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 .
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, 3, 4, 6, 11-16, 19 and 21-23 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:
In claim 1, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the mixing body”. Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 11-16, 19 and 21-23 fall with claim 1 concerning this issue.
In claim 1, the double recitation “a plate-shaped wearing body…and also a plate-shaped wearing body” is confusing and makes subsequent references to “the wearing body” ambiguous as to which wearing body is being referenced. References to “the at least one wearing body” are also confusing. Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 11-16, 19 and 21-23 fall with claim 1 concerning this issue.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
In claim 1, the new requirement “a plate- shaped wearing body of at least partially screw-shaped form which extends around the axle body, is connected to the axle body”. In a first aspect of new matter, according to the originally filed application, the wearing body is not connected to the axle body. In a second aspect of new matter, according to the originally filed application, the wearing body is not screw-shaped. Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 11-16, 19 and 21-23 fall with claim 1 concerning each of these issues.
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.
While it is unclear what is being claimed, the claims have been considered with regard to the prior art to the extent possible.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga (US 6,328,465) in view of Doppstadt (US 9,409,365).
Regarding claim 1, Tamminga discloses a mixing device comprising a holder (12, 16) for holding material to be mixed in a mixing chamber (4) of the holder, the holder including an open top, the mixing chamber including outwardly sloping walls, a mixing element (6) which is provided in the mixing chamber, has a central axle (47) and is rotatable in relation to the holder about an axis (47) of rotation which coincides with the central axle for the purpose of mixing the material to be mixed in the mixing chamber during rotation of the mixing element, the mixing element comprising an axle body (8) and a plate-shaped mixing body (10) of at least partially screw-shaped form which extends around the axle body, is connected to the axle body and has a peripheral edge on the side facing away from the axle body, and also a plate-shaped wearing body (36), connecting elements (40) each having a head and a shank, one end of said shank adjoining the head (see col. 2, line 56: "rivets"), wherein the shanks of the connecting elements respectively extend through or at least into associated mutually aligned first holes in the wearing body and second holes in the mixing body, and by means of which connecting elements the at least one wearing body is releasably connected to the mixing body (see col. 5, lines 5-11), wherein the at least one wearing body at least partially extends on the outer side of the peripheral edge (see Figs. 2 and 3). However, it is not disclosed that the mixing body, at the location of the second holes therein, on the side facing toward the wearing body, is provided with recesses in the middle of which the associated second holes are provided, wherein parts of the wearing body that surround the first holes extend within the recesses. Doppstadt teaches a mixing body which, at the location of second holes therein, on the side facing toward a wearing body, is provided with recesses (41) in the middle of which the associated second holes are provided, wherein parts (4) of the wearing body that surround first holes extend within the recesses, wherein each recess has an inclined flank (see col. 6, lines 42- 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized recesses and projections as taught by Doppstadt for ease of attachment and alignment (see col. 3, lines 19-24).
Regarding claim 3, "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Doppstadt teaches that the connecting elements are embodied as bolts and wherein a nut for each bolt is provided on the side of the mixing body facing away from the wearing body, wherein the nut is screwed onto the bolt and the mixing body and the wearing body are clamped against each other by the bolt head of the bolt and by the nut (see col. 5, lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 13, cutting teeth (46) form at least a part of the peripheral edge of the wearing body.
Regarding claim 14, at least a part of the periphery of the wearing body has a corrugated form (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Doppstadt teaches that at least an inner part of the peripheral edge of the wearing body is beveled in cross section (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Doppstadt teaches that the mixing device is provided with a number of wearing bodies which are releasably connected to the mixing body and which adjoin each other (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 21, the overall orientation of the claimed device is a matter of use.
Regarding claim 22, the mixing device is provided with a movable chassis having the holder thereon (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, the at least one wearing body is provided on the top side of the mixing body (see Figs. 1-3).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga (US 6,328,465) in view of Doppstadt (US 9,409,365) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foote (US 3,476,429):
Regarding claim 6, Doppstadt does not disclose a raised edge around the first holes. Foote teaches a raised edge (12) at the periphery of holes (11) in plate (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized raised edges around holes as taught by Foote to accommodate the heads of screws or bolts.
Regarding claim 11, in the device of Doppstadt as modified by Foote above, the wearing body is produced from a plate and each first hole in the wearing body at least partially extends on the side of the thickness of the plate facing away from the associated raised edge (see Figs. 5 and 6 of Doppstadt and Figs. 1 and 2 of Foote).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga (US 6,328,465) in view of Doppstadt (US 9,409,365) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shobak (US 5,279,407). The claimed step structure is not disclosed. Shobak teaches a first plate having plate- shaped mixing body (42) having a stepped form in cross section, having a first step part and a second step part, which is connected to the first step part, on the radial outer side of the first step part, wherein the first step part and the second step part are situated at a step distance from each other in cross section and in a direction parallel to the central axle, wherein a wearing body (56) bears against the second step part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a step structure as taught by Shobak to align the upper surfaces of the two plates.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga (US 6,328,465) in view of Doppstadt (US 9,409,365) as applied above, and further in view of Bradley (US 4,886,218). While these claims are obvious over Tamminga in view of Doppstadt as explained above, to further prosecution Bradley is cited for the detailed teaching of recess (51) having an inclined flange. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the recesses of Tamminga in view of Doppstadt with flanks inclined in the manner of Bradley to provide interlocking, distribute stress and assist in alignment (see col. 4, lines 44-57).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga (US 6,328,465) in view of Doppstadt (US 9,409,365) and Foote (US 3,476,429) as applied above, and further in view of Bradley (US 4,886,218). While these claims are obvious over Tamminga in view of Doppstadt and Foote as explained above, to further prosecution Bradley is cited for the detailed teaching of recess (51) having an inclined flange. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the recesses of Tamminga in view of Doppstadt with flanks inclined in the manner of Bradley to provide interlocking, distribute stress and assist in alignment (see col. 4, lines 44-57).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga (US 6,328,465) in view of Doppstadt (US 9,409,365) and Shobak (US 5,279,407) as applied above, and further in view of Bradley (US 4,886,218). While claim 19 is obvious over Tamminga in view of Doppstadt and Shobak as explained above, to further prosecution Bradley is cited for the detailed teaching of recess (51) having an inclined flange. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the recesses of Tamminga in view of Doppstadt with flanks inclined in the manner of Bradley to provide interlocking, distribute stress and assist in alignment (see col. 4, lines 44-57).
Response to Arguments and Declaration
Mr. Peeters testifies that “The mixing element of the present application in FIG. 1 includes an axle body and two plate-shaped wearing bodies with a partially screw-shape that extends around the axle body” and applicant has amended the claims such that (to the extent understood) a mixing body is no longer required but instead “a plate-shaped wearing body…and also a plate-shaped wearing body” are now required. It is unclear whether these are the “two plate-shaped wearing bodies” to which Mr. Peeter testifies. In the originally filed application, rather than a wearing body, a mixing body is connected to the axle body and the mixing body is screw shaped, while plural plate shaped wearing bodies are attached to the mixing body to protect the mixing body.
Mr. Peeters testifies that “Tamminga is designed for a smooth upward flow of agricultural feed along the auger”. In other words, in both Tamminga and Doppstadt as well as the instant invention, screws rotate to create an axial flow of material; therefore, both this references are highly analogous to the present invention. Furthermore, both reference concern protecting screws from wear, the same problem faced in the present application.
Applicant argues “Additionally, the mixing bodies in Doppstadt and Tamminga are quite different. Peeters Decl. 1 11. The recess/elevation interface of Doppstadt uses bolts and nuts to draw the inclined mating surfaces together. See, e.g., FIGS. 10A, 10B; Peeters Decl. 1 11. If one attempted to use rivets in Doppstadt's inclined recesses, it would cause the rivet shanks to deform unevenly resulting in joint failure. Peeters Decl. I 11. These two systems of recesses and fastening systems in Tamminga and Doppstadt are incompatible. Id. Additionally, the cover elements 22 of Doppstadt in Tamminga's auger flight would create massive physical obstructions where fibrous animal feed (like grass or silage) would immediately catch and wrap, leading to a catastrophic blockage of the mixer. Id. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not look to use any portion of the mixing body of Doppstadt in Tamminga.” However, firstly applicant has deleted the requirement of a mixing body from the claims. Secondly, the grounds for rejection are not modifying Doppstadt in view of Tamminga, but are modifying Tamminga in view of Doppstadt.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights