the rotor, broadly interpreted consistent with Applicant’s figure 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 3: the ring disclosed by Busley would inherently provide axial alignment because it is a ring.
Regarding claim 7: Busley discloses the shell and spindle connected by bolts at 35/36: i.e. not rotating relative to each other and the ring is plainly not a bearing surface.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070228806 Holl in view of US 8985702 Busley.
Holl described a milling machine with frame milling assembly including rotor housing 9 and rotor 2 having shell 4 and spindle 21; removable( [0053]-“movable”) support ring 12 positioned upon mount member 8 which is fixed on an inner surface of the rotor shell and the support ring separate and caries the load.
Holl does not describe the mount member being welded.
Busley—in the same field of endeavor—described the similar mount ring welded (col. 5 line 15) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understand that welding was advantageous to provide a secure connection. It would therefore have been obvious to have modified the Holl mount to be welded as claimed.
Regarding claim 2: the support ring of Holl is on the inner surface of the rotor, broadly interpreted consistent with Applicant’s figure 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 3: Holl [0060] “coaxially.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070228806 Holl in view of US 8985702 Busley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salani US4720207.
With regards to the surface coating different from a surface of the rotor—see Holl [0050]
Neither Holl nor Busley describe the material for the ring, thus Holl—as modified in view of Busley-lacks the steel ring.
Salani —in the same field of endeavor—describes “steel or other hard material” rings (col. 5 line 15) mounted to the spindle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the used of steel as a material would have advantageous because it is strong and durable. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the Holl device so that the ring was made of steel. Therefore claim 4 is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 6: Holl [0049] describes “anti-corrosive” at 25 which would provide an anti-rust coating as claimed.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070228806 Holl in view of Salani US4720207.
Holl described attaching a removable support ring 12 to inner surface of rotor shell 4, the support ring having asurface coating different from the inner surface of the hell and including anti-rust coating [0049] and positioning the shell over the spindle 21 such that the support ring is between the shall and spindle and is separate from the shell and carries the load1.
Holl does not describe the material of the ring, thus Holl lacks the steel ring.
Salani —in the same field of endeavor—describes “steel or other hard material” rings (col. 5 line 15) mounted to the spindle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the used of steel as a material would have advantageous because it is strong and durable. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Holl device so that the ring was made of steel. Therefore claim 18 is unpatentable.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070228806 Holl in view of Salani US4720207 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 8985702 Busley.
Holl describes the ring positioned upon mount member 8, but Holl does not describe the mount member being welded.
Busley—in the same field of endeavor—described the similar mount ring welded (col. 5 line 15) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understand that welding was advantageous to provide a secure connection. It would therefore have been obvious to have further modified the Holl mount to be welded as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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.
/Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1 Examiner notes that Holl describes the positioning before the attaching. The claim language does not explicitly require the positioning to occur after the attaching. Moreover, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)