FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 44, 47, and 51 presented under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 44, 47, and 51 have been withdrawn.
In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner wishes to respond to specific arguments made by applicant.
Regarding clam 34, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not seek to combine the teachings of Mannikko and Wada, and would not have a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant posits that Mannikko teaches of heavy duty application, whereas Wada is directed towards light duty applications. Applicant further notes that Mannikko discloses “monolithic, plate-like tool flanges that are permanently welded to the drum shaft”, where Wada teaches of “crushing plates composed of two ‘half plates’” that is not focused on brute force, unlike Mannikko. Examiner does not disagree with this presented characterization of the disclosures of Mannikko and Wada; however, the duty application of the combination of Mannikko and Wada are not what is being modified. The blade shape and structure of Mannikko is being modified to be removable and easily replaceable incorporating the specific structure of the blades taught in the disclosure of Wada, creating an apparatus able to be more easily maintained when damaged, as is supported by the disclosure of Wada (Wada: Paragraph 15, any worn or damaged half plates 11 can be interchangeably mounted with removing the crushing roller A from the device). Examiner does not find the presented argument persuasive, as being able to replace damaged parts would be a problem that is solved by integrating the plate attachment structure of Wada into the invention of Mannikko.
Applicant further argues that the disclosure of Wada teaches of an axial connection of the screening blades, not a radial connection as required by the claim. Specifically, applicant cites that Wada, paragraph 16 and 33, stating that the movement of the blades is primarily along the axial direction, describing an “exclusively axial connection”. Applicant further states there is no teaching or suggestion for a radial connection in the disclosure of Wada. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Wada, Page 4, line 1, paragraph 5, states specifically that the protrusion 12 of the half plates 11 are “inserted radially” into shaft 1 through insertion groove 7. After the protrusion 12 of the half plate 11 is “inserted radially” into the shaft 1, where the half plates 11 are held in a fixed radial position relative to the axis of rotation of the shaft, and the half plates 11 can be moved axially into position along the shaft. As such, there is explicit teaching of a radial connection of the half plates 11 through the insertion groove 7 of shaft 1.
Applicant further reiterates that the teachings of Mannikko and Wada are not appropriately combinable, as the technical field of Mannikko being a heavy duty, earth-moving machine is too far removed from light duty bottle crushing of Wada. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as both inventions pertain to a series parallel of shafts, each comprising a series of radially extending discs or plates attached to the shaft along its length, wherein each shaft is driven by a motor to rotate about an axis to achieve the purpose of crushing, screening, or shredding material that enters into the body of the apparatus that houses the series of parallel shafts. As such, the specific material being fed into the apparatus is not a pertinent part of the invention, and as stated above, the modification is sought to demonstrate the specific attachment structure of providing two half plates that radially connect to a shaft, for the purpose creating an apparatus that is easily maintained when parts are damaged and in need of replacement.
Applicant further posits that Wada teaches away from the disclosure of Mannikko, claiming that one of ordinary skill in the art would be actively discouraged from applying Wada to the teaching of Mannikko as it would result in “rapid, catastrophic structural failure upon the first impact”, and is based on an improper degree of hindsight reasoning with regard to the radial/axial connection dichotomy as previously presented. Examiner respectfully disagrees, for as Wada and Mannikko both pertain to a rotary crushing or screening devices and are therefore analogous in purpose and would be reasonably combinable, and Wada explicitly teaches of a radial connection of the half plates to the shaft. Further, applicant does not present evidence as to how or why Wada teaches away from Mannikko, such as why the immediate expectation of combining the half plate attachment structure of Wada would be “rapid, catastrophic structural failure upon the first impact”, or why the disclosed half plate structure and attachment of the instant application would not also introduce a high stress failure point at the connection between the half plates and the shaft. It is additionally noted that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Specifically, there is no declaration regarding the above points made of record.
Regarding claim 35, applicant argues that the features of Wada mapped to the screening wall and a connection wall, and that the two half blades are opposite each other do not function outside the alleged axial connection presented above (Non-Final Rejection: Page 7, Wada: Fig. 3, halved plates 11 comprise a surface facing towards the screening shaft from which locking protrusion 12 extends; fitting recess 13 of halved plates 11 fit together with fitting projection 14 of the mating halved plate 11). Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as for reasons stated above, Wada does explicitly state that the half plates are in radial connection with the shaft.
Regarding Claim 36, applicant argues that the locking protrusion 12 of Wada is not a pin, and the insertion groove 7 is not a hole, and further the locking protrusion 12 is not inserted radially into insertion groove 7, but rather the locking protrusion 12 is slid axially into insertion groove 7. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider a groove or slot, such as insertion groove 7 and slot 6, a hole by any reasonable definition. Further, Wada Page 4, line 1, paragraph 5 explicitly states, as is stated above, that the protrusion 12 of the half plates 11 are “inserted radially” into shaft 1 through insertion groove 7. Further, according to Merriam Webster, a pin is defined as “a solid piece of material used especially for fastening things together”, and as a verb, “to hold fast or immobile”. The protrusion 12 of half plates 11 is a solid piece of material to prevent radial movement, or to hold the plate immobile with respect to the radial direction, and is used to fasten the shaft and half plates together.
Regarding claim 38, applicant argues that the mapping of Wada’s locking protrusion 12 as conforming to the interior wall of the cylindrical body 3 is inappropriate to the language of claim 38, as the locking protrusion 12 does not constitute a pin that is secured by a separate stop plate. Upon further review of the disclosure of Wada in relation to the language of claim 38, examiner finds this argument persuasive and cedes that Wada does not teach of a separate stop plate that can be positioned relative to the shaft 1 and the half plate 38. As such, the rejection of claim 38 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 41, applicant argues that while Wada does teach of the undercut required by the claim language, it is designed for an axial sliding engagement as described in Wada, rather than the radial assembly detailed by the claim. As stated above, examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as Wada does explicitly teach that the locking protrusion 12 is radially inserted and secured within insertion groove 7, and as stated in the previous office action, Wada teaches that the profile of locking protrusion 12 forms an undercut connection with locking groove 6 (Non-final Rejection, Page 8).
Regarding claims 52 and 53, examiner maintains that the response to the arguments of claim 34 also apply to claims 52 and 53, and are unpersuasive.
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 34-36, 41, 45, and 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannikko as part of US 7913430 B2, hereinafter referred to as Mannikko, in view of Wada as part of JP 4863141 B2, hereinafter referred to as Wada.
Regarding Claim 34: Mannikko teaches of a screening bucket for handling debris material, particularly earth (Mannikko: Col. 1, line 7-20, the disclosure relates to a screening bucket for use with an excavating machine or loader), comprising a box-shaped bucket body defining a loading compartment and an unloading opening (Mannikko: Fig. 5, enclosure 4 is generally rectangular and box shaped, comprising a bottom plate 1 and side wall 2; Col. 1, line 63 - Col. 2, line 2, material introduced to the bucket exits between or through drums 3), said screening bucket further comprising a screening unit configured to screen the debris material (Mannikko: Fig. 5, working drums 3 screen, crush, or mix material in the bucket), said screening unit comprising:
at least one screening shaft rotatable about a rotation axis (Mannikko: Col. 1, line 63-65, working drums 3 rotate about their axes at the rear of the bucket);
at least one pinion, mounted on the at least one screening shaft (Mannikko: Fig. 5, working drums 3 are driven by drive gears 7 and bearings 6), and comprising a plurality of screening blades connected to the screening shaft and extending along a radial direction orthogonal to said rotation axis (Mannikko: Col. 2, line 2-6, working drums 3 may be fitted bit various types of crushing teeth, not shown in figures).
While Mannikko teaches of the disclosed limitations above, the primary teaching of Mannikko is with regard to the gearing and shaft arrangement and does not further detail the specific blade structures and attachment thereof to the rotating shaft.
Wada teaches of a screening bucket for handling debris material comprising a box shaped bucket body defining a loading compartment (Wada: Fig. 1-2, case 31 is generally box shaped and is formed to allow a large number of objects to be guided into crushing rollers A to be broken down), further comprising a screening unit configured to screen debris material (Wada: Fig. 1-2, crushing rollers A rotate to crush and screen the bottles to reduce their volume), the screening unit comprising:
at least one screening shaft rotatable about a rotation axis (Wada: Fig. 3, shaft 1 rotates about a central axis);
at least one pinion, mounted on the at least one screening shaft (Wada: Page 8, line 25, paragraph 23; Fig. 2, motor 30 is operatively connected to shaft 1 via a connecting means such as a sprocket), and comprising a plurality of screening blades connected to the screening shaft and extending along a radial direction orthogonal to said rotation axis (Wada: Fig. 3-4, a plurality of crushing plates 10 are affixed to shaft 1 extending along a radial direction orthogonal to the axis of rotation);
drive and transmission means, configured to generate and transmit a rotary motion to the at least one pinion (Wada: Page 8, line 25, paragraph 23; Fig. 2, motor 30 is operatively connected to shaft 1 via a connecting means such as a sprocket);
wherein at least one screening blade of the plurality of screening blades comprises two screening half-blades connected to the screening shaft (Wada: Fig. 3, crushing plates 10 comprise halved plates 11 connected to the shaft 1),
wherein each screening half-blade is connected to the screening shaft approaching said screening shaft along said radial direction (Wada: Fig. 3, halved plates 11 approach shaft 1 from a radial direction for connection; Page 4, line 1, Page 4, line 1, paragraph 5, The protrusion 12 of half plates 11 are inserted radially into shaft 1 thought insertion groove 7),
wherein each screening half-blade is connected to the screening shaft by a positive mechanical connection (Wada: Fig. 5, halved plates 11 are connected through a positive mechanical connection via locking protrusion 12 through insertion groove 7), and
wherein said positive mechanical connection is reversible to allow each screening half-blade to be disconnected from said screening shaft (Wada: Page 3, line 16, paragraph 1, the plurality of crushing plates 10 are designed to be easily changed if worn or damaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified blade structures of Mannikko with the specific half blade connecting type blades as taught by Wada to create an apparatus that is easier to repair and replace damaged parts (Wada: Page 6, line 30, paragraph 15, any worn or damaged half plates 11 can be interchangeably mounted with removing the crushing roller A from the device). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of creating an apparatus wherein the crushing or screening blades comprise two half plates that can be easily interchanged (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 35: Mannikko in view of Wada teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 34.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 34, Wada further teaches wherein the screening half-blade defines a screening wall facing away from the screening shaft and configured to screen and crush the debris material (Wada: Fig. 3-4, halved plates 11 comprise blades 15, both components comprising a surface facing away from the shaft 1 and configured to break up material), and a connection wall facing towards the screening shaft (Wada: Fig. 3, halved plates 11 comprise a surface facing towards the screening shaft from which locking protrusion 12 extends), and wherein the two screening half-blades of a same screening blade are connected opposite to each other with respect to the screening shaft (Wada: Fig. 3, fitting recess 13 of halved plates 11 fit together with fitting projection 14 of the mating halved plate 11).
Regarding Claim 36: Mannikko in view of Wada teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 34.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 34, Wada further teaches wherein the positive mechanical connection comprises positioning and fastening means (Wada: Fig. 5, halved plates 11 are connected through a positive mechanical connection via locking protrusion 12 through insertion groove 7),
wherein the screening half-blade is connected to the screening shaft in a predefined connection position by said positioning and fastening means (Wada: Fig. 3, insertion groove 7 allows connection of locking protrusion 12 onto locking groove 6); wherein the positioning and fastening means comprise:
a pin connected to a connection wall of the screening half- blade (Wada: Fig. 5, locking protrusion 12 abuts the interior wall of cylindrical body 3 in locking groove 6);
a positioning hole defined by the screening shaft and extending into the screening shaft along the radial direction (Wada: Fig. 3, insertion groove 7 is defined within shaft 1 and extends in a radial direction of shaft 1);
and wherein the positioning hole is configured to accommodate the pin (Wada: Page 4, line 15, paragraph 6, protrusion 12 is formed to be inserted into the insertion groove 7).
Regarding Claim 41: Mannikko in view of Wada teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 34.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 34, Wada further teaches wherein the positive mechanical connection comprises positioning and fastening means,
wherein the screening half-blade is connected to the screening shaft in a predefined connection position by said positioning and fastening means (Wada: Fig. 3, insertion groove 7 allows connection of locking protrusion 12 onto locking groove 6),
and wherein the screening half-blade is connected to the positioning and fastening means by an undercut connection (Wada: Fig. 5, the profile of locking protrusion 12 forms an undercut connection with locking groove 6).
Regarding Claim 45: Mannikko in view of Wada teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 34.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 34, Wada further teaches wherein the positive mechanical connection comprises positioning and fastening means,
wherein the screening half-blade is connected to the screening shaft in a predefined connection position by said positioning and fastening means (Wada: Fig. 3, insertion groove 7 allows connection of locking protrusion 12 onto locking groove 6),
wherein the positioning and fastening means comprise a clamping member configured to clamp a screening half-blade in the predefined connection position (Wada: Fig. 5, the profile of locking protrusion 12 locks in a predefined position within locking groove 6),
and wherein the clamping member is a circular clamp (Wada: Fig. 5, the locking grooves 6 are set into the circular shape of cylindrical body portion 3).
Regarding Claim 51: Mannikko in view of Wada teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 34.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises two pinions, wherein the two pinions are positioned at the unloading opening (Mannikko: Col. 1, line 63 - Col. 2, line 2, material introduced to the bucket exits between or through drums 3).
Regarding Claim 52: Mannikko teaches of a screening blade, applicable to a screening shaft of a screening bucket to screen debris material, particularly earth (Mannikko: Col. 1, line 7-20, the disclosure relates to a screening bucket for use with an excavating machine or loader; Fig. 4, tool flanges 11 are attached to drum shaft 9),
said screening bucket comprising a box-shaped bucket body defining a loading compartment and an unloading opening (Mannikko: Fig. 5, enclosure 4 is generally rectangular and box shaped, comprising a bottom plate 1 and side wall 2; Col. 1, line 63 - Col. 2, line 2, material introduced to the bucket exits between or through drums 3), said screening bucket further comprising a screening unit configured to screen the debris material (Mannikko: Fig. 5, working drums 3 screen, crush, or mix material in the bucket) said screening unit comprising:
at least one pinion, comprising a screening shaft rotatable about a rotation axis (Mannikko: Col. 1, line 63-65, working drums 3, and therefore drum shafts 9, rotate about their axes at the rear of the bucket), and a plurality of screening blades connected to the screening shaft and extending along a radial direction orthogonal to said rotation axis (Mannikko: Col. 2, line 2-6, working drums 3 may be fitted bit various types of crushing teeth, not shown in figures);
and drive and transmission means configured to generate and transmit a rotary motion to at least one pinion (Mannikko: Fig. 5, working drums 3 are driven by drive gears 7 and bearings 6).
While Mannikko teaches of the disclosed limitations above, the primary teaching of Mannikko is with regard to the gearing and shaft arrangement and does not further detail the specific blade structures and attachment thereof to the rotating shaft.
Wada teaches of a screening blade, applicable to a screening shaft of a screening bucket to screen debris material (Wada: Fig. 3-4, a plurality of crushing plates 10 are affixed to shaft 1 extending along a radial direction orthogonal to the axis of rotation), comprising
a box-shaped bucket body defining a loading compartment and an unloading opening (Wada: Fig. 1-2, case 31 is generally box shaped and is formed to allow a large number of objects to be guided into crushing rollers A to be broken down), said screening bucket further comprising a screening unit configured to screen the debris material (Wada: Fig. 1-2, crushing rollers A rotate to crush and screen the bottles to reduce their volume) said screening unit comprising:
at least one pinion, comprising a screening shaft rotatable about a rotation axis (Wada: Page 8, line 25, paragraph 23; Fig. 2, motor 30 is operatively connected to shaft 1 via a connecting means such as a sprocket; Fig. 3, shaft 1 rotates about a central axis), and a plurality of screening blades connected to the screening shaft and extending along a radial direction orthogonal to said rotation axis (Wada: Fig. 3-4, a plurality of crushing plates 10 are affixed to shaft 1 extending along a radial direction orthogonal to the axis of rotation);
drive and transmission means configured to generate and transmit a rotary motion to at least one pinion (Wada: Page 8, line 25, paragraph 23; Fig. 2, motor 30 is operatively connected to shaft 1 via a connecting means such as a sprocket);
wherein said screening blades comprise two screening half-blades configured to be connectable to the screening shaft (Wada: Fig. 3, crushing plates 10 comprise halved plates 11 connected to the shaft 1),
wherein each screening half-blade is connectable to the screening shaft approaching said screening shaft along the radial direction (Wada: Fig. 3, halved plates 11 approach shaft 1 from a radial direction for connection; Page 4, line 1, Page 4, line 1, paragraph 5, The protrusion 12 of half plates 11 are inserted radially into shaft 1 thought insertion groove 7),
wherein each screening half-blade is connectable to the screening shaft by a positive mechanical connection (Wada: Fig. 5, halved plates 11 are connected through a positive mechanical connection via locking protrusion 12 through insertion groove 7), and
wherein said positive mechanical connection is reversible to allow each screening half-blade to be disconnected from said screening shaft (Wada: Page 3, line 16, paragraph 1, the plurality of crushing plates 10 are designed to be easily changed if worn or damaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified blade structures of Mannikko with the specific half blade connecting type blades as taught by Wada to create an apparatus that is easier to repair and replace damaged parts (Wada: Page 6, line 30, paragraph 15, any worn or damaged half plates 11 can be interchangeably mounted with removing the crushing roller A from the device). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of creating an apparatus wherein the crushing or screening blades comprise two half plates that can be easily interchanged (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 53: Mannikko teaches of a set of screening blades, applicable to a screening shaft of a screening bucket to screen debris material, particularly earth (Mannikko: Col. 1, line 7-20, the disclosure relates to a screening bucket for use with an excavating machine or loader; Fig. 4, tool flanges 11 are attached to drum shaft 9),
said screening bucket comprising a box-shaped bucket body defining a loading compartment and an unloading opening (Mannikko: Fig. 5, enclosure 4 is generally rectangular and box shaped, comprising a bottom plate 1 and side wall 2; Col. 1, line 63 - Col. 2, line 2, material introduced to the bucket exits between or through drums 3), said screening bucket further comprising a screening unit configured to screen the debris material (Mannikko: Fig. 5, working drums 3 screen, crush, or mix material in the bucket) said screening unit comprising:
at least one pinion, comprising a screening shaft rotatable about a rotation axis (Mannikko: Col. 1, line 63-65, working drums 3, and therefore drum shafts 9, rotate about their axes at the rear of the bucket), and a plurality of screening blades connected to the screening shaft and extending along a radial direction orthogonal to said rotation axis (Mannikko: Col. 2, line 2-6, working drums 3 may be fitted bit various types of crushing teeth, not shown in figures);
and drive and transmission means configured to generate and transmit a rotary motion to at least one pinion (Mannikko: Fig. 5, working drums 3 are driven by drive gears 7 and bearings 6).
While Mannikko teaches of the disclosed limitations above, the primary teaching of Mannikko is with regard to the gearing and shaft arrangement and does not further detail the specific blade structures and attachment thereof to the rotating shaft.
Wada teaches of a screening blade, applicable to a screening shaft of a screening bucket to screen debris material (Wada: Fig. 3-4, a plurality of crushing plates 10 are affixed to shaft 1 extending along a radial direction orthogonal to the axis of rotation), comprising
a box-shaped bucket body defining a loading compartment and an unloading opening (Wada: Fig. 1-2, case 31 is generally box shaped and is formed to allow a large number of objects to be guided into crushing rollers A), said screening bucket further comprising a screening unit configured to screen the debris material (Mannikko: Fig. 5, working drums 3 screen, crush, or mix material in the bucket) said screening unit comprising:
at least one pinion, comprising a screening shaft rotatable about a rotation axis (Wada: Paragraph 23; Fig. 2, motor 30 is operatively connected to shaft 1 via a connecting means such as a sprocket; Fig. 3, shaft 1 rotates about a central axis), and a plurality of screening blades connected to the screening shaft and extending along a radial direction orthogonal to said rotation axis (Wada: Fig. 3-4, a plurality of crushing plates 10 are affixed to shaft 1 extending along a radial direction orthogonal to the axis of rotation);
drive and transmission means configured to generate and transmit a rotary motion to at least one pinion (Wada: Paragraph 23; Fig. 2, motor 30 is operatively connected to shaft 1 via a connecting means such as a sprocket);
wherein each screening blade of said set of screening blades comprises two screening half- blades configured to be connectable to the screening shaft (Wada: Fig. 3, crushing plates 10 comprise halved plates 11 connected to the shaft 1),
wherein each screening half-blade is connectable to the screening shaft approaching said screening shaft along the radial direction (Wada: Fig. 3, halved plates 11 approach shaft 1 from a radial direction for connection; Page 4, line 1, Page 4, line 1, paragraph 5, The protrusion 12 of half plates 11 are inserted radially into shaft 1 thought insertion groove 7),
wherein each screening half-blade is connectable to the screening shaft by a positive mechanical connection (Wada: Fig. 5, halved plates 11 are connected through a positive mechanical connection via locking protrusion 12 through insertion groove 7), and
wherein said positive mechanical connection is reversible to allow each screening half-blade to be disconnected from said screening shaft (Wada: Page 3, line 16, paragraph 1, the plurality of crushing plates 10 are designed to be easily changed if worn or damaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified blade structures of Mannikko with the specific half blade connecting type blades as taught by Wada to create an apparatus that is easier to repair and replace damaged parts (Wada: Page 6, line 30, paragraph 15, any worn or damaged half plates 11 can be interchangeably mounted with removing the crushing roller A from the device). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of creating an apparatus wherein the crushing or screening blades comprise two half plates that can be easily interchanged (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37-40, and 42-44, 46-50 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, as well as to overcome any rejections made under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding Claims 37, 39-40, 44, and 46-50, while examples of buffering sleeves between rotary blades are known in prior art to prevent jamming of the mechanisms are known in prior art, after a complete and thorough search of prior art no such examples were found of half sleeve structures positioned between the half blades and the shaft, wherein the shaft defines a polygonal wall, and wherein the half sleeve wall conforms to said polygonal walk to allow torque transfer between the screening shaft and the half sleeve, nor where said half sleeves define a pair of clamping holes at each semi-circumferential end wall, wherein the half sleeves are clampable against each other with respect to the screening shaft by clamping screws that are screwable inside the clamping holes, nor wherein the end half-sleeve defines at least one through hole for a connection of the end half-sleeve to the screening shaft by at least one respective pin, wherein the end half-sleeve defines a clamping seat interposed between two through holes, wherein the clamping seat defines a first end half-sleeve portion and a second end half- sleeve portion, wherein the first end half-sleeve portion faces towards an end of the screening shaft, and the second end half- sleeve portion faces towards an opposite direction of the end of the screening shaft, or wherein at least one through hole is defined in the first end half-sleeve portion, or at least one through hole is defined in the second end half-sleeve portion, nor any other detail prescribed to the half sleeve structures described in the aforementioned claims.
Regarding Claim 38, as stated above, while examples of the connection wall of a half blade matching the profile of a mating part are known in the art, such as taught by Wada, no such examples were found wherein an intermediary stop plate was utilized, wherein the profile is configured to allow positioning of the stop plate and constrain the stop plate by the shape of the coupling.
Regarding Claims 42 and 43, while several examples of positioning and fastening means are known to be comprised of protrusions from base parts that engage with openings in mating parts, no such examples were found that comprised a “comb-like insert forming a plurality of teeth”, nor the half sleeve members as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights